Feminist territory marking.

The latest round of debate about women in combat has helped me understand something which had previously left me perplexed.  Feminists have two primal desires which work cross purpose.  They want to:

  1. Be (like) one of the guys (experience manly pride)
  2. Mark all spaces as feminine (extinguish manly pride)

The first desire is the face which shows up first when demanding concessions.  Here is this incredibly capable woman who can do what the men are doing.  Why won’t you let her in?  The reality of her actual ability will vary.  Some of these women really can perform at the level required.  Many others insist that they only need “a little help” because the standards to enter the field are difficult biased against women.  Either way, I’m convinced that the desire to experience manly pride is sincere.  Aside from the inevitable lowering of standards, the other feminist primal desire is then unleashed.

Once a woman has “broken in” to the all male field, the focus inevitably turns to marking the territory.  This can come from the initial woman/women who broke in, or from the group which followed their path.  Either way, once women are allowed in as a matter of rule (vs one or a handful of truly exceptional women), any sense of manly pride for the women admitted rapidly evaporates.   At this point the focus shifts from experiencing manly pride to stopping men from feeling it.  If they can’t have it, no one can.

Marking the space as feminine often begins with practical necessity.  Women need separate bathroom and changing facilities, gear needs to be re-sized to fit women, etc.  However, the requests never end with true practical necessity because the compulsion to mark the space as feminine is overwhelming.  Any symbol which could be associated with manly pride must be clearly marked as feminine.  It starts with women demanding to be allowed to wear the US Air Force uniform, but the urge to mark the uniform as feminine is irresistibleThey can’t help themselves (LSFW).

Apparently some people are pissed off about a photograph of two Air Force servicewomen, Terran Echegoyen-McCabe and Christina Luna, breastfeeding their children in uniform, calling it a “disgrace.” What, soldiers aren’t supposed to have boobs (or babies)? Soldiers aren’t supposed to appear nurturing?

The problem for feminists is they still deeply crave to experience what only men can truly experience: manly pride.  This is why feminists have so little interest in building up their own organizations.  Being top woman doesn’t cut it.  They want to break into an all male field;  this is the only way for women to experience that feeling of manly pride.  But the reward is fleeting.  No matter what they do, they aren’t men.  So they set about tearing it all down, stamping out any symbol of manly pride.

Just as interesting is how resilient to this men are.  Once feminists break into an all male sphere and start marking their territory, men simply regroup.  Manly pride is real, and no amount of feminist foot stamping will make it truly go away.  Manly pride is something men impart on their institutions and creations, not something they merely receive from them.  Wherever there are men there will be manly pride, and there will also be a group of jealous feminists desperately trying to figure out how they can get in on the action.

While it is massively expensive, at least it is entertaining.

See also:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

135 Responses to Feminist territory marking.

  1. sunshinemary says:

    This is why feminists have so little interest in building up their own organizations. Being top woman doesn’t cut it. They want to break into an all male field; this is the only way for women to experience that feeling of manly pride. But the reward is fleeting. No matter what they do, they aren’t men.

    I’m not generally a believer in Freudian theory, but this seems to me to line up with his theory about penis envy, in which a little girl develops sexual impulses towards her mother but realizes that she does not have a penis, so she cannot have relations with another female. She then develops the desire to have a penis, with its concomitant power, like her father has. According to Freud, the normal course of development is then for the girl to develop sexual desire for her father and learn to mimic her mother so that she can replace her, and eventually the girl should develop into a normal female who desires men but not to be a man. It would seem that feminism gets stuck at the envy stage and never progresses, psychosexually speaking.

  2. ybm says:

    Reconcile this post to the presence of women in the MRM blogs. Its almost as if it can be matched 100%. Thus, men must ALWAYS default to the opinion that a woman is only agreeing with men because she wants something from them.

  3. lavazza1891 says:

    Journalism is definitively going that way. In Sweden it has even happened in the clergy. The new all male arenas are in the internet, like internet poker and gaming, or extreme sports. The trades still hold strong, whereas industry jobs have moved abroad.

  4. deti says:

    And consider the reverse.

    Men are not allowed into most women’s spaces (traditional female occupations such as secretary, nurse, flight attendant, grammar school or junior high teacher). If men do go into those spaces, several things happen:

    1. Shaming from both men and women. Questioning of their sexual orientation.
    2. Sharp demarcation of male and female spaces.
    3. Rigid exclusion of men from a few inner sanctums of the “female space”. He can go most places, but there are several “most holy places” that he dare not tread, ever.
    4. Insistence that men tone down their personalities, voices, viewpoints and behaviors to make themselves more palatable to the women who form the majority. In other words, an insistence that they neuter and feminize themselves to better “fit in”.

    This last point can also be seen on some female-run blogs, in which men are invited to share their views. Then when men do share unvarnished, no holds barred views, men are told to pipe down and/or shamed.

    Women demand full admission to male spaces. Men are allowed only limited admission to female spaces. When admission is granted, it is limited, and then only when the men make themselves “acceptable” to the majority female population. Unless he’s hot. In which case he can be and do and say whatever he wants.

  5. Dalrock says:

    There is a key difference though Deti. Men don’t crave to break into female spaces.

  6. Feminist Hater says:

    Oh Deti, we men who share our ‘unvarnished’ views are not just shamed or told to pipe down. We are outright banned for speaking our minds in a woman’s domain. Equality is a game the wimmenz love to play till they get dealt a hand that hurts and then they get Daddy Government to get involved and take the man’s hand away and give it to the wimmenz. Daddy Government makes sure that equality is nothing of the sort and little princess must always get what she wants.

    I believe TFH said something along the lines of, ‘this is why Democracy always leads to a feminist dictatorship’. Men love independence, women love dependence.

    Perhaps this helps.

    Men + vote = small government and independence.
    Women + vote = big government and dependency/welfare

  7. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “There is a key difference though Deti. Men don’t crave to break into female spaces.”

    Which lays bare why men and women will never be “equal”.

  8. Looking Glass says:

    If children’s literature is any guide, men find female spaces insanely boring. (Girls will read books intended for Boys; Boys will essentially never read books intended for Girls. This is the reason children’s movies are all action-adventure flicks. There’s about 100 years of sales data behind it.)

  9. ray says:

    Reconcile this post to the presence of women in the MRM blogs. Its almost as if it can be matched 100%. Thus, men must ALWAYS default to the opinion that a woman is only agreeing with men because she wants something from them

    lol thats pretty rich coming from here!

    physicians, heal thyselves

  10. sunshinemary says:

    There is a key difference though Deti. Men don’t crave to break into female spaces.

    Right. I think “craving” is the correct word. It’s an irrational desire to be (like) a man, and I think all of us experience it once in a while. It is not, by the way, a particularly pleasant feeling. Wanting something that feels so bad to want is probably why feminists are so screechy about it, too…they have to convince themselves that their entry into an all-male sphere is for the greater good, not just fulfilling a personal/sexual desire.

