Saturday, May 2, 2015

"A century of feminism has failed us. Women have betrayed men’s trust"

Thirty years ago I told a recently retired man: "Women want all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities." After a few seconds he said, "You know, you're right."

This whole problem to me us just bizarre. Men invented nearly everything in the world, women almost nothing - and what does society get? No gratitude from women, abuse because of their hallucinations they oppressed by "the patriarchy," catastrophic social problems due to leftists - and a complete denial of the causes of the problem.

None of this, in the long ran, can stand.

This article was written by Belinda Brown and is from the Conservative Woman.


Neil Lyndon, author of No More Sex War and one of the first men to openly critique feminism, is right to draw attention to the relentless problems now facing boys and men.

I am sympathetic to his logic that if the women who understand these problems, i.e. those who write for "The Conservative Woman" (I can say with confidence since he mentioned us in his article) held political power, our sex might give us the authority to dismantle feminist vanity projects and shine a light and some funding on the serious disadvantages afflicting boys and men.

However I do not think it is traditional politics but something far more radical which holds the key to real social change.

Firstly, feminists may be a minority, but they are powerful. Women have real power in the family, rooted in their reproductive capability. This may, entirely through women’s individual decisions, lead to a secondary role in the public realm. Feminists have used this lower public status as a bargaining chip to pursue their own self-interest in every possible avenue of public life. Today feminists control the traffic lights and the road rules, men are only chauffeurs, even when they appear to be in the driver’s seat.

So as Neil seems to realize the cogs of the feminist machine will grind relentlessly on to ensure that any attempt to draw attention to men’s issues will either be re-appropriated and reconfigured (e.g. male suicide becomes a problem of masculinity but nothing of course to do with the way that women treat men or the loss of male identity) or systematically undermined.

If women knew the full extent of male disadvantage the feminist cathedral of cards would very quickly come tumbling down.

Secondly feminists are not amenable to rational argument. There are none so blind as those whose view has been eclipsed by ideology; ideology built on distortion, piled on top of stupidity and upon lie after lie until the truth lies buried deep beneath. Feminists are not going to turn traitor to an ideology which has not only nurtured their careers but determined crucial, life changing, and possibly life destroying, decisions in their private lives. The courage required to recognize their error would not be outweighed by the gain.

So Neil, I do admire your persistence and your passion and your ability to rise phoenix like from the calumnious feminist ashes. But to put your hope in Sandi Toksvig’s and others' Women’s Equality Party? Neil read what they stand for - their equality for men would mean pussy-whipped lap dogs tethered to their feminist cause.

No. Sailing between the Scylla of feminism and the Charybdis of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is going to require a far more radical response. For those of us who care, and I care profoundly, we will end up losing if we play by the traditional rules of the game.

Feminism works well for women who want visible power and influence. But it has no strategy for social reproduction. Boys on Ritalin, internet addiction, obesity, oversexualised children, men in prison, fractured families – feminism has no long term survival strategy. These are just some examples of its scorched earth spawn.

The men who choose to go their own way, either as part of a movement or by rationally rejecting marriage and monogamy because it has cost their fathers and brothers dearly may be acting wisely. But when it comes to the long term survival of human society, to the question of how to preserve the civilization which their forefathers and foremothers created (long before feminism) theirs is not a realistic plan. It is a social death wish.

If we want to rebuild society, we need a longer term, low=key approach.

You are right, Neil, that ultimately it is women, women who destroyed so much through their pursuit of self-interest, but who, because of their reproductive potential hold the key. This time round it is going to be very much harder. Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.

The radical plan involves the decreasing numbers of us who have not fallen for feminism, who prioritise our families - and this includes our husbands as well as our children, our parents and our grandchildren. First we need to make sure that the government allows us to do this, so that we do not have to be primarily dedicated to work. That is a campaign in itself. Only if we do this properly, place our families at the center of our lives, can men once again follow suit.

This is what the feminist century has done. By almost destroying the family it has shown us that it is the cornerstone of society. If we want self-fulfilled, happy, creative individuals, a functional, well networked society and a civilization worthy of emulation, we need strong healthy, resourceful families built on the commitment and selflessness of adults, persistence and a lot of hard work.

Only the steadfast women who are happy to prioritise the interests of their husbands and their children can set this process in motion. The feminists can’t, nor can the MGTOW. Women can do it, but only with the help of men. Together we can undo the damage which feminism created and rebuild a world of which can feel a little more proud.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you think of the various comments of the MGTOW's there?

Robert What? said...

I would say that 90% of the guys claiming to be MGTOWs aren't.

Anonymous said...

"I would say that 90% of the guys claiming to be MGTOWs aren't."

I don't understand this quote.

It's easy to be a MGTOW guy, just don't get married or cohabitate with a woman. MGTOW's can still date and interact socially with women. MGTOW's don't have to be monks, but they can do that as well too.

njartist said...

