Men Going Their Own Way
More evidence of “Market Failure” in the Marriage Contract market-
From Wall Street Journal:
Where Have The Good Men Gone?
Kay S. Hymowitz argues that too many men in their 20s are living in a new kind of extended adolescence.
“nearly seven in 10 25-year-olds were married; by 2000, only one-third had reached that milestone”
See the full article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read
Now that the “Social Agencies” are starting to admit that most of the child abuse, youth crime, and domestic abuse issues all stem from the breakdown of the institution of marriage, and women everywhere are asking “where are the men?”
The question that needs to be asked is “Why would any man want to commit his life to one woman, and comit to raise a family?”
Family life has become so unattractive to men, and made into a form of legal and financial suicide, that our western civilization needs to consider if it still has a future.
Kay Hymowitz can use all the shaming language in her vocabulary. She can mistakenly assume that it is she who dictates the definitions of manhood. The only thing that will change is the ever growing number of good men who will discover the freedom of remaining commitment-free. Wasn’t feminism supposed to afford women freedom?
Well guess what honey? Men have been watching and we’re fast learners. A growing number of men simply don’t want you, don’t need you and don’t care what your opinion is on that matter. Get yourself a cat, write your Last Will & Testament and find somewhere comfortable to write more meaningless articles. You do your girlfriends no favours while helping more good men find freedom. Thank you 🙂
Comment by Wayne — Thu 24th February 2011 @ 5:44 pm
Ellenore Rigby-
Died in the church and was buried
along with her name
Nobody came-
all the lonely people
where do they all come from?
where do they alll belong?
Lennon and McCartney
Ellenore Rigby funerals anyone?
Comment by John Brett — Thu 24th February 2011 @ 5:47 pm
As a male you would have to have been declared completely insane and have such a strong wish for suffering to ever consider entering into a relationship with a female and then to possibly even have children in a country such as New Zealand given its legal system dating from the dark ages. I had my eyes forced open to such a huge degree in Auckland that I will never be the same person, view the legal system or the police in the same way again. Corrupt, dishonest, out-dated beyond believe and I would go as far as to say criminal! Disgusting what is being done to men in such a beautiful first world country. Very sad indeed and I hope and pray that somehow things will change there for you all soon. Especially for the young children who are the ones suffering the most under the draconian legal system and horridly pathetic police in your country.
Comment by Peter — Thu 24th February 2011 @ 10:22 pm
I hear you loud and clear there. I ended up leaving NZ due to the total disbeleive at such medieval spouse/parent child legal system ( if you could call it legal ). A lady whom slips into the country under the umbrella of missionary for 5 years to get permanent residency then lives off the unemployment system for the next 15 years decides to take my son (at age 1 year old) and use courts, lawyers to take him whislt I have to pay the IRD 1600 p/M and lawyers 3k per month to try and fight it. All to no gain and total lose of my sons future.
IRD demand to take all this money from me whilst my sons mother only sees $50 of it which she spends on herself, meanwhislt I am hard working, without sin, damaged heart and financial bankrolled due to the system. Oh all the while my sons mother uses people to get free clothes from church groups. Large lumps of money from friends and family and nothing is declared.
Oh some of these women have it all worked out, they know how to manipulate the system and destroy a man and child’s life for there own selfish gain.
Well Feck them, so I left the country to try rebuilt a new life elsewhere.
It’s just not advisable to enter into a relationship in NZ, great dangers lay ahead. and there are many traps.
Comment by Minbari — Thu 24th February 2011 @ 11:02 pm
Where are the men? An important question.
Our feminst dictatorship has hurt women in 2 ways:
1) It has reduced the number of exploitable men. What can a woman do with her right to plunder him, if she does not have him?
2) If she finds him, she will suffer because he can’t supply the quantity of goods and services she deserves. He will have to bear a heavy cost of propping up our feminist police state and deviancy of fatherless armies on our streets.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Fri 25th February 2011 @ 1:08 am
I was in a relationship with a woman from Uzbekistan for nearly 2 years and found it hard to stomach that human rights when it comes to children and the family in her country were in a better state than in New Zealand……..and Uzbekistan is listed amongst the 10 WORST countries in the world in the way it treats its people. New Zealand is in no way the paradise that people would have you believe it is.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Fri 25th February 2011 @ 8:06 am
As bad as it is in NZ (and I am not at all dismissing your concerns in NZ), it’s much worse in the US, and there are approx 330-million people there. And they put men in jail by the millions here. My concern is that the pathology of the US will infect NZ and NZ will get worse. Best to stop it before it gets worse. The longer feminism infects your country, the harder it will be to get rid of. It’s like a parasite. In the US, we consider you guys kinda the front line right now. We really need to see some success somewhere. I think here in the US, many have given up. There are some real efforts like in California with Fathers and Families, and the state of South Dakota just passed a shared parenting bill, but these really are small advances and they don’t have much teeth yet and there are still so many loopholes.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 27th February 2011 @ 2:32 pm
bloke needs help on ultra feminist site. i’m banned.
http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/01/18/more-on-husbands-and-their-entitlement-to-sex/#comment-7432
can you help?
lots of smug feminists
Comment by Steve — Mon 28th February 2011 @ 12:11 am
I’ll be banned very shortly so I’ll leave my contribution here for safety…
Comment by gwallan — Mon 28th February 2011 @ 12:56 am
That’s my experience, too, g… And not just occasionally, but every time with every woman.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 28th February 2011 @ 3:44 am
(Rhetorical Question)-> Why bother going to an Ultra feminist site?
A waste of time.
The point of this thread and being a MGTOW Man Going Your OWn Way, is precisely that – to go your own way – away from feminist bigotry makes a lot of sense.
Just leave them to stew with their hatred.
You can’t argue with them.
Feminists aren’t rational people.
Walk on!
Walk on!
With love in your heart.
….and you’ll never walk alone!
You’ll never walk a…..lone.
Gerry and the Pacemakers 1963.