  11. deti says:

    @ Feminist Hater:

    “Oh Deti, we men who share our ‘unvarnished’ views are not just shamed or told to pipe down. We are outright banned for speaking our minds in a woman’s domain.”

    Yes. It’s unequal because in this scenario, men are INVITED in to talk. Then when they do what they were invited in to do, they are shamed or told to simmer down or kicked out. The attitude is “you’re here by invitation. Behave and do as you’re told, or I can get rid of you.”

    In Dalrock’s scenario, women force their way in or demand that any requirements be lowered or relaxed to allow them to qualify. Once in, they can’t be forced out.

  12. Feminist Hater says:

    I also think it’s unequal because feminists don’t just barge in, they demand that there be absolutely no ‘men only’ places, scholarships and so on and then go blithely ahead and get government subsidies to create ‘women only’ places, scholarships, gender studies and so on. In their warped minds that’s all well and good because women are good and men are evil.

    It’s hypocrisy of the highest order.

  13. jodark says:

    “Oh Deti, we men who share our ‘unvarnished’ views are not just shamed or told to pipe down. We are outright banned for speaking our minds in a woman’s domain.”

    As someone who frequents a certain Gawker Car Blog, I can say with sincerity that any time a Car commenter goes to visit the Jezebians, even by invitation, they have to tread extremely carefully due to how restrictive and cruel their commenting policy is. Any jokes that are remotely insulting to anything will earn a ban. They literally have no sense of humor nor any sense of fairness in discourse.

    When women control the discourse, tyranny is guarantee.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @sunshinemary

    Right. I think “craving” is the correct word. It’s an irrational desire to be (like) a man, and I think all of us experience it once in a while. It is not, by the way, a particularly pleasant feeling. Wanting something that feels so bad to want is probably why feminists are so screechy about it, too…they have to convince themselves that their entry into an all-male sphere is for the greater good, not just fulfilling a personal/sexual desire.

    Interesting. This fits with how it seems on the outside. I think most men can empathize with women here even though they don’t have a shared experience. This is probably why men go along with this part of feminism.

  15. deti says:

    Not only are men invited into some female blogs, but there is an overt quality to it. The sent message is “We women want to learn from you men. We value you and your opinions, and we want to hear what you have to say. We want to have an open, honest dialogue with you.” Then when the men come in and take them at their word, the response is one of shock and indignation that the men would be honest; and one of offense at the bluntness of the statements. “You’re mean and nasty, being all honest like that! Don’t say things like that here. Go back to your men’s places if you want to say things like that.”

  16. As Ahcilles noted 2800 years ago, Honor comes from Zeus and Just Action, not the State and Corrupt Kings.

    Women’s flaw is that they seek to get their honor from the State, instead of God.

    The eberebenake central bankers lever the woman’s lust to transfer physical property to women and to the bankers lzozlozl who can only create fiat debt, and thus had to invent the feminist movement to convert it into physical property and goods, via divorce, alimony, corporate sexual harrasmnt laws, and a million, million other ways.

  17. ybm says:

    GBFM

    You feel the feminist movement was a creation of influences outside of women themselves? Why do you feel women were not capable of creating the movement? I don’t subscribe to the view that the ‘poor little women’ weren’t fully in control in climbing up on tucker max to get the fiat buxhex.

  18. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Women’s flaw is that they seek to get their honor from the State, instead of God.

    Natch.

    They can change the standard to achieve “honor” from the State. Shoot an arrow and draw a bullseye around it.

    God’s more inflexible, which is why they have to create LJBF Jesus.

  19. namae nanka says:

    “Once a woman has “broken in” to the all male field, the focus inevitably turns to marking the territory.”

    Need more women, then need more women in positions of authority or else! And of course to have more of these, the testosterone-poisoned environment must be changed. The pros of getting to control the males outweighing cons, if any. Girls would get better marks in single-sex schools, but it’s better to keep them in co-ed.
    It can have some positive effects, like better security for the workers because a woman’s injury/death is more likely to turn heads.

    “Any symbol which could be associated with manly pride must be clearly marked as feminine. ”

    The swedish military lion got his balls snipped off when women complained.

    “Just as interesting is how resilient to this men are. ”

    I am not that optimistic.

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wreckedestroyed-the-u-s-forest-service/

    It’s amazing how feminists can talk of end of men with a straight face, when it’s women who have copied men to the point of becoming epicene. The male-wannabes then want men to not become masculine or women to be feminine, so that they themselves can be called women with more legitimacy.

    Penis-envy? Apparently more prepubescent girls would like to be boys, than the other way round. and there was that ‘girls lose self-esteem book at puberty’ book because they find their bodies becoming weaker, while boys grow muscles (and funnily enough, then their maths scores start dropping).
    I don’t know how that would hold up today, what with younger boys being seen as stupid, and Title IX.

    “Reconcile this post to the presence of women in the MRM blogs. ”

    Yeah, rob/fedrz wrote of how earlier MRM forums got derailed because there were a few women in there, some even moderators and then it became wrong to do whatever they didn’t like.

  20. ray says:

    Yes. It’s unequal because in this scenario, men are INVITED in to talk. Then when they do what they were invited in to do, they are shamed or told to simmer down or kicked out

    you know, that scenario sounds familiar….

    you mean, like when someone calls out manipulative female behavior, then a few women enter the conversation and isolate the guy, and then the weakest male enters the fray . . . and THEN, oh yah baby THEN, the floodgates are open and the other guys n gals are free to take shots and work out their ‘personal issues’?

    eh? that type of scenario?

    whew! thank Goddess such a thing could never happen here, where men can speak freely and openly without concern of gang-up shaming and the ole kneejerk rally to “protect” the pore dearies from disagreers uh i mean Accused Abusers?

    talk aint walk and hitcounts aint heaven

  21. Twenty says:

    What, soldiers aren’t supposed to have boobs (or babies)? Soldiers aren’t supposed to appear nurturing?

    Pretty much, yeah.

  22. Dalrock says:

    @namea nanka

    “Just as interesting is how resilient to this men are. ”

    I am not that optimistic.

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wreckedestroyed-the-u-s-forest-service/

    Good link. Men are resilient, but the institutions aren’t always so resilient. Where possible men will retreat within an institution. So far I would say the military has been fairly effective here. But this is what drives feminists nuts. They won’t be able to sleep at night until women are breastfeeding on the front lines, in the plane before the combat jump, etc. Eventually they very much could turn the military into just another government jobs program, another pink ghetto. But even then, not only will they not have the feeling of manly pride they obsessed over but they still won’t be able to stop men from feeling it. I almost feel sorry for them.

  23. koevoet says:

    Breast-feeding soldiers? Who do they think they are? Phung Thi Chinh? Sometimes women at war are effective, but it is usually a last ditch sort of thing – which is precisely why it is effective. Desperation is the best motivation.