Ah, the battle cry of the NAWALT 1%! These proud, these few shall descend the hill on unicorns charging the ranks of the Orcs and liberate us men in Minas Tirith!

Yeah right. these silly women have gotten where they are as part of the spoils won by the Orcs. Now, they find that the men they want are going away; and they think that by a few conciliatory words they can have their cake and eat it too, not giving up the prizes won for them by the Orcs.

The rest of us MGTOWS: 99%; still get nothing.

cecil said...

The most disheartening and troublesome aspect of dealing with women has been the lack of reciprocity, and sense of entitlement.

Women just ‘sit there’ and wait for you to do everything. No personal responsibility or accountability. Women like to ‘play coy’ but it increasingly just feels like manipulation.

I can’t respect this. Let alone desire it. I can’t tolerate it.

What do I need from a woman??: Beauty, goodness, obedience. There you have it.

Anonymous said...

Meh. Talk is cheap.

Kenny said...

"In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead." Oh my, those strong independent women folk are going to allow it? That is some funny shit right there.

de ti said...

Translation:

"See what you women have done?! You've pissed off the good men! Shit, we need to think of something to get them back. We need to figure a way to make it look like the men are leading without them actually leading, without actually giving up any of those great things we got like abortion on demand, no fault divorce, right to work whenever we want, ability to claim "marital rape", etc. So what we'll do is that we'll tell them we will "let them take the lead.""

To men:

"O please, please come back! We know we did wrong! We'll let you have some of your power back. We won't frivorce you and take your shit. We won't hurt you. We promise. And we really, really mean it this time. "

Anonymous said...

If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.

That's an interesting—and possibly effective bit of sarcasm. If anything can penetrate the self-absorbed feminine mind, this stands a remote chance (acknowledging their fears and megalomania while pointing out a nagging need to 'cooperate' with men), but I would NOT bet anything on it.

Alan K

de ti said...

All women are feminists.

"Conservative" women and "traditional" women are really just anti-abortion feminists.

Conservative women and traditional women want, like, favor and enjoy all the things feminism and feminist policy and agitation won for them:

--the franchise

--equality, nondiscrimination and even favoritism in education, public services and employment

--cheap, safe, legal, widely available and effective birth control

--free or greatly price reduced medical services

--abortion on demand, even at the exclusion of the father's wishes

--the ability to claim "marital rape"

--overdefining and expanding definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault"

--broadly defined "domestic violence"

--preferential treatment in claims of "domestic violence"

--no fault divorce

--overdefined claims of "abuse" as grounds for involvement of law enforcement in marriages

--the ability to withhold and refuse sex to a husband and yet continue to demand that he fulfill all husbandly obligations

--excuses, justifications and defenses to criminal activity based on sex ("I'm a woman, therefore I am not responsible for my criminal conduct/have lowered mental capacity based on "abuse"/"male privilege"/"oppression"/minority status"

Anyone who thinks "conservative" women and "traditional" women are going to give any of that up is clinically insane.

Rusty Shackleford said...

"The most disheartening and troublesome aspect of dealing with women has been the lack of reciprocity, and sense of entitlement."

Entitlement is the essence of American women. You have to introduce yourself. You have to pay for her. You have to "man up and put on your big boy pants." You have to make the effort and carry the conversation with a dull girl, who has never considered being interested in anything other than herself. And for what? American women are like a wall of entitlement with nothing on the other side.

How messed up is it to be physically attracted and yet repelled on every other level by your own womenfolk. What other generation of men has ever had to deal with this? There was a point where I actually thought that I must just be some sort of misogynist. Then I started meeting women my own age from other countries who already lived and had jobs here. They had no material incentives to be nice to me, but I could talk to them on a human level as opposed to the dynamic with American women which is like an audience with the princessa. These girls from other countries were simply interested in and glad to be around me and actually made an effort to be pleasant. How screwed are things when simple human kindness from the other gender seems extraordinary. Gender relations are just broken and junked, and I don't know what could possibly fix them.

Earl Thomas said...

'Men invented nearly everything in the world, women almost nothing - and what does society get?'

Well women bring new humans into the world...once they decided to give that up and take what men have is when they became insufferable.

Anonymous said...

"Entitlement is the essence of American women."

Good, virtuous mMen are the prize. Women earn good men, not the other way around, like woman like men to think.

Women expect more of men than they do of themselves.

Glen Filthie said...

A few words and some clarity of thought, girls:

First - no, not all women are like that. 50% of all marriages SUCCEED. For all you MGTOWs and anti-SJWs...go suck a fart! There are lots of good women out there and if you want to throw out the baby with the bath water - that's just stupid and the consequences of that are on you. Enjoy.