Comment by Why bother? — Mon 28th February 2011 @ 8:12 pm
Feminists aren’t just not rational people, they aren’t people. They’re psychopaths. Unfortunately, that’s most women. In the US, one-third of all adult women have forcibly separated their children from the fathers, usually by lying in court and falsifying police reports and sending the father to prison or at least destroying his financial security for life and transferring it all to her (way more than the cost of actually raising a child, so it really isn’t in the child’s best interest, it’s theft). So, concerning fatherhood, one-third of all adult women have done something completely unconscionable. That doesn’t include all the women who have made false allegations of rape (although scholars disagree on an actual incidence of false rape claims, they agree that it is some large fraction of the total number whether it is 40% or 90% doesn’t really matter – if it’s more than 5% or 10%, then it is a very serious problem – and it is more than 5% or 10%). Lying compulsively the way women do and then having it institutionalized in law for the past forty years has been a catastrophe. It is institutionalized psychopathy, as lying is a primary symptom of psychopathy. I’m convinced these women aren’t even capable of knowing the truth. In the US, we can’t walk away, as interaction with feminists is compulsory under threat of imprisonment. These women are so miserable and unlikable and hateful that they had to create laws to force men to interact with them. Using children as hostages is an important strategy.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 2nd March 2011 @ 12:28 am
That women today have priced themselves so far out of the market defies sense or reason. And if they can’t understand such basic concepts as this one, does anybody really want them involved with other aspects of civilization, including health care, child support, care of the elderly and agriculture. Frightening.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 2nd March 2011 @ 5:27 am
Don’t waste your time. Feminists are psychopaths, which means they have no empathy, analytical skill or shame. They simply don’t possess any basic communication skills. Psychopaths are incapable of learning from punishment or failure and they are very short-sighted, which is to say they are incapable of learning anything, since that’s what life is all about – learning from our mistakes and moving on. Psychopaths can’t do this, so there is no sense trying to impress upon them reality and lessons of life. For them, reality is the delusions they have created in their minds, and if you do not enable them and their delusions, they will pursue you to the ends of the earth to punish you. They are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. There really is a physiological basis for all this and once everyone realizes that, it will be easier to accept that there is no legal, social or political solution to the problems they present. Reasoning with them is pointless.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 2nd March 2011 @ 5:35 am
Hi All
You need to see this article today in the NZ Herald. Unbeleivable view from this journalist on how women are worse off in the typical NZ marriage. You can leave a comment too!
By the way my first post but I have been reading for around 2 years now. Keep up the debate Skeptic, Hans etc you probably have more followers than you think!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10714021
Comment by StarChaser — Tue 22nd March 2011 @ 2:09 pm
Thanks for referring us to this article StarChaser. Aside from the “women are the victims” nonsense about the effects of marriage, the article failed to explore the many gender, philosophical, economic, social and ethical issues around the erosion of marriage. Instead, it seemed to be trite self-abosrption that did not make any coherent argument. Oh right, but now we know that this particular woman didn’t want to get married, how utterly fascinating. The law will allow her to plunder the resources of one or more men anyway, just by living with them for a while.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 22nd March 2011 @ 6:51 pm
StarChaser,
Welcome to posting at MENZ and thanks for the compliment and reference to NZ Herald article.
I don’t usually read the New Zealand Herald.
I gave it up as a feminist’s wet dream and a lost cause some time ago, but couldn’t resist seeing the article you linked to.
I wrote a comment in response to it but checking back 24 hours later I see it got ‘moderated’ which is a euphemism often used for censorship.
It doesn’t surprise me too much after seeing some of the feminist dribble produced at NZ Herald previously by other columnists.
Tracey Barnet merely picks up where Rosemary McLeod left off apparently.
In my comment I pointed out some salient facts.
That men getting married for the first time stand a 50% chance of ending up divorced, and that approximately 70% of divorces are initiated unilaterally by women. That divorced men are often routinely stripped of partner + house + children + future income or some mix of those marriage assets.
There therefore exists a marriage strike amongst many men I was surprised she hadn’t heard of.
I gave a link to Matthew Weeks now classic Men’s Rights Article –
http://www.mensequality.org/mirror/www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm
I also pointed out post divorce it most likely men who will suffer from reduced health and wealth including depression and suicide. Also that despite the authors claims women still live on average about 5 – 6 years longer than men.
I deduced that it’s fallacious to say that marriage benefits men and impairs women, but in fact looking at the facts and listening to many men you could easily and reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the opposite was true.
Therefore marriage in feminist culture is a health hazard to men.
For this woman who clearly expects men to ‘man up’ (the latest feminist shaming doublespeak meaning swallow more shit) and accept women’s lousy terms for marriage my comments no doubt went down like a lead balloon.
Looks like it’s MGTOW as usual then.
Now, time for a nice cuppa.
Where’s that interesting book I was reading?
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 23rd March 2011 @ 11:09 am
Thanks Skeptic Whilst a marriage strike avoids all the issues you and others raise and by the way I’m tending to agree with the concept, it would be great to hear other guys thoughts on the down sides like never finding that soul mate, growing old alone and essentially leading a life of celibacy. It would be interesting to know how other guys reconcile this with themselves?
Comment by StarChaser — Wed 23rd March 2011 @ 7:30 pm
The reality is: feminism has revealed the true nature of most women. And realising that, does any man want to spend his life with a psychopath? Understanding that women could only stay married to a man because she was under peer pressure to do it and that without that peer pressure she has no ability or willingness to commit, who would want to stay with her? Life is much better for a man if he doesn’t interact with a woman. Women are chaos. They disorder and screw up the lives of everyone around them. They contribute nothing to civilization. Celibacy and solitude are much more desirable than the madness relationship with women brings. They are institutionalized insanity.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 24th March 2011 @ 4:53 am
While I think the MGTOW is a noble idea I have never seen it as realistic for most men. The biological urges and sexual needs are just too powerful, overriding conscious judgement. However, that is not to say that I disagree with efforts to convince men it’s a good idea or to establish it as a trend.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 24th March 2011 @ 9:57 pm
There is a biological urges which repeatedly has proven more powerful than the urge to procreate though Hans.
They are the drive to avoid massive pain and the drive to survive.
Part of the problem that I see a lot of guys having is that whilst they have at least some knowledge of the damage women can do to them in the feminist zeitgiest they’re naively telling themselves “that won’t happen to me”.
As though somehow magically they’ll escape the domestic violence and divorce industry! That they won’t be stripped on wife, kids, home and future income like so many other men!
Granted that quaint way of thinking is gradually giving way to a more mature and realistic approach as millions of guys are beginning to see the wreckage of their male friends and relatives lives at the hands of women all about them.
Marriage v2.0 is odds on favorite a hellishly risky business for any man.
Which leads me to another point.
One reason the issue of Men’s Rights causes feminists (man women in general whether they’ll acknowledge it or not)such fits is that we do not neatly fit into any one category. By that I mean nothing in feminism’s world view takes into account that men have rights too, and that women are not always the center of the universe.
As long as men did not organize or demand anything this was never a problem, but the world is changing.
This is why feminists try so hard to pigeon hole the MRM as either religious conservatives, bitter betas, or violent men bent on trying to control women.
I’ve seen this happen time and time again here at MENZ and across the web.
It is as if they completely lack the ability to empathize or engage in any self reflection.
It also frustrates them endlessly that as we go our own way (MGTOW) we take away an enormous amount of their power as we cannot be controlled by their sexual wiles.