  24. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock, I guess when they’re dying in the trenches, getting their legs and arms blown off by mines, grenades, mortars and shells, their fingers worked to the bone, fumbling about in water a meter and a half deep, full of disease, lice and rats. Picking apart dead bodies to find any clue as to who once owned that body so as to be able to tell the deceased family. To have to amputate an arm or a leg with a rusty saw within ten minutes because the next 20 patients are crying in pain. When the only sedative for pain is a couple drinks of whiskey, which also happens to be the only cleaning agent available to clean wounds and the surgical tools. To do this while the mountain of limbs are reaching into the sky and all the blood is in your eyes and hair and you’re so tired you could sleep for years before feeling ‘normal’ again…

    I guess when they are doing that, whilst breast feeding, they will be able to sleep at night…

  25. Josh says:

    Hmm, I’ve been cooking up an argument very similar to this myself, but I’ve approached it from a different angle. Dalrock, I’d be interested to hear what you think.

    The ultimate aim is of the feminist program is masculine power and status for women. The core asymmetry is that while women value a man based on his status among men, men value women almost entirely independently of her status among women. While many popular women are certainly attractive, her popularity is fundamentally irrelevant to her attractiveness, although her attractiveness may have increased her popularity. For a woman to be valued among men, she must be attractive to men. The feminist cannot stand this. Men can have it all (as male power and status creates female desire), while women must choose (as female “strength and independence” reduces male desire). The feminist, who aspires to power and status, finds this unfair.

    What, then, is the feminist solution? The first and most obvious one is to shame men into pretending that they care about female status. This has been and will always be obviously unsuccessful.

    The second solution is to colonize any institutions of male power and status. However, this will fundamentally be a chase without end. Male power is created by any concentration of men. Anywhere you can find a group of organized men, you will find male power. For certain reasons (the actual reasons are too complex to summarize here – read “Is there anything good about men?” by Roy F. Baumeister) men can form complex, hierarchical, self-sustaining organizations much more easily than women. Anything from GM, Google, or the US Army, to bowling leagues, hunting clubs. and packs of little boys in the playground.

    The feminist aim is to conquer these institutions, to appropriate that male power for themselves. However, intentionally or not, their very presence feminizes those institutions. They just can’t help themselves. The power of that institution begins to erode, and it is left as a statist, status-quo institution, desperately trying to hold on to whatever status it once had. Name any institution that is majority-female, and you have an institution that is in decline. The only exception are feminist-organizations lobbying for feminists causes – NOW, Girl Scouts, etc.

    What do the men do when their organizations are compromised? They form new ones that become the new centers of power. Think of all the transformative organizations of the past thirty years – Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook – and all the transformative organizations of the near future – SpaceX, Scaled Composites, XCOR – and you can easily see that they had the most impact as male-dominated organizations. Now, of course, the feminists are clamoring for a female on the board of Facebook, and more representation at Google. They will undoubtedly succeed, and these businesses will begin to decline.

    But it will be an eternal chase for them. Every flower they pick will begin to wither and die, once it is divorced from the roots and soil of male ambition and adventurism. New flowers will bloom, and they will rush to pick those….and on and on.

  26. Crank says:

    @dalrock
    “Men don’t crave to break into female spaces.”

    I can think of a few that I’ve craved to break into. :)

  27. Ray Manta says:

    Dalrock wrote:
    There is a key difference though Deti. Men don’t crave to break into female spaces.

    GirlWritesWhat on Youtube has a video called “The Tyranny Of Female Hypoagency”. It’s the best explanation that I’ve seen about why women try to break into all-male spaces. In summary, she believes women have an innate suspicion of activities that they don’t see as directly involving or benefiting them.

  28. Opus says:

    @Ray Manta

    That is a very interesting idea, but how does one square that with the fact that if my interest is, collecting comics, or building model railways, or studying the legs of Cockroaches, women have zero interest therein? Why is it that only certain male activities are of obsessive interest to women? Does it have something to with money and status?

    The only activities women seem to be interested in are shopping, going to the Gym – and largely to sit in the sauna or steamroom, and eating out – three things I am entirely indifferent to.

    As a child at Primary School we did not play with the girls (we only wanted to play soccer) and I don’t recall their being interested in playing with us. Our only interest in the girls was to persuade them to jump off the wall in the hope that their skirts would turn into parachutes – which despite some faux protesting they seemed only too happy to oblige.

  29. sunshinemary says:

    Deti wrote: “You’re mean and nasty, being all honest like that! Don’t say things like that here. Go back to your men’s places if you want to say things like that.”

    I think that is why there are some women who read MRA blogs. I know it’s why I do. “Don’t say things like that here” tends to mean “Don’t say true stuff that upsets me.” Some women, even if it isn’t many, would like to hear true things but the options for hearing it are few and far between.

  30. Comment_Whatever says:

    Women in the military is the perfect example of what I’m talking about with everyone pulling their punches when talking to women. YES EVEN YOU.

    This discussion should start and stop with this:.
    “Women are cowards, and they are especially afraid of physical danger.”

    There. See? Done. Oh wait, pumpkin will say it “isn’t like that”. Women are willing to risk their lives!

    Then you say this:
    Men are more than 10 times as likely to die at work than women. Given the ratios, most female deaths are probably freak accidents/deliberate homicides. In other words, deaths that even the most finally tuned cowardice is unlikely to be able to avoid.

    Cowards are menaces on the battlefield… to their own side. So women have no place on the battlefield.

    See? That was mean, but true.

  31. Pingback: Feminism and the Decline of an Institution - The Spearhead

  32. gdgm+ says:

    Not only do women crave male power (prestige, or “privilege”), they will even disparage their own sons for not agreeing with the feminist message. In the Ann-Marie Slaughter tradition (which Dalrock wrote about in “Why?”) here’s another example, starting with this:

    My sons are collectively a sexist bunch, and I cannot quite pinpoint why that is. Their doctors–pediatric urologists, developmental pediatricians, pediatric ENTs, two of three pediatricians–have all been women. They are surrounded on all sides by women who hold advanced degrees, some in science or medicine, who have careers, who have demonstrated the possibilities. Yet they will still assume that women can’t do certain things that men can. They’ve said–after all those doctors–that women can’t be doctors. We’ve even argued over whether or not women can pee standing up. Of course, we can. It’s just harder for us to hit the tree

    .

    And then later:

    … It was then that I commented to them yet again that I am a feminist and that their father is a feminist, adding this time that we fully expected that they, too, would be feminists. And here’s what my oldest, age 10, said: “I’m a boy. Why would I need to be a feminist?”

    I think the URL is from a past _Spearhead_ thread, but I found the post to be so strange and cranky that I bookmarked it a while ago.

  33. an observer says:

    Jobs for women coming up.

    There are rumours that military members will be deployed to maintain domestic law and order.
    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/warning-shots-will-not-be-fired-army-manual-outlines-plan-to-kill-rioters-demonstrators-in-america_072012?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

    Ideal jobs for women. Shoot a few rioters and be home in time to breastfeed.