Second: women CAN change. Hell - it's both a vice and a strength of the species and it is as old as our species itself. Evil forces changed our women from the regal well tailored queens of the 40's and 50's ... to the turd brained hags of today. I wouldn't be at all surprised if those same forces change them back.

This is the light at the end of the tunnel. Women are waking up to the fact that classical marriage is a great deal, that wealth is no substitute for love etc etc.

The tide is turning.

Anonymous said...

@Glen: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are good girls out there. But how does one identify one of these good women? What happens if the relationship and marriage goes bad? Women can become quite hateful and vindictive.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Women can be incredibly mean, remorseless, spiteful, deceitful and manipulative. I've seen some of the most seemingly sweetest, angelic, sweet-as-pie women turn into harpies and harridans. Women can completely destroy a man in todays' legal environment. And with a 50% divorce rate, this is a very real possibility. I'm surprised that men even marry today, but I project that the marriage rate will decrease in the future as more men learn.

Would you eat at a restaurant that had a 50% chance of making you sick and killing you from food poisoning?

Would you fly on a plane that had a 50% chance of crashing?

Would you travel on a boat that had a 50% chance of sinking?

Mindstorm said...

Bob, would you call this piece scare-mongering, or perhaps a rational view of demographic future of Europe? What lessons could be learned by the US?

https://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/europes-dark-future/

Once again, linked from xenosystemsDOTnet

Anonymous said...

Marriage is the largest, longest running transfer of wealth scam in human history (from men to women, lawyers, judges and the state). In the past 40+ years, tens upon tens of millions of men's lives have been destroyed through marriage. Every year, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of men are led through the meat grinder of divorce. In 2012, there were 2.4 million divorces.

Men are disposable. Their only value to women is in what they can provide financially to women. The rewards for men in marriage are not worth the common, life-destroying outcome that divorce will likely have in their lives.

Should men get married?

Absolutely not. Spend some time on the MGTOW sites and you'll understand why. Ignore this information at your own peril. You could be happily married for decades, only to have your wife drop the nuclear bomb of divorce on you at 20, 30 or 40 years. "Grey divorce" is the fastest growing category of divorce. Women commonly file for divorce after having affairs, often claim domestic violence and then get the house, car, half of your pension, alimony and your testicles. You move into a shitty part of town into a shitty one room apartment, or into your car, with hopefully enough money to each once a day. How’s that for retirement? Think your ex-wife will care how badly she destroyed your life? Nope. She’ll be happily screwing some other guy, in your former bed, in the house you paid for, all the white laughing at what a naïve idiot you were to marry her in the first place. Men are disposable. Their only value to women is in what they can provide financially to women.

Should men cohabit with women?
Not without a solid cohabitation agreement. British Columbia recently applied rights to alimony and child support through cohabitation. You get this, right? You move in with a women who has kids from another man, shack up for a couple years and POW – they’re now your kids and she’s now your wife. She can dump you and file for alimony and child support. Don’t think this happens? Don’t be a fool. It happens all of the time. The same law that Canada imposed will be imposed in the US. Think I’m wrong? The ACA just shifted the cost of birth control, abortion and maternity care onto men’s insurance premium. Don’t be that fool. Men are disposable. Their only value to women is in what they can provide financially to women.

Is dating single women with kids wise?
Only if you want to end up paying child support for her kids at some point to an ex-girlfriend you now deeply hate. Think it doesn’t happen? Don’t be that fool. It happens all of the time. Men are disposable. Their only value to women is in what they can provide financially to women.


Should I have a paternity test done after childbirth?

Absolutely. Some studies claim that up to 30% of children are not the biological child of the claimed father. Men are disposable. Their only value to women is in what they can provide financially to women.

The future is just going to get harder and harder for men. More and more gynocentric, misandric laws and policies, inspired by feminists and enforced by mangina/naive white knights will be imposed.

As a man, you must learn how to protect yourself in the new world. To get a history of gynocentrism, misandry, and white knighting, visit gynocentrism.com. There are a plethora of MGTOW sites in cyberspace. Read, read and then read some more. The alternative is to be naïve and to be destroyed by women.

Don’t become one of the tens upon tens of millions of men who, in recent times, have had their present and future decimated by the marriage trap.

MGTOW'd Out said...

“It's easy to be a MGTOW guy, just don't get married or cohabitate with a woman.“

Or have white children. Thanks for contributing to the decline of western civilization.


“MGTOW's can still date and interact socially with women.”



And once the hamster wheel of women starts spinning, after two dates she will sniff you out and dump your sorry ass. Why? You’re not even remotely willing to date long-term. Some lifestyle.


“What do I need from a woman??:

Beauty, goodness, obedience. There you have it.”

What do women need from men? Security, comfort, commitment. There you have it.

“The most disheartening and troublesome aspect of dealing with women has been the lack of reciprocity, and sense of entitlement.”

Corrected for accuracy--The most disheartening and troublesome aspect of dealing with some men and women is the lack of reciprocity, and sense of entitlement.