Personally I’m proud to be one of a growing number of men who has wised up to the point whereby we resist basically being held hostage to our sex drive and that’s despite raunch feminism’s best efforts to hyper-sexualize women in order to garner increased control over men.
A little more insight into how I think on a daily basis about such matters……..
I decide it’s a warm sunny day and I’ll walk to work as it’s only 15 minutes away, the fresh air and some exercise will be a good start to the day. I hold my head high, focusing on maintaining good posture, as if to say to the world. I am a person of worth. I’m somebody.
Along the way I naturally encounter women who are also walking to various destinations.
I look at them and here are the kinds of things that go through my head……………………………
“Dyed hair, high heels and makeup …..yeuk! uh oh! careful! fake!”
“Shit! Now here’s another one deliberately walking straight at me like she owns the footpath! Like she EXPECTS me to stand aside! Bugger that!” This is shortly followed by “Too bad she didn’t show respect, but gave the shit test, she wouldn’t have collided with me and be picking herself up now”.
“Hah! Here’s another one giving me the glad eye simply because I’m wearing a suit today.
When I’m in jeans and a T shirt like the past few days I’m certainly invisible to her……..obviously another gold digger” at this point I deliberately don’t smile nor give eye contact but focus on something else to give her the message that I’m disinterest.
And so it goes as I maneuver through countless daily encounters keeping myself safe from hypergamous feminist women.
The good news is it gets easier with practice until such thinking and behavior becomes automatic.
The remarkable thing is that I’m not just surviving though, but thriving.
More on that later for those who are interested.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 3:14 pm
Oh my god – I was so not going to come on here and comment again – but this is such a hoot!
Skeptic do you honestly believe that women think you are desirable? Smiling at someone is actually quite normal in most people’s minds, and unlike you these women that in your words
“Dyed hair, high heels and makeup “¦..yeuk! uh oh! careful! fake”
actually like to take care of their appearance and it’s most certainly not for you and also
“Hah! Here’s another one giving me the glad eye simply because I’m wearing a suit today. When I’m in jeans and a T shirt like the past few days I’m certainly invisible to her”¦”¦..obviously another gold digger’
at this point I deliberately don’t smile nor give eye contact but focus on something else to give her the message that I’m disinterest.
Perhaps she noticed that you may have dressed nicely for change? Or she thinks you’re a loser take your pick.
And what an arrogant attitude you have –
“Shit! Now here’s another one deliberately walking straight at me like she owns the footpath! Like she EXPECTS me to stand aside! Bugger that!’ This is shortly followed by ‘Too bad she didn’t show respect, but gave the shit test, she wouldn’t have collided with me and be picking herself up now’.
Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps you should try to move also? (You probably had a menacing look on your face also just to add to your arrogant attitude.) It’s common courtesy. I suppose if you knocked a little old lady down (but not a man as you have thrown yourself out of the way for a fellow “brother”) you’d leave her there because she didn’t move for you? But then she should expect that, because as a woman, it’s all her fault.
Men are victims of their own making and their own sex drive. Perhaps if you didn’t walk around with an attitude of stuff everyone else, you wouldn’t be so angry.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 9:54 pm
Dear Leonie,
Go away and fester with your diatribe elsewhere.
However, at the only Auckland Mens Refuge for Men with Families,we are always looking for volunteers to assist in many areas.
Can you assist with fundraising? Physical Labour, Co-Ordination?
I am that the coal face daily from abuse committed by women towards men.
I do not hide behind pseudonym.
My name is Paul Catton.
My contact details are 09 270 9678
E-mail [email protected]
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
Auckland Refuge for Men with Families
(09)270 9678
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 10:06 pm
Copy/paste the following in to Google search: definition:misandry
Comment by Wayne — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 10:13 pm
Dear Wayne,
definition:misandry 629.000 results(Women hating Men)
definition:misogny 340,000 results (Men hating Women)
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
Auckland Refuge for Men with Families
(09) 270 9678
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 10:28 pm
Hi Leonie,
I think from what you write about me it’s obvious you don’t know me.
It’s clear you can’t even read my words now without misinterpreting them in derogatory terms.
As such you expose yourself for the kind of person you are – no doubt a great source of stress to Anthony.
However since this site is for – promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience – I’ll play along for a while though.
For a start I don’t just think some women find me attractive, I know it for a fact.
But that’s my business. For me to know and you to imagine.
I long ago realized that what you call women ‘dressing nice’ is in essence disguise.
Hairdye, heels, push up bras, makeup etc, etc, – all designed to hide the real woman.
My golden rule these days is – if she’s so obviously fake on the outside, then chances are she’s fake on the inside – avoid.
I look just as respectable in jeans and a T shirt as I do in a suit. Both outfits are clean, well fitting and in good condition. However the former makes me invisible to the vast majority of women, the latter has the opposite effect.
Try the experiment yourself guys and I’m sure you’ll often find similar results.
It’s actually great to know this, as it means I can consciously fly under the radar by dressing ‘down’ in jeans and a T.
Yes, it did cross my mind to stand aside – for a nanosecond, until I realize I’m being given a female shit test (test to see if a woman can control you).
I’m not interested in standing aside for some woman who is DELIBERATELY walking straight at me – unless they’re clearly retarded or disabled and can’t control themselves.
But like I said I’m not talking about those kinds of women here.
I’m talking about some women who know perfectly well what they’re doing. So your attempts at guilt tripping seem ridiculous and just shows up another stress for Anthony no doubt – emotionally controlling.
The hike in the mountains was wonderful. I got toned and some great video to send to folks I love.
Tonight it’s a nice fish dinner with some wine, a spot of keyboard playing and a comedy movie.
What a terrible no life existence I have eh?
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 10:35 pm
ok, I’m not attacking anyone. This skeptic person seems to think that there are two side to every story yet only wants to believe himself. What he said above that I quoted him on is ridiculous. He has assumptions about women purely because they are women. Not all women are out to destroy men. I sure am not. I simply was told about the comments on here that were being said about an ex, to which I told my accounts of him – all true regardless of what he or anyone else on here wants to believe – not all attacks (verbal, emotional, physical etc) are provoked by a woman. In fact I did nothing to provoke them. However I do know that there are women who do that, to state that it is women as a whole that causes it is plain fantastical theory. Wars are not started purely by women, I definitely haven’t declared war on any countries lately – or made any men go to war for me.
And no I do not live in Auckland. I think everyone on here needs to read and listen to their own words -( as in telling me and anyone woman that has been abused) – that there are two sides to every story indeed.