    I can see marketing opportunities, too. With the all new BreastPak (TM), go on patrol and pump breast milk, simultaneously.

    Seriously. What woman could resist some multitasking peacekeeping? Spread joy, peace and love at the tip of an m16. Then home to feed junior and watch reruns of oprah, whilst the almighty state guarantees a paycheck.

    Question, though. From this utopia of fema camps and hollow point ammo, which state will be the first to attempt secession?

  34. Ray Manta says:

    Opus wrote:
    That is a very interesting idea, but how does one square that with the fact that if my interest is, collecting comics, or building model railways, or studying the legs of Cockroaches, women have zero interest therein?

    Those are low-status, “invisible” activities, as perceived by women. At least they are now. Some formerly nearly all-male haunts, such as the Dragoncon convention, have had a recent influx of women.

    Why is it that only certain male activities are of obsessive interest to women? Does it have something to with money and status?

    Yes, I believe you’re right about that. Once male activities cross a threshold of visibility and status, women will want in on them. They perceive the men participating in them as being useful to them. That’s why they campaign to become members of the Augusta golf club while they ignore the comic-book collecting geeks.

    Once they’ve gotten in, they’ll demand that men change their behavior to suit them. Look no further than that for the reason behind campus speech codes or workplace sexual harassment policies.

    Sometimes, they’ll simply try and get all-male clubs and activities outlawed or shut down instead of just invading them. Carry Nation in the 19th century and the Temperance movement (which led to Prohibition) are examples of that. Same is true for the pre-Internet anti-pornography campaigns. I think the reason they tried to get them banned is because they found them too distasteful to participate in.

    In summary, the types of male spaces or activities that have some protection from female invasion are those that likely have one or more of the following attributes :
    (1) Are (currently) low in status. Comic book collecting or model trains are good examples.
    (2) Very new/cutting edge. Roald Amundson’s 1911 expedition expedition to the South Pole did not have any women tagging along. Same is true for Neil Armstrong’s journey to the moon.
    (3) Very dangerous/physically demanding/difficult. Warren Farrell noted that the common denominator of the worst jobs was that they were 95-100% male. For similar reasons, the mixed martial arts class I used to take resembled a monastery.

    There may be other factors that would prevent women from trying to participate; I’ll have to give it some more thought.

  35. la-la-la says:

    Dalrock, off topic but you really need to watch mars needs moms – the ending will surprise you. *****spoiler alert**** the matriarchy that controls Mars is destroyed.

  36. freebird says:

    Females in combat will cost more male deaths,and that’s a high price to pay for political correctness.
    There was a Dirty Harry movie from the early 70′s that said the same thing about women detectives/officers.
    That is one point I like to make often,that the cops who enforce misandrist laws are at risk from those for whom they are benefiting/knighting.
    Sunshinemary, I did enjoy your post about female psycho sexual development.
    It seems the ages of 3 months to 3 years are the most formative for emotions/personality.
    Basically, it requires a good fathers balancing touch to from a healthy female.
    Another hidden causality of single mothers/weak fathers.
    It may be “naughty” to say it,but boys need to discover female parts early,and girls need to discover male parts early,I am talking normal,safe interaction, not the default presumption of molestation,that is precisely what has jammed the gears of normal expression and hence subsequent development.Another self fulfilling prophecy from the subversive destructors.

  37. freebird says:

    Ever notice how little girls crave to climb on young men who visit the household?
    Or say things like “I love you,lets get married” at a precocious age?
    That is a normal curiosity,however embarrassing it may be.
    To set up the frame where such curiosity is demonized only makes them morbidly
    immature,and paranoid about male sexuality.

  38. freebird says:

    Of course those reading that will think that fellows a perv.
    Not at all.
    Sad to have to avoid all interaction with children,even in a life-saving predicament.
    Let’s face it,the corruption is in the negative perception.

  39. freebird says:

    Of course, the woman breastfeeding a 9 year old makes the cover of Time magazine.
    There is the double standard.
    The female cannot compose the entire sexuality of both sexes,however hard they do try to monopolize that.
    They know exactly the outcome of such unnatural tenancies.

  40. I once broke into a female space. I had a girl invite me to see Elizabeth Gilbert, of Eat Pray Love fame. Being the fearless warrior and researcher I am, I actually read the book before I went to see her blather about her subsequent book.

    I went to the liberal stronghold of the People’s Republic of Boulder to behold it. I stuffed some cedar chips in my pocket to confuse the hamsters so they would not drop any turds on me.

    The book and the conference were equally useless and excruciating. It was horrible.

    I was the only man in the entire auditorium. I feared for my life, yet I emerged unscathed, as the hamsters were too distracted with fantasies of leaving their husbands for exotic dudes. I snuck out the back before they could detect my alpha greatness and converge upon me.

    not one girl in the whole place ranked over a 6, and most of them were warpigs.

    next time I’ll dress like a biker and grow a goatee so that I can disrupt the whole process. Don’t worry, I’ll bring some mace and some hamster nukes.

  41. Miserman says:

    I wonder if the female obssession with male fields has something to do with strength. Male strength is something that is strong while being devoid of the feminine. It seems to me that women find male strength threatening not because it is actually dangerous to them, but because it exceeds their sphere of control by not requiring feminine input.

    Just a thought.

  42. an observer says:

    I think Josh made a good point. Feminist colonisation of male spheres seems to invariably lead to culture change, HR departments and mandatory safety training for stapler usage.

    Women want what men have, but their efforts to appropriate it are doomed to failure. They cannot resist attempts to take over and control. The men either leave or adapt to the new conditions. And secretly ridicule the pathetic changes that come from feminist colonisation.

  43. Joshua says:

    That Josh is not this Joshua. So everyone here knows.

  44. greenlander says:

    +1 Dalrock. Simply brilliant and fascinating analysis.

    Silicon Valley (where I lived and worked for a long time until recently) is still a mostly-male affair. Women simply don’t have enough innate ability in logical processes to do much there. Female engineers are almost always mediocre. Occasionally they are competent. They are almost never exceptional.

    The only way for them to be successful is to put them in support roles (human resources, marketing, etc) where their output can’t be so easily measured so their lack of exceptionalism is less visible.

  45. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    It seems to me that women find male strength threatening not because it is actually dangerous to them, but because it exceeds their sphere of control by not requiring feminine input.

    This would explain women who crave breaking into the gay male culture.

  46. ybm says:

    Of course, the utilization of males, whether in violence, work, or resources is the defining characteristic of gender-interaction. It always has been, and it (likely) always will be. It is only Wishful Thinking on the part of men that deny its existence: the 80% of the male population, the so-called betas. The men with the both highest, and lowest desirability traits (so-called alphas and omegas) are aware of these facts. One due to experience, the other due to introspection.