“Entitlement is the essence of American women. You have to introduce yourself. You have to pay for her. You have to "man up and put on your big boy pants."

My grandfathers and my father taught me how to properly treat a lady. They were married each for over 50+ years. This advice is NOT dated. Now, they also taught me something as well--put your foot down and put it down hard.


“You have to make the effort and carry the conversation with a dull girl, who has never considered being interested in anything other than herself. And for what?

Yes, make the effort, be polite, and at the end of the date say “It was nice meeting you, but we’re not compatible. I wish you well”.


“American women are like a wall of entitlement with nothing on the other side.”

Corrected for accuracy--Some women are like a wall of entitlement with nothing on the other side.


“How messed up is it to be physically attracted and yet repelled on every other level by your own womenfolk. What other generation of men has ever had to deal with this?”

Both my grandfathers said EVERY generation has to deal with this phenomenon. What, you think feminism is the primary cause for women acting “different”? Hardly.


“They had no material incentives to be nice to me, but I could talk to them on a human level as opposed to the dynamic with American women which is like an audience with the princessa.”

“Well women bring new humans into the world...once they decided to give that up and take what men have is when they became insufferable.”


These statements are simply generalizations.


“These girls from other countries were simply interested in and glad to be around me and actually made an effort to be pleasant.”



Until you date them, marry them, and a year later they take everything from you. At least that is what I have been told.


“First - no, not all women are like that.”

Wow, just wow. Glen making sense.


“Women can be incredibly mean, remorseless, spiteful, deceitful and manipulative.


Replace women with people and you are have it correct.


“Would you eat at a restaurant that had a 50% chance...”


False equivalency.


"Don’t become one of the tens upon tens of millions of men who, in recent times, have had their present and future decimated by the marriage trap."

Yes, anony, we get it. You hate marriage. Doesn't mean that the tens of millions of men who are married or who want to be married have to take your advice to heart. Sure, be wary, take precautions, but actually NOT marrying and having children? Please seek help.

Bob Wallace said...

Mindstorm,

All the criminal foreigners in Europe are going to swim back or be killed. This is Europe we're dealing with here - "nations of eternal war."

Anonymous said...


Europe, the Killer Continent
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Sat, 2007-07-21 07:49

A quote from Ralph Peters in an interview at Frontpage Mag, 19 July 2007

[T]he notion that Europe, the continent that's exported more death and destruction than any other, is going to just shuffle wimpily to its doom is crazy. The Europeans have been playing pacifist dress-up while [America] protected them, but, sufficiently threatened, they'll revert to their historical pattern – which is to over-react. Europe's Muslims may prove to be the real endangered species; after all, Europe's history of dealing with rejected minorities veers between genocide and, for the lucky, ethnic cleansing. For me, the question isn't whether Muslims will take over Europe, but whether Europe will simply expel them or kill any number of them first. Sound far-fetched? How would the Holocaust have sounded to an educated German (or Brit, or American) in 1932? Europe is a killer continent. When the chips are down, it will kill again.

Meanwhile, Europe's Muslims are behaving so stupidly that their folly can't be measured with any tools at our disposal. Even as British pols pander to radical clerics, the average Brit has had enough of coddling mullahs who preach the destruction of all non-Muslims (and closing the pubs). In mid-July, in Germany, the major organizations representing the millions of Turkish residents refused to come to a conference held by the chancellor to address integration. The Turkish leaders demanded – demanded – that the German parliament first rescind a new immigration law that would have prevented Turks from importing child-brides, isolating them as virtual prisoners and beating them to death. Oh, and the Germans also wanted new immigrants to have a vocabulary of 300 German words upon arrival – just enough to say, "Help, husband killing me." No self-respecting Turk was going to stand for that.

You get the point. Europe has never had a model for integrating non-white immigrants, and they don't really want one. Meanwhile, from Denmark to Marseilles, Muslim residents make outrageous demands that only anger the average voter. Eurabia? You have a better chance of finding honest lobbyists in Washington than you do of seeing the crescent over the spires of Notre Dame.


http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2262

Mindstorm said...

@njartist: and now for some aspie hairsplitting.

That LOTR scene is disappointing. What is the proper length of a pike (Wiki says between 10 and 25 feet)? Why would orcish archers move in front of "pikemen"? Shooting at the angle of 45 degrees can be done from behind their ranks. Why archers anyway? Steel crossbows with cranequins would be a better choice.

Mindstorm said...

At Helm's Deep they had full-length pikes. It seems that Saruman had a better grasp of military tactics than Ringwraiths and their lackeys.

Anonymous said...


"Millions of individuals are stuck in an unhappy marriage but will not walk away for fear of financial or emotional hardship, research has revealed."


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/10/divorce-unhappy-marriage-secrets-_n_3572696.html