I honestly don’t know what feminism is – I have visions of a bunch of females standing around burning their bras – the subject doesn’t interest me. But to say that feminism has caused males to become second rate citizens? You all say that men have no rights when it comes to divorce/child custody, here in NZ, Aus, and US mainly. What about places like UAE where women are pretty much ignored and treated like they don’t matter, or how about China where girl babies are a disappointment and can be tossed aside, or women and girls sold into sex trafficking in places like Thailand. For every poor treatment of men, there is something happening to women also and vice versa, one is not more important or cruel than the other.
Would the people on here who view women as the problem with the world prefer it if we went back in time, and weren’t able to vote, stayed at home and had no voice, had to be covered from head to toe so as not to “entice” men?
There is abuse against men, there is abuse against women. It’s all the same. And just to throw it in there I do not believe the likes of Louise Nicholas, or the countless number of women that seem to accuse men of this that and the other as often as they wish – I take it with a grain of salt – as it is more often than not found out they are lying.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 10:59 pm
misandry: 285,000 results, a hatred of boys or men – not women hating men specifically
misogyny:1,660,000 results, the hatred or dislike of women – not men hating women specifically. A person who hates women is called a misogynist
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:04 pm
Dear Leonie,
Please provide your the browser you use for “Google”.
Mine was through Opera.
Alternatively, copy and post the result.
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
Auckland Refuge for Men with Families
(09) 270 9678
P.S Have not had a call to seeking how you may assist.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:14 pm
No skeptic I do not know you, at all. And no you do not know me, at all. I don’t care what your business is. I surely won’t be imagining what it could be. Don’t think that for a minute that because you push my buttons from your way of thinking specifically from what I have written, that your assumptions about me are my character. I happen to be a very caring individual, and respect those around me. But then who I am is none of your business.
You know for a fact that women find you attractive, well if this is so I’m sure you don’t just roll out of bed and throw your clothes on. You check your appearance, shower/shave/etc. But yet if a woman does anything to her appearance to look nice, it has to be a ploy. To be perfectly honest I don’t care what a man is wearing, if it’s clean, tidy and presentable. Sometimes it’s just nice to smile at someone you don’t know – no intentions behind it – I do it often, males and females.
I have no idea what you mean about the “shit test”, but she obviously had a stick up her ass if she was not going to move – or perhaps she was having a bad day. Men do it also.
I’m really not interested in what you did today.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:24 pm
Thank you Paul 🙂
Using Mozilla Firefox 4.0
definition:misandry 630,000 results (what Leonie does)
definition:misogyny 340,000 results (what Leonie encourages)
Comment by Wayne — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:24 pm
Leonie,
If you paid attention you’d note that I didn’t say all women are out to destroy men.
I don’t live in a state of paranoia.
In fact if you read my previous comments you’ll see I said I haven’t met all women yet!
I’ll get back back to you when I have with the verdict though I promise!
Actually I know several Kiwi women who have worked as nurses in UAE.
They tell me that not only are women there as enfranchised as men politically but that they feel much safer and more respected there than in the west. Go figure!
In China male babies are valued more than female babies in some areas it’s true.
But only because the males are expected to work damned hard for a lifetime supporting their extended families in shitty jobs if need be.
So it’s not that they’re intrinsically valued over and above females, but conversely simply valued as a more exploitable resource.
Don’t try telling these things to brainwashed feminists though!
Now back to NZ after the diversion.
This site is called MENZ – that stands for MEN’S EXPERIENCE NEW ZEALAND.
Are we clear it’s not about UAE, China or Upper North Eastern Swaziland now?
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:26 pm
excuse me – I do not encourage hatred towards a whole group of people, especially not due to their gender, race etc.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:29 pm
Well you guys are a lost cause – how about we separate the world in two, you can live on your half, and I’ll live in the other.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:31 pm
Wayne – when have I said I hate men? And when have I stated that I encourage hatred towards men? I have a male partner, I have nephews, I have brothers. I have nothing but love for them all.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:35 pm
What if you do but are unaware of it? Would you be open to exploring that about yourself?
Comment by Wayne — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:36 pm
Leonie says –
and just kindly wanted someone a few posts ago to go fuck themselves.
Yeah right.
The rationalization hamster is spinning the wheel a lot this evening.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:36 pm
oops I retract, only women you have met are out to do you harm.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:36 pm
My caring doesn’t go to you.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:37 pm
I say excuse me, again. Exactly how do I go about encouraging hatred towards men, since you seem to know?
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:39 pm
Men are victims of their own making and their own sex drive.
The above statement made by you is clearly misandric. How many examples would you like me to provide?
Comment by Wayne — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:41 pm
Well Wayne – to clarify, anyone who thinks that the problems they face are due to a whole group of individuals (in this websites case – females), or anyone who blames the state of their life on the same thing really only has their self to blame. I don’t blame any problem that I may encounter on “those damn feminists. “
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:46 pm
And I use safari – yet it won’t show up my results in a post
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:47 pm
So therefore this website is misogynist. As it blames majority of things on women.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:49 pm
Leonie, are you saying that you now retract your misandric statement and that that misandric statement is not true?
Comment by Wayne — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:49 pm
Wayne you took a sentence from a paragraph. I’m pretty sure it was aimed at skeptic at one of his rants about women looking at him on the street (damn women). I don not encourage hatred towards anyone.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:52 pm
Leonie,
Yes, I do shower and shave every day.
But thee’s a world of difference between that and what most women do.
I mean I don’t wear clothing deliberately designed to disguise my body height and shape, nor makeup to hide who I really am facially. I don’t shave my legs, armpits, arms etc. I don’t have any cosmetic surgery done either.
I’m genuine.
That’s not something I can say of the vast majority of women I see who are faking their appearance to a lesser or greater degree.
You need look no further than the multi-billion dollar industry women use for such.
All a big turn off to this guy.
I prefer honesty – far more attractive.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:55 pm
I understand what you’re saying Leonie however:
I often hear a Maori with radical beliefs who is quoted by our media and then listen to the opinions of listeners who say ….
– Did you hear what those bloody Maoris want now?
…. attributing the quote from one person of Maori descent to an entire race of people. That type of reaction is racist.
That is exactly what you did when you said “Men are victims of their own making and their own sex drive.”
Can’t you see that?
Comment by Wayne — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:57 pm
Men do it all too.
Comment by Leonie — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 11:58 pm
Leonie,
Oh please. Duh!
When you see MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of men disguised by wearing the equivalent of push up bras, high heels, facial paint and hair color let me know!
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 12:02 am
Yes Wayne but that comment was aimed at an individual as he is rather annoying, and seems to think women have an agenda to get men. But can’t you see that this website promotes hatred of women? To claim that wars and etc (i’m getting too tired to even bother) are all caused by women.
I simply came on this webste to give my version of a person (yes he is dead, maybe I shouldn’t have, but that doesn’t make what he did right) and I got attacked, saying that it must have been because of me. I don’t wish to hate anyone on here, I just wish you would open up your mind and see that what you say about women is not true for all of us.