  47. pb says:

    “But it will be an eternal chase for them. Every flower they pick will begin to wither and die, once it is divorced from the roots and soil of male ambition and adventurism. New flowers will bloom, and they will rush to pick those….and on and on.”

    Men need to strengthen their informal networks (we still have freedom of association, at least) and for the times to come.

  48. ray says:

    +1 Dalrock. Simply brilliant and fascinating analysis

    yeah a good piece

    but talk’s cheap

    if men online ANONYMOUSLY are so easily manipulable by a couple average-intellect females, then what happens elsewhere, when the female is standing, hands on hips and teeth clenched, right in front of you?

    i know what happens, and so do you

    same for the office, the school or college, and on and on

    if men cant overcome their cowardice and petty jealousies on the anon net, what chance does an actual man (assuming any are left) have in “real life”?

    i’ve seen the evidence everywhere in this country — guys are quite content to let the Other Guy be singled out and hang — or to help tie the knots — then all go merrily and profitably about their way, explaining to themselves that the shameful unmanliness they just demonstrated didnt really happen . . . wasnt really their fault . . . heck, was a Good Thing, actually!

    clearly, Rationalization Hamsters come in two genders

    letting your brothers be cut out one-by-one by women and their various organizations and State is exactly what allowed the matriarchy to seize america, and the rest of the west

    heck, he’s just an Abuser, anyway . . . exactly as our friend suze said, fits the Abuser Type . . . doubtless a Criminal as well

    then, eventually, comes YOUR turn (oh yes it will!) and you dont understand why other men wont stand against female cunning with you, and peel off into Safetyland

    one actual act of disobedience to The Female Imperative, even online, is worth a hundred well-crafted, popular blog posts about relationships

    western women already KNOW you cant stand up to them, and that is precisely why they rule over you

    properly so, too

  49. Phantasmagoria says:

    No offence to any women who may read this (because I don’t want to set off a “trigger warning” for supposed misogyny), but I think the standards are there for a reason.

    I mean, lets look at the fire department. Standards are there for a reason. If my house is on fire and I’m incapacitated from smoke, you better believe that I want a big, burly fireman capable of getting me out of the house. If you have to lower standards because people are whining about equality, then you’re putting lives at risk.

    It’s not applicable to every situation, but honestly. Men and women are not equal, no matter how much wishing goes on to the contrary.

  50. Phantas….they have a rebuttal for that fire fighter issue, likely many, but the one I saw just recently at equality central was to just obfuscate the matter by saying we shouldnt care who does the job so long as they can….which in effect is what we say, but its , I dont know, heard differently, its maddening. Or, “my BIL is the weak one, his wife can carry him”…the typical narcissistic reflex to make everything fit the tiny sphere that is their life

  51. BlackCat says:

    Dalrock: There is a key difference though Deti. Men don’t crave to break into female spaces.

    Bingo. We make our own spaces. And that women are unable to make their own spaces that they can be satisfied with, and instead insist on trying to take over others’ spaces to vicariously experience that which they are apparently unable to create by themselves, speaks worlds.

    Phantasmagoria: No offence to any women who may read this (because I don’t want to set off a “trigger warning” for supposed misogyny)

    Why do you preface a statement about what you believe to be true with a weak apologetic? And as a semi-anonymous comment on a manosphere blog, no less. Grow some balls.

  52. Phantasmagoria says:

    Because I was being sarcastic about the whole trigger warning thing usually being used to denote any opinion which doesn’t pander to feminazi standards.

  53. Phanta, never apologise for so-called misogyny. Misogyny is a pretty good pantie-wetter anyway. There are women reading what you write, and they moisten when you are frank and masculine; and dry up when you apologise. Never apologise for being a man or having manly opinions.

  54. A♠ says:

    @Dalrock,

    To be fair to Deti, women don’t really want to break into male spaces as much as they want to get into the male line-of-sight.

    It’s simply the old “I am woman, hear me rationalize roar!”

    Along with their neo-tribalist chant of “It takes a village to raise a child!” (sure, if you want to live in a village as opposed to an industrialized city, but I digress…) they’ve somehow picked up the [equally primitive] belief that by (metaphorically) eating their opponents’ hearts, they will gain their power.

    In the end, the internet will not be the undoing of feminism because of men’s new-found communication.

    Rather, the internet will be the undoing of feminism because of women’s omnipresent and unceasing self-advertising, narcissism/solipsism and attention seeking.

    The work of 10′s of thousands of years to construct the “feminine mystique” will be obliterated in less than a handful of decades..

    While I certainly would damn near give my soul to know 20 years ago the information I’ve read over the past 5, I can honestly say that had I even FaKebook (er, Facebook) to show me the raw, unrestrained female id or a series like HBO’s Girls I’d have changed many of my worst habits overnight.

    Simply because I’d see women as the flawed, fallible human beings as they are.

    Likely, no worse than I.

    But, without a doubt, no better.

  55. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Mid-July Edition « Patriactionary

  56. Comment_Whatever says:

    Lot of tough talk.

    Nobody agreeing to the transparently obvious fact that women are cowards though.

    Then again, even I am pulling my punches here, to men and women. Nobody really wants to here the truth.

    Let’s take Obama’s massive give-away to the insurance companies. It’s just like car insurance right? Except that you have to buy insurance for things besides emergency care. So you are forced to buy insurance for things that no one but you will ever have to pay for. So it’s kinda not like car insurance at all.

    But it doesn’t stop there. Oh no. young men are required to pay the same amount as those with “pre-existing conditions”(oldsters) and hypochondriacs(women). Can you imagine the whining in Proud Old Thief and Proud Independent Pay-My-Bills Women land if car insurance forced them to pay the same rates as young men? Equality is only great when it benefits Old Thieves and Women. When it benefits them, they can be proud supporters of Individual Responsibility, like with car insurance. That’s why company based health insurance was such an easy sell to. PURE selfishness.

    Who among the “proud defenders of men” will even remember these facts five minutes from now?

  57. CedarFever says:

    By the time I enlisted in the AF in the late ’80s, it was already the most PC branch of the armed services. The double standard was obvious even to a naive young airman such as myself: women simply were not held to the standards that the men were – from fitness, uniform violations, and technical skill to simple things like being able to carry a small tool box out to the launch truck – or, hell, having a sense of urgency. This courtesy of relaxed standards was not extended to the men.

    You want to talk about them marking their territory? Good God, the older female NCO’s thought they were your mother. More than once, I was advised (directly and through anecdote) to watch what I said around females in the shop. Combat mothers? Ha! Getting pregnant was an instant ticket to shop-only duty, manning the radios and doing paperwork.

    One female tech in my squadron was so timid and unqualified that she was put to work as a secretary for the commander. There is no way she should have ever been placed in a technical AFSC and then kept there through the end of training. That’s more than a year of training and several hundred thousand dollars wasted. Of all the women I encountered, I can think of only one who was competent at her job to the level that the men were. For this, she earned the genuine respect of the shop.

    But by holding them to the same standards that the men have to meet, most women will not be able to hack it. The feminists simply cannot admit this truth. The extent to which reality is thwarted is an indulgence of our prosperity. When the bill comes due, it will be painful.

    ***

    True story: the ONLY time I ever witnessed a C-5 have to go-around and make another try at a PARKING SPOT on the ramp: female AC. Blonde.

  58. Anacaona says:

    That is a very interesting idea, but how does one square that with the fact that if my interest is, collecting comics, or building model railways, or studying the legs of Cockroaches, women have zero interest therein? Why is it that only certain male activities are of obsessive interest to women? Does it have something to with money and status?

    Give it time to the model trains and warhammer. Women are already demanding comic books to stop being “sexist” and we all know the video game controversy. So is a matter of time.
    As a personal anecdote as long time comic book fan the tiny amount of girls that were into that when I was younger couldn’t care less about how the women looked. We were busy enjoying the stories and drooling over the “perfectly drawn males” So my guessing is that the women that are bitching about this being a problem are not real fans and are just looking for some cause to support so they can feel their lives have some meaning and that they are advancing “women’s rights to bitch”, the same women that complain about how scantily clad the females on video games are dressed are probably doing slut walks the morning after, YMMV.

  59. Kai says:

    “empathologicalism says:
    Phantas….they have a rebuttal for that fire fighter issue, likely many, but the one I saw just recently at equality central was to just obfuscate the matter by saying we shouldnt care who does the job so long as they can…”

    If that’s what they actually stood by, I wouldn’t have a problem. I *don’t* care who rescues me. I *do* care that the person can actually do it. If I need to be carried out of a burning building, I want my rescuer to be able to comfortably pick me up and carry me out. If a 120lb woman was truly capable of that, I wouldn’t mind it. But the reality is, that’s not the case. And it’s a rare woman of any size who’s going to be able to do so. And yes, there are small, weak men who couldn’t pull me out either. If it were truly about getting the job done, a single standard would be set (and it would accurately reflect the possible demands of the job), and they would consider only those who made it through – which would be few to no women, and only a selection of men – probably including more blacks than asians.
    But the wording is complete BS, and equality of results is more important than capability. Seriously concerning when lives are at stake. Hell, you’d think more women would be concerned about their own potentially-threatened lives than about appeasing the desires of a few other women…

  60. lavazza1891 says:

    Kai: “Hell, you’d think more women would be concerned about their own potentially-threatened lives than about appeasing the desires of a few other women…”

    I guess they know that the real job will be done by men anyway. I don’t think they think hypocrisy will not be applied.It’s never done in other situations, so why here?

  61. Tarl says:

    I don’t think the desires to be be (like) one of the guys (experience manly pride) and to mark all spaces as feminine (extinguish manly pride) are “primal” in the sense of being inherent in the female nature. You never find these desires expressed before the 20th century; the idea of women in combat would have rightly seemed laughable to previous generations. These desires are products of modern Leftist ideology, which is a relentlessly aggressive and destructive force.

  62. G says:

    That is a very interesting idea, but how does one square that with the fact that if my interest is, collecting comics, or building model railways, or studying the legs of Cockroaches, women have zero interest therein? Why is it that only certain male activities are of obsessive interest to women? Does it have something to with money and status?

    Look at the way the word “geek” was appropriated and re-appropriated:

    1970: Low status male. Circus freak.
    1990: High status individual within hierarchical subculture of male engineers and programmers.
    2010: Everyone on the Internet self-defining as geek: Girl geek, coffee geek, movie geek.

    Not coincidentally, between 1990 and 2010, there was an internet boom where IT geeks came out of the basement and were seen to have some power and influence in the world.

  63. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    @ray
    letting your brothers be cut out one-by-one by women and their various organizations and State is exactly what allowed the matriarchy to seize america, and the rest of the west

    heck, he’s just an Abuser, anyway . . . exactly as our friend suze said, fits the Abuser Type . . . doubtless a Criminal as well

    then, eventually, comes YOUR turn (oh yes it will!) and you dont understand why other men wont stand against female cunning with you, and peel off into Safetyland

    Truth.
    In my friend’s divorce, it was easy to spot where it broke down. She was a fall-down drunk.
    My divorce involved two people active in the church/community, although I was a bit more active and for a bit longer. When she filed the abuse charge…BAM…I was cut off. In the realm of he said/she said, the guys who I camped with, drank with, etc. covered their nuts and looked away. When I contacted the priest to discuss the situation and the impending divorce, he shrugged over the phone and said there’s not much he could do (the ex is Catholic, I am not).
    The men who stuck around were the single/divorced guys.
    It was a clarifying moment. I hear you, ray.
    From that point forward, when I spoke out, the wives whispered, “He’s bitter because his wife kicked him out” and the husbands nodded. You see, because I was “kicked out” of the marriage, men can rationalize that I was the one unworthy of marital commitment, unworthy of my ex-wife. Wives keep their husband away from the undesirable man as the next guy is getting set up for the beating.

  64. bskillet81 says:

    Wives keep their husband away from the undesirable man as the next guy is getting set up for the beating.

    Vitally important, for all the other wives planning to kick their husbands out of their homes, that their husbands don’t suspect a thing. You are the threat to their cash and prizes. No doubt many of the women in question are addicted to divornography and saw your ex-wife’s example as a good case study. Because several of them plan now to do the same thing to their husbands (for cash and prizes), they have to make sure their husbands don’t catch on.

  65. bskillet81 says:

    The primary way feminists mark their territory is by removing rewards for performance. This works well in industries where performance can only be defined nebulously. It does not work in places where performance is clear-cut and objective, because in those cases, it quickly becomes explicitly clear what they’re doing.

    The tale of Annika Sorenstam is a great example. Famous female golfer. Had to force her way on to the PGA tour. Immediately and repeatedly got walloped by the professional men, the worst of whom can out drive her by 30 yards. But in her case, there was no marking her territory: Competition is the product sold by the PGA, and lowering the standards for who can play is the same as drastically degrading the product.

    It is no coincidence that Sorenstam did it only after Tiger Woods had come in and completely revolutionized golf, making it a mainstream sport by radically raising the standards of performance.

  66. Dalrock says:

    @Bskillet81

    No doubt many of the women in question are addicted to divornography and saw your ex-wife’s example as a good case study.

    divornography Great term. I was talking with an older woman a week or so ago and the topic of divorce and fatherless children came up. She used all of the old classics about how women had children out of wedlock because they were tricked by men (never because they wanted to), men left their wives for younger models, etc. She couldn’t accept that women are driving divorce and fatherlessness. Nothing I said of course made any difference. Until I mentioned that divorce fantasy is only sold to women and pointed out that there is no male counterpart to EPL, etc. She was stunned, and actually said “I’d never thought of that”.

  67. Dal, not sure if you caught this little bit of irony:

    ..servicewomen, Terran Echegoyen-McCabe,..