Comment by Leonie — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 12:05 am
Well
a) what do they need bras for?
b) unless they are a drag queen heels?
c) you’d be surprised the amount of men that use make-up – it could even just be tinted moisturiser, bit of brow gel
d) hair colour, there are just as many men getting their hair coloured when I’m at the hairdresser as there are women.
e) men get facial, men get waxed/plucked, by skincare
Where should I stop – botox, dermal fillers, peels, laser hair removal…
pec implants, manicures, pedicures….
Fact is none of us would look the same if we did nothing, and walked around naked with nothing to hide.
Comment by Leonie — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 12:09 am
No, this website definitely does not promote misogyny. Might I make a suggestion that could help you understand?
If a statement is made that appears to blame women for wars, why don’t you simply ask: How do you work that out? or Why do you believe that? or some other question that might help you understand the person posting, rather than becoming defensive or even offensive?
When you become upset or defensive and make negative sweeping statements about all men then you would have to expect to be viewed as misandric, surely?
Comment by Wayne — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 12:12 am
Condemning a feminst for his/her misdeeds is not misogyny, but a basic acknowledgement of cause and effect. This site does not promote misogyny, but describes the experience of men in a post feminist dystopian police state. A malignant narcissist (feminist) interprets the failure of someone else to acquiesce to her manipulation and deceipt as abuse (and misogyny). But failing to acquiesce to the delusions and manipulation and deceipt of feministts and describing the catastrophic consequences of feminism objectively and quantitatively is not misogyny. Portraying it as such is deceiptful and manipulative and delusional.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 12:25 am
My last statement means that it is inaccurate to interpret complaint by a man about the chronic and perpetual abuse he experiences in a post feminist dystopian police state as misogyny. Only a feminist would think like that. Acknowledging that more than 85% of divorces are initiated by women (one-third of all adult women in the US) is not a misogynistic statement – it’s a demonstrable fact that can be measured and quantified within certain tolerances. It describes the egregious misconduct and poor judgment of women, but it is not misogyny as it is a fact and therefore quantifies the egregious misconduct and poor judgment of women. Women are responsible for more than 75% of domestic violence and child abuse – this statement is not misogynistic. It’s a demonstrable fact that can be measured and quantified within certain tolerances. Feminists want people to believe that these facts which describe women horribly but accurately is misogyny so they can manipulate and control. The Truth does not discriminate. The right and God made sun does rise once again, for all and without distinction.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 12:42 am
Leonie,
Oh please….
Listen, I know there are many rationalisations that can be offered but act is ultimately
bras are used to disguise the fact that tits sag.
Propping them up and padding them out is a way to pretend to be younger.
High heels are used to give the false impression of height and slimness by stretching the body’s silhouette.
Facial makeup is used to disguise wrinkles and blemishes, also to dramatically alter the appearance of facial features.
False, false, false. Turn off big-time.
I mention but three forms of disguise here.
I could go on………………………………………….. to mention many other props women use to falsify their appearance.
Such insecurity paraded as ‘glamor’ ‘fashion’ and ‘style’………Gross!
Give me a natural woman who’s comfortable with her REAL appearance any day.
Few and far between these days sadly.
It’s true some men have started to use the things you mention, but seriously it’s a pittance compared to the near ubiquity of falseness paraded as femininity these days.
Related to this thread’s topic – it makes it much easier to be MGTOW too.
Now back to my no-life again of wine, a little cheese and a movie.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 1:07 am
Leonie – The feminists will not allow separation because they want slaves to maintain civilization for them because they can’t do it themselves. That’s what civilization was created for. Marriage encouraged men (and a small number of women) living at the margins of the caste (pre-civilization society where 80% of women mated with and coexisted with 20% of men) to contribute their labor for making civilization. Now those men that have contributed are being enslaved – since they can’t escape to the margins where they had lived before (in the US, passports are suspended so they can’t get away and unless they comply with expectations of feminists and continue as slaves, they are imprisoned). This dynamic is institutionalized in every aspect of our current society – law, politics and social existence. The facts of this dynamic are above argument. The question is: what do we do about it? I am a firm believer in revolution, as I see no other option. As a woman, what do you see your contributions to changing this dynamic of which you will soon be a victim to, evidenced by the rapid decline of our economy and civilization?
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 4:32 am
Leonie asks –
Would the people on here who view women as the problem with the world prefer it if we went back in time, and weren’t able to vote?
Actually Leonie you need to get educated as your question contains misinformation see here –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d25esQeBoU&feature=player_embedded#at=70
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 6:02 pm
It’s amazing how many people, particularly women, do not know their history.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 11th April 2011 @ 10:45 pm
This will no doubt lead to further men becoming MGTOW as they abandon campuses for getting online degrees instead.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 14th April 2011 @ 5:11 am
It’s been this way already in practice for years anyway. Welcome to the post feminist dystopian police state of the US. Just one more reason young men will no longer attend college/university, when there is already a 60:40 ratio in number of young women and young men in attendance on average across the country. I don’t think enough people appreciate the implications of such developments.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 14th April 2011 @ 11:18 am
At a time when USA already has an astronomical prison rate, it’s frightening to think what could happen if a certain tipping point arrives.
A time when millions of men (especially younger men) feeling marginalized, angry and alienated lash out en masse – much as blacks did in 60s riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 14th April 2011 @ 1:36 pm
Daryl X,
I dare say you’re right and it has been that way unofficially for years. What’s truly chilling now though is that there’s no attempt to hide the bigotry and injustice. It is blatantly paraded as a ‘public good’ by feminists such as Joe Biden. What’s even more disturbing is it’s being supported by places which are supposed to be the very pinnacles of intellectual rigor such as Princeton and Stanford University.
Truly mind-boggling that such places could condone such debased stupidity!
As some bloggers have said though the back swell will eventually bring about positive changes.
One thing that will happen is that as word gets out that the publicly funded universities of America are hazardous to men increasing numbers of men will simply boycott studying in such places and study online instead. In any case studying online can prove to be much cheaper than actually relocating and attending a university somewhere.
With further dwindling numbers of males enrolling for their courses even dinosaurs like public universities will then have to look at their policies and procedures to see what’s discouraging men from buying their services. in the meantime, and in keeping with the theme of this thread I see another reason for increasing numbers of USA becoming MGTOW and withdrawing from mainstream/feminist culture and women.
Hans has said he thinks the sex drive, especially in younger men is so strong it will be difficult for young men to reconcile with being MGTOW.
That may be so.
However I can see as awareness of the misandric evils of feminism spreads through the manosphere that the urge to avoid massive pain and survive feminism will override the sex drive.