    There is no more blatant an effort at feminist territory marking than women hyphenating their surnames.

    [D: Good catch.]

  68. Apollo says:

    Soldiers aren’t supposed to appear nurturing?

    No. No, they are not. I wonder if the person who said this understands what a soldiers job actually involves.

  69. alphamission says:

    Im a bit late on this, but i think the Jewish/feminist connection makes a lot of sense, and i dont believe its a conspiracy, just like i dont believe the feminine imperative is a conspiracy. Judiasm is the measure by which most of the world understands patriarchy and masculine dominance. Feminism is the ultimate rebellion against masculine authority, and ultimately a rebellion against God. Look how many Jewish athiests there are.

  70. from http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy75.htm

    “The “governors” are the world’s wealthiest industrialists and bankers. Their one-world government hands all power and control of people, land, water, food, human health, children and education, employment, militaries, and economic potential directly to themselves and their personal fortunes. Over and over and over again, when you tie corporate wealth and power to governing agencies, you have Fascism. However, the long-term goal of a one-world government has always been to bring Communism to fruition on a global scale. So, today, we see a hybrid Fascist-Communist system by Three E design, and it is bitterly obvious in every nation on the planet. Almost all global economies are crashing by design, and particularly America’s economy. Note that America’s elite pulled their investments out of the U.S. years ago.

    The feminist piece of the global puzzle deals specifically with depopulation through women’s “healthcare,” big pharma, and the “mental health” industrial complex. Women’s rights are now defined by the right to abort, the right to be drafted, and the right to take drugs that will render women and children incapable of bearing children. And just as many women worldwide earned the right to own property, that right has now fallen to other plans, which state that no “individual” may own private property.

    Also, one must note that the industrial and banking powers that be are mostly men – the men whose dynastic families created their one-world government of choice. And these same men also created the feminist movement in order to curb the tendencies of commoners to breed and out-number them billions to one. The feminist movement is based upon political lies and the control of reproduction. “Sustainable” nature is also based upon enforcing a remarkable decline in birth rates. I assure you this enforcement will not fall upon the world’s elite.

    Equally, and thanks to the help of the feminist movement, “mental health” has taken center stage in the lives of women and children in the United States. It is estimated that 25 million American women are now taking “anti-depressants.” In the 1980’s and 1990’s, it became chic to seek “therapy.” Women ran in droves to see “therapists” and to tell their social circles they were taking anti-depressants. The mental health complex has now arrived in every American school, and they are now arriving in America’s daycare centers. The main impetus for the mental health “advocates” is to screen and profile America’s families to see if they are religious, procreating, and if they are mainstreaming into new government citizens. All children who fall short are then redirected to the mental health industries, which then feed the big pharma complex, which 1) drugs children, and 2) determines who will be “fit” to reproduce in the future. Let us also wonder if the mass drugging of children – and new vaccines specifically targeted to pubescent female children – will not result in future “problems” with reproductive health.

    In today’s new world, women are also “checked” for mental health issues during and following pregnancy. In a nutshell of truth, women are profiled for the number of pregnancies, the health of pregnancies and babies, and genetically data based. This we are to call “liberation.”

    Today’s “liberated” women are still raising children – many of which are raising children alone – and they are working one or two jobs to make end’s meet. Today’s “liberated” women are obsessed with weight, beauty, divorce, money, spending money, and careers to make money. They are far less concerned with their children, who are now raised in state-controlled (government) daycare centers, federally controlled (government) public schools, and state controlled (government) universities. In other words, the government is raising our children in ways that the government sees fit – the government of the world’s industrialists and world bankers. Your children are being raised by and into the new world order, while you are working to support the new world order rather than your children. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Take a pill. You will feel much better – or, perhaps, nothing much at all. ”

    –http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy75.htm

  71. “Anonymous sex dehumanizes us by negating our emotional and spiritual nature and needs. This is why the Illuminati bankers reduce all relationships to sex or money.

    The Illuminati bankers want us to define ourselves as purely physical creatures with physical needs, without souls or connection to the Creator.

    Why? They want to be God. This is the ultimate meaning of the New World Order. ”

    –http://www.henrymakow.com/eight_reasons_to_have_one-night.html

  72. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    No doubt many of the women in question are addicted to divornography and saw your ex-wife’s example as a good case study.

    I have no doubt. Two of the women who cheered my wife toward divorce have the same “abused as a child” baggage my ex carries around. I think the only thing keeping the two in the marriage is that one is waiting for her (older) husband to retire from the state and collect his pension and the other is married to a guy who can’t make more than $10 an hour. I’d accuse them of turning away, but I never got along with them (manginas, ruled by ugly women).

    I honestly feel my ex was sold the divorce fantasy from friends at work and never expected me to fight back because the husbands from her work friends didn’t. In truth, I was ready to roll over during the first week, but my friend (married to the fall down drunk) slapped sense into me. If he wasn’t there, I am certain I would’ve given in too early and be left paying $10-15K a year in support, begging for time to see my sons, for about a decade. And she would flash her cash and prizes to all to receive the Facebook “high-5s” and the “You’re sooooo strong” posts.

    Early intervention is key. When a guy is hit with divorce, call him within two days and give him the best advice for his situation. Our natural instinct is to sit in our tent and wrap our heads around everything. It’s the wrong tactic because the first few days are crucial and he has to be moving forward immediately.

  73. imnobody says:

    From that point forward, when I spoke out, the wives whispered, “He’s bitter because his wife kicked him out” and the husbands nodded. You see, because I was “kicked out” of the marriage, men can rationalize that I was the one unworthy of marital commitment, unworthy of my ex-wife.

    And this is the main problem with men in the United States of America. They are completely and irremediably pussy-whipped. They believe everything a woman says, see woman as better than men and men as guilty of everybody that happens to a woman.

    In other countries, it’s different. This pussy-worshipping comes from the Victorian era and the history of feminism in the United States cannot be understood without it.

  74. deti says:

    Ray, rockthrowingpeasant:

    “letting your brothers be cut out one-by-one by women and their various organizations and State is exactly what allowed the matriarchy to seize america, and the rest of the west

    “then, eventually, comes YOUR turn (oh yes it will!) and you dont understand why other men wont stand against female cunning with you, and peel off into Safetyland”

    I have thought a little about this: that men in the Church and institutions reflexively take the position that a man is at fault every time in a divorce; women circling the wagons with the help of Church manginas and white knights. Perhaps worst of all, even men who know the truth slinking away, knowing their wives will browbeat and threaten them or turn off the sex spigot.

    What to do about this? I’m just throwing some things out there.

    1. Reintroducing the concept of shame. When I went through some, eh, marital difficulty, I made clear that if there were any change in our marital status, I would tell both our families of origin and our 12 year old daughter EXACTLY why, with no holds barred. I was going to publicize the reasons why and document it for anyone and everyone. I planned to tell everyone in no uncertain terms that I was not at fault. I would also tell our pastors and church leaders. I did this as well with a fellow couple that divorced — I told the pastors all I knew about the situation. They deserved to know as the couple was in church leadership and needed to be removed from active ministry.