More and more men will simply opt out of close relationships with western women and the west will effectively die from the inside. Hollowed out like the universities are increasingly of males.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 14th April 2011 @ 1:56 pm
Quotable comment from THE SPEARHEAD today –
Great question!
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 1st May 2011 @ 6:56 pm
yes thats an excellent question. And for me, if I knew back then what I know now, I would have stayed single.
Men esp are lead to believe the law is there to protect the innocent.
I feel by the time my daughter is an adult, “normal” relationships are not going to exist.
Comment by Jono — Mon 2nd May 2011 @ 7:42 am
…unless you’ve already celebrated a golden wedding anniversary, “normal” relationships between a man and a woman have already been well and truly consigned to the annuls of ancient history. No doubt we’re going to see an “up tick” in the number of side show marriages as a result of that royal incident last week. But as diana (and fergie) showed; side shows and deception are par for the course for a woman looking for a ride on easy street.
Comment by Bruce S — Mon 2nd May 2011 @ 7:49 pm
Following the reported assassination of Osama Bin Laden, a Radio NZ National Radio interview this morning with Marc Sageman, a former CIA operations manager with the Afghan task force, was interesting. I quote:
It seems to me that the feminist war against men is full of great atrocities. Men are thrown in prison for long durations, essentially political prisoners under feminist dictate. Men are sent to their death in great numbers in various occupational roles for which they are then scorned and resented by feminists because, for example, they earn slightly more on average than do women in much safer occupational roles. And, unlike Muslims (except perhaps in a few middle-eastern areas) the discrimination and persecution against men is done blatantly, now enshrined in the laws of feminist states, and is done on the basis of men’s gender rather than the actuality of each man’s behaviour. Legal protest, talk, talk, talk is what men are trying to do about it, but that is unlikely to continue for much longer.
A small illustration of feminist persecution in today’s news: According to the story, Mark Coldicutt, a man who had given 25 years of his life to volunteer firefighting to protect his community in Hastings, was out partying on New Years Eve when he saw, in a bar, a woman whom he had known for many years and who had previously engaged in casual sex with him. At about 4am he walked to her house, entered through her unlocked door, slipped into bed with her and tried to lift her clothing.
Well, that’s NOT OK and he needs to know that. But in my opinion, if this was a first offence (likely, since no mention was made of previous offending), a sensible and humane society would give this man a warning for what appeared to be an ill-considered, alcohol-affected but probably benign attempt to seduce a woman who had previously demonstrated willingness to have casual sex with him. He may have been brought readily to realize that the woman found his visit unpleasant and unwanted, and a warning would probably have caused him to avoid any similarly misguided efforts at seduction in future. If the Court did not believe he recognized his error, I would support perhaps a conviction and fine to bring home the point. However, I would not support his name going on a sex offenders’ register yet that is what feminist law will do to encourage life-long extrajudicial punishment for his rather harmless mistake. But we don’t have a sensible, humane society towards men; we have feminist law. He was sentenced to 2 years 8 months in prison. I cannot be certain because I was not present at the trial, but my guess is that the woman’s previous sexual behaviour with this man was not allowed to be mentioned because that is one of the ways in which feminist law now prevents accused men from explaining their actions to help the Court gain some reasonable understanding of them.
Mr Coldicutt’s prison sentence was much longer than a first offender might receive for kicking another man’s head so as to cause permanent neurological damage. Even kicking a man to death when you have already knocked him unconscious was seen by the Court as deserving only 2 years 10 months in prison.
Ah yes, but a mistaken attempt to seduce a woman, touching her gently without explicit permission (but desisting as soon as she objects), thinking to give her a pleasant surprise but instead giving her a fright, now that’s really serious. Feminists no doubt would prefer the death penalty for any man who shows such effrontery. Well, when we treat stalwarts of selfless contribution to society in the manner Mr Coldicutt has been treated, we are creating legions of bitter, angry men. Their ranks are fast growing as other men become aware of what’s happening. As men mobilize, increasingly violent repression and widespread killing of men will soon be feminism’s only recourse.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 3rd May 2011 @ 1:08 pm
I personally have such a struggle with this. It is as if I am hard wired to want to be married. I just can’t find a rational reason to marry anyone. Is there anyone out there that can justify the risks a man faces in getting married?
Comment by Vman — Tue 3rd May 2011 @ 2:10 pm
Hans, This post needs it’s own thread.
There is so much to comment on here.
Comment by Vman — Tue 3rd May 2011 @ 2:56 pm
Done, Vman
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 3rd May 2011 @ 6:15 pm
I missed this post by you, Skeptik. Yes, it is quite the dilemma. I agree that sex drive among young males will discourage MGTOW. But it isn’t even sex, as I would just like to have someone to cohabitate with and share living expenses and romance or even rely upon for support and encouragement. But with modern women, their narcissism precludes these opportunities. Honestly, with 50% of the population praxiologically evil and another 30% enabling them, I’ve lost hope for my life and the lives of my children and civilization. A man has to have a purpose for living, and with the senselessness and irresponsibility and malice of women institutionalized in politics, law and society, there isn’t much purpose to live. I worry about our young men and boys today. Feminism has defined or colored every aspect of my life for the worse and in dramatic ways and I’ve seen how it is for those younger than me. I have a frame of reference being born in the late 60’s, but many of these young men and boys today don’t and can’t understand how truly deprived they are of life and freedom. When are universities are no longer institutions of learning but indoctrination and brainwashing and discourage independent thought and when 50% of a population is deprived of any of its benefits and discouraged from participating, a population should worry, but it isn’t. I am not optimistic about the future of manhood and civilization.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 4th May 2011 @ 3:03 am
Sung to the tune of “I’m Haitch Ay Pee Pee Why” (HAPPY)
I’m MGTOW
I’m MGTOW
I know I am
I’m sure I am
I’m MGTOW.
tra la la …..
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 11th May 2011 @ 7:21 pm
Latest issue of MENZ magazine here.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 14th May 2011 @ 6:25 pm
Henry, a man of principle.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 16th May 2011 @ 6:03 am
Brilliant article.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 1:13 pm
Here’s where one of Kate Hymenwitz’s good men got to.
He is amazing.
NZ needs some politicians like this guy.
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 8:55 pm
You can e-mail thanks to this inspirational Men’s Rights politician here –
[email protected]
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 9:13 pm
I’m reposting this comment here as it seems to fit well with the topic of the thread –
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 11th November 2011 @ 2:18 pm
Notice 54 votes of confidence and only 1 sadsack downvote in response to this article –
Is Avoiding Fatherhood an Indication of Responsibility? by W.F. Price on November 10, 2011.
Something marvelous is stirring just beneath the surface of Mainstream Media awareness.
The misandry bubble is expanding before it’s inevitable bursting.
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 12th November 2011 @ 11:47 am
That’s a great comment Skeptic. Although it could come across as theoretical, I suspect it is good theory all the same. The following I can personally attest to:
Comment by rc — Sat 12th November 2011 @ 12:55 pm
women are the bane of society
Comment by Ford — Sat 12th November 2011 @ 2:14 pm
Even the Wall Street Journal is starting to get it:
-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204505304577000380740614776.html?m%20od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
This is the fatal flaw in the feminist revolution. When you legislate away men’s education and jobs, steal their property via marital and divorce law, rob them of futures via child support laws and penal codes, and send them off to prisons at the drop of a hat (compared to women), they eventually begin to ask themselves “why engage this society when it denies me any benefit?”.
We reap what we sow.
Comment by rc — Mon 14th November 2011 @ 2:53 pm
rc @ #82,
Great post.
Couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Skeptic — Mon 14th November 2011 @ 6:57 pm
160 great reasons for men to go their own way.
Comment by Skeptic — Mon 14th November 2011 @ 7:15 pm
Men aren’t only going their own way by forsaking the cultural scripts which are outmoded and self negating.
Read this article and the first few comments thereafter – Wow!
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/09/30/nothing-is-more-subversive-than-the-truth/
Men are now beginning to forge their own kind of Justice System.
I hope this article will be of interest.
Comment by Skeptic — Mon 21st November 2011 @ 5:32 pm
@Skeptik – excellent article.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 22nd November 2011 @ 12:50 am
@rc – The quote from the Wall Street Journal is a good summary but doesn’t even come close to describing the situation. Also, it claims that “we’re at risk” – we aren’t as that ship sailed a long time ago. It’s already happened. More than one generation of males is already unconnected to the labor market and has no sense of ownership in the community or society and already don’t benefit from it. I and many other males could have had much better lives in any third-world nation or wilderness than in our developed countries. In those countries at least we might have had a fighting chance to avoid slavery and oppression and women respect men there who will support and fight for their rights. Here in the developed world, women do not respect or even understand what men contribute. Like women believe that food comes from a grocery store instead of grown on farms, they believe that their freedom comes from the government instead of from men who stand between them and the gov’t.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 22nd November 2011 @ 12:56 am
Men Going Their Own Way should now be very careful when thinking about Australia as a destination.
This news just in.
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 23rd November 2011 @ 10:44 am
#88,,a man would have to be mental to get into a relationship with a woman
Comment by Ford — Wed 23rd November 2011 @ 4:12 pm
have ya noticed how its women the work within the system that come up with all this shit ay..queer f#@ken bitches
Comment by Ford — Wed 23rd November 2011 @ 4:16 pm
Hi Skeptic (#88); thank you for the heads up and a very interesting read. More proof, if indeed it was needed, that the western interpretation of democrazy (sic) has been clearly corrupted. I cannot imagine that half the voting population of Australia (men) would have endorsed these changes. The bit I really enjoyed was this:
As usual, we see “the kids” being used again as a mere tool, in another attempt to further subjugate men.
Well done the aussie blokes for letting this one sneak through! Enjoy your newly found democratic “freedoms”.
Comment by Bruce S — Wed 23rd November 2011 @ 7:01 pm
Skeptic (#88): Thanks, sort of, for drawing our attention to this disappointing news. So Australia has reverted to supporting unbridled misandry and thinks that will be good for children! The feminists are determined to eradicate anything sensible in family law. Ironically though its blatant irrationality and partisan intent might awaken many more people to the broader picture.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 23rd November 2011 @ 8:00 pm
This is simply yet another example of men losing what they are unwilling to fight for. The more time we spend NOT fighting for our rights, (with actions that produce results) the worse it will become. Be prepared for the laws to continue to get worse and the loss of more rights until men (on mass) decide they have had enough, unite and fight back. Then again, perhaps we need to descend more into the realm of being oppressed before men will actually do anything effective to stop it, if that is the case, then let us hope that they make the laws even more oppressive as rapidly as possible. I will give the Australians the credit due though, because at least over there they are organized enough to have a group of 30,000 people marching to the same drum, but out of a a population of nearly 23 million, that is really only a drop in a bucket. Of course long term feminist are going to loose the gender war, we all know that, because their entire argument is based on lies, all men have to do is stand up and claim the victory that is sitting there waiting for them (if they can be bothered to do so).
.
Short term this appears to be a victory for the feminists, but long term, it is more evidence that they have no business influencing the laws of ANY country. I can certainly see at time in the future (50-100 years into the future) when the world has fully woken up to what feminism is and has recovered (or in the process of recovering from its effects) women could easily find themselves banned from politics and loose the right to vote (along with most of the other freedoms they currently enjoy) because feminism showed what happened when they were given these “rights” and the destruction it caused to society for them to have them. Have a look at history, ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, that is the glory of studying history, you can see how human nature doesn’t change over thousands of years and the same situations produce almost exactly the same results. Women will almost certainly loose all the “rights” (privileges is probably a better word) gained from feminism, it is only a matter of time. The only real questions are how long it takes, and whether Western Civilization exists when they do.
Comment by Phoenix — Thu 24th November 2011 @ 12:21 am
Ford
You should never be allowed near children.You are just disgusting.
Comment by Get a grip — Thu 24th November 2011 @ 12:58 am
Pheonix,
Yes I tend to agree.
I see feminists and their chivalrous enablers as self serving parasites feeding off the host – society at large, extracting more and more resources at everyone else’s expense.
But logic tells me this can only happen for so long until the host becomes weakened and has nothing left to ‘give’ the parasite (like the western world is today).
Of course the process is inevitably unsustainable, and a risky strategy as the host could turn nasty too.
We can’t keep marginalizing males further and further and expect them to invest their energy in societies which hate them.
We can’t expect all men to remain civilized when they are treated so inhumanely either.
So, though I wish otherwise I see bloody times ahead.
I fully expect western feminists to keep hating and gaining until they as parasites have taken so much from their hosts that they bring down the whole system with them.
They are that stupid.
I used to want to deny it, thinking they could be rehabilitated.
But see that view as naive and arrogant now, because what we have are masses of women addicted to power over others who think in irrational soundbites with poor impulse control. Feminists have in a sense won the culture war – in the west anyway, but in another sense have lost it totally.
As more and more men and male sensitive females suffer at the hands of feminist conventions and laws – one by one they wake up and the cultural ‘insurgency’ ensues and increases. Men realize in increasing numbers the social contract by which they lived their lives (get qualified, get a job, support a wife and family) does not apply any longer – and with the contract smashed they are FREE to choose to do what they want FOR THEMSELVES – and having worked out how they’ve been collectively scammed and treated as disposable do you seriously think they’re then going to choose to look kindly upon and help women?
Yeah right. Rhetorical question. Tui billboard moment.
As others have said things always change after a war.
Get ready to meet the next few generations of young men – like Ford.
Clearly the fall of the western femisphere is well underway already.
I, like others I know only hope that it will hasten so out of the remains something better can be made.
As for the Gillard government denying fathers equal rights as parents – what did anyone expect from a feminist Oz Prime Minister?
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 24th November 2011 @ 2:56 am
@Phoenix re post #93 – “This is simply yet another example of men losing what they are unwilling to fight for. The more time we spend NOT fighting for our rights, (with actions that produce results) the worse it will become. Be prepared for the laws to continue to get worse and the loss of more rights until men (on mass) decide they have had enough, unite and fight back.”
Yes, I agree that men are unable or unwilling to fight for their rights and that circumstances are likely to disintegrate and that disintegration is likely to accelerate. In the US, one reason men are “unwilling” to fight is that some (approx one-sixth of the entire male population and approx one-twelfth of the entire population) have been “bought off” by the federal and state governments (a deleiberate attempt by those in power to stay in power).
Of course, the cost of bying off those people has been at the expense of later generations and/or mostly men. So, these men who have been “bought off” do not see problems with the current system, even though many of their brothers have lost their rights and suffered. They are bought off through public assistance, which men who do not have children and/or do not owe child support (because they are older and are finished paying or never have had to pay) are still eligible for. Of course, more than two-thirds of women receive some sort of public assistance in the US (one-third alone from child support) and don’t care about the men, so they are unmotivated to pursue any changes on our behalf.
There really are some generational things going on too. All those men and women from the Greatest Generation and half the Baby-boomers benefited considerably from public assistance and the largest social welfare program in the history of the world. Just about everyone from these two generations, or in part, received considerable assistance like subsidy for their housing, jobs, medical care, and retirement. The later half of Baby-boomers, almost all Gen-X’ers and all Millenials did not benefit as much from this vast social welfare program (if at all) and the number that cannot and will never is growing.
So, as the number of men who cannot benefit increases, maybe the number that has been “bought off” will decline in proportion and we may see some more activism as men become more desperate. Despite activism, expect the measures our leaders use to oppress men to increase in response to circumstances, as our leaders are less and less able to “buy-off” the population, to become more draconian.
As I’ve advised before, in the US, passports and driver and business licenses are routinely suspended. Men are jailed at alarming rates for child support and other fabricated crimes. The reason I post here at MENZ is to make sure those in other countries are aware of the increasing oppression of men in a country like the US and that it can happen anywhere. So, expect much more conflict and suffering, particularly among men, but also a growing number of women.
Yes, feminists (mostly men and their male enablers), like the parasites they are, will eventually kill their own host until they can no longer survive on it. But by then it will be too late. All of civilization will have ended. Check out DollarCollapse.com for valuable and accurate information contrary to mainstream media about the fate of our economy (and civilization). You don’t need to extrapolate too far to see the hand of feminism in any of it.
A great interview of economist and investor Doug Casey (a month or more ago) revealed that some of our scholars and economists are not blind to the impact of feminism and destruction of fathers and children, as Doug Casey is the first economist I’ve read to acknowledge the self-immolation of Thomas Ball as an important mile-stone in the decline of our economy. As more and more instances like this one accumulate, we may see some change. Hope it’s not too late.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 24th November 2011 @ 7:41 am
@gag – As distasteful as I find the way Ford expresses his sentiments, I agree 100% with them. I would let Ford near my children before I let most women near them. Statistically, they are more dangerous and their influence more malicious.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 24th November 2011 @ 7:47 am
Ford could look after my kids any time.
The last thing I’d want is Gaga anywhere near my kids.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 24th November 2011 @ 10:16 am
Quote of the day taken from A voice for men website –
Amen to that idea.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 24th November 2011 @ 8:37 pm
Worthy of being the 100th posting on this thread.
How to spot her schemes to snare you.
Let’s be careful out there guys…..
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 25th November 2011 @ 12:38 am
I found this song online today and thought it did a good job of describing some of the reasons for men to go their own way. Enjoy.
Link
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Looks like it’s not just men going their own way.
Women are going their own way too – into ritzy upper class prisons a cut above male prisons.
Notice how some officials don’t rate male prisoners maintaining a family connection to reduce recidivism upon release.
Other ‘experts’ predict women prisoners will always cost more to house (‘cos their special y’know?)
Maybe it’s all the new buildings, the pastel decor, wall to wall shrinks, the flatscreen TVs and all those frills and tassles in their feminist education facilities…….
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6443330/Women-prisoners-cost-much-more-to-lock-up
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 19th February 2012 @ 5:16 pm
It’s funny you should use the term “maladaptive”, watpii. According to wikipedia:A maladaptive behavior is a behavior or trait that is not adaptive – it is counterproductive to the individual. Maladaptivity is frequently used as an indicator of abnormality or mental dysfunction, since its assessment is relatively free from subjectivity. However, many behaviors considered moral can be apparently maladaptive, such as dissent or abstinence.This would imply that there might be something wrong with being a choice mother. But choice mothers don’t see anything wrong with what they are doing. Talk to them and they will tell you what they are doing is heroic, because they kept their baby and are raising him-her on their own. The choice mother may fail to tell you the part about wanting someone to love them unconditionally and wanting to have power over another smaller and more impressionable human being, and that they would never dream of trying to incorporate the baby daddy into the child’s life. I don’t see a big difference between getting sperm through artificial insemination or having a penis inserted into a vagina. The result is the same: Baby.As you can imagine, around here you get to spend a great deal of time on jury duty. I don’t know how many juries I have participated but the result is always the same. Some 17, 18, 19 year old is the defendant. He sits alone next to a court appointed lawyer in a cavern of a courtroom, accused of killing, maiming, robbing or selling a kilo or two of something. The horrifying thing is who is behind him in the courtroom: Nobody. By the time this boy/man gets to trial, his single parent momma is long gone, fed up with him, tired of trying to coral him, punish him or keep him off the corner. Because she failed to provide him with any oversight, somebody is dead, Tavon is on his way to a 40 year sentence and the rest of us get to pay for it. The sad thing is, Tavon isn’t really all that bad of a kid, he just made a bad choice at 3AM with a gun his buddy gave him because somebody looked at him the wrong way and he didn’t know how to walk away. This story gets repeated multiple times a day around here and it makes me sick.
Comment by Hillary — Thu 27th December 2012 @ 9:28 am
Changes in intentions to remarry among divorced Canadians during the past 20 years StatsCanada
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 23rd March 2015 @ 9:40 pm