    This is going to take time, since I frankly think that most adults in our society feel no shame at all in illicit sexual conduct or the busting up of a marriage for any reason. I am starting with my daughter who is entering young womanhood. I intend to tell her that if she engages in premarital sex, I’ll find out, I’ll know it, and I’ll deal with it accordingly. Yes, I will shame her. I will tell her she ought to be ashamed of herself and her conduct; and she must not repeat it.

    2. Ostracism of EPL and “unhaaaaappy” divorced women from society. Deny them employment. If she can’t be trusted to be loyal to a spouse, how can she be trusted to be a loyal, honest employee? There is no such thing as “public character” and “private character”, there is only “character”.

    Deny them volunteer positions. No woman who frivolously divorces should ever be permitted to serve in any kind of public ministry anywhere, ever. Excommunicate them or disfellowship them from churches. She can repent and make a public acknowledgment of her conduct and be returned to the fellowship of a church; but she must be barred from public ministry. Shun these women. Refuse to befriend them, do business with them or associate with them in any way. Publicize their conduct. Do not speak of it in hushed tones or be afraid to offend others. Speak of public facts publicly, matter of factly, and pointedly.

    There will be those who say “What about the men who do this? Do you advocate equal denials and shunning for them?” No, I don’t. Society already does these things to men. Whenever a man divorces, he is subjected to all the women and most of the men speaking to one another, gossiping in hushed tones, looking askance at him, wondering aloud what he did wrong; while the men literally step away from him. His friends and acquaintances say reservedly “Well, if there’s anything I can do…..” their voices trailing off as they back away, never to be heard from again. He loses friends left and right. His work performance suffers, forcing him to explain his personal life to his employers or suffer employer discipline. He is de facto forced into solitude and isolation.

    All I suggest is that we subject frivolously divorcing women to the same treatment as men; and hold them to the same standards as men.

  75. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    deti,
    I think that is one of the main reasons men turn from other men during divorce. Since it’s unsettling, I think that’s why they rationalize it by saying to themselves, “His wife found him unworthy of commitment.” Thus, the blame is placed on me and this gives them a reason to jettison me from the circle.

    As far as shaming? Right now, she holds the narrative because she got the first blows in with the abuse allegation. As I’ve said, I expect to have joint custody by the end of this year. That should expose the lie about abuse to any rational onlooker. I’m not sure what shaming can take place, truthfully. Her friends are committed to the narrative, as is she. Any step back will be “He manipulated the courts against me because I loved my son too much” or something. I don’t hang with her friends, because most were manginas. She doesn’t hang with my friends, because they’re all veterans and have had experience with the darker side of women.

    My revenge, such as it is, will come in years. My boys will grow and will naturally be drawn to hang out with me over her. I will still be hunting, fishing, kayaking, and unlike a good many men on this site (whom I respect for not doing this), I will likely be tearing a path a mile wide through the female community in my area. She will be increasingly erratic the more she is off meds and no one is there to deflect the stress she brings on herself, except my sons. Her friends have already stopped doing the “We got you, grrl” stuff, like cutting the lawn for her, watching the boys, etc.

    I give it three years.

  76. deti says:

    Peasant:

    Any woman who frivolously divorces is cut out of my life. I shun her and refuse to associate with her. I am clear about this with my wife and also tell her of my strong disapproval of her associating with anyone who frivolously divorces.

    If I were you I would deflect any stories from your ex with “here is what really happened” or “here is the true story”. If my wife ever tries to pull EPL or frivolous divorce, I’ll tell everyone, my family and hers, what’s really going on so there are no misunderstandings or hamster hyperrationalizations. I’ll repeat it as often as needed, swearing out affidavits if necessary.

    This last bit about her friends slowly withdrawing their support reminds me of a Dalrock post from a while back in which he talked about this very phenomenon. The true life of a divorced woman is one of social isolation, no human touch, little sex, unattractiveness to most men, few available potential sex and marriage partners, few friends, very low chance of remarriage, high failure rate for second marriages. Yeah, her friends won’t be around when they realize how empty her life has become.

  77. bskillet81 says:

    Right now, she holds the narrative because she got the first blows in with the abuse allegation.

    RTP, I know you’ve mentioned this false allegation elsewhere. Have you talked to your lawyer about a defamation/slander lawsuit against your ex? I’m no lawyer, but it seems like it ought to be actionable.

  78. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    I was actually reading something on spearhead today (in the comments) about that and I’ve thought about it. I’d prefer to take things one step at a time, though. My oldest is in a precarious state, so I need to proceed cautiously. She used him to obtain the PFA. He deeply regrets it and in April said he wanted to kill himself in school. I had to put him in care for a week and he’s now on meds (ex and I suspected he had depression for years prior, likely inherited from my ex). He’s a lot better now and has been aggressively pushing for joint custody. I just don’t know if I want to put him back in the middle again. I don’t want to get back into the weeds, but the PFA hearing (eight months ago) was gut-wrenching.

  79. Ray Manta said:

    Same is true for the pre-Internet anti-pornography campaigns. I think the reason they tried to get them banned is because they found them too distasteful to participate in.

    Interesting when you consider the porn-positive cultural attitude that women have adopted now. I can remember episodes of Friends in the 90′s where the girls would be curious about, or matter of factly accepting of one of the guy’s watching porn.

    The same thing is true of strip clubs today. I have several accounts at Gentlemen’s Clubs (one literally called “The Men’s Club”) that enthusiastically market their ‘couples nights’ where they encourage women – under the presumption that their committed male partner will accompany them – to come into a male establishment. Some don’t even need the guise of a special night and just add “couples always welcome” to their overall advertising campaigns.

    I can’t think of a more classically, exclusively male oriented enclave than a strip club. A private place where the most blatant sexual objectification and commodification of women has been happening for decades. A place where by every account women should definitively feel uncomfortable in attending is now, also, a woman’s territory.

  80. sunshinemary says:

    Rock Throwing Peasant, your story is heart-wrenching. Really, I’m just sitting here reading this and feeling so angry and so ashamed of the female sex. I’m very sheltered; I have little exposure to popular media, I didn’t know these things about divorce. I’ve never read EPL. I didn’t understand that it really is women driving divorce and family destruction. I hate this. I want to do something about it, but I feel powerless.

    Deti, your suggestions about how to treat frivolously-divorcing women are exactly what I have been waiting for months for someone to say. Why are we tolerating this in the church of Christ? In my one and only blog post on my own blog (not worth reading btw), I posed the very question that you have just answered. You are right; they should be totally and completely shamed and shunned. No one dares to do it. And the abuse thing…this has got to stop. There is NO BIBLICAL GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE IN THE CASE OF ABUSE! How on earth has the idea ever gotten started in the Church that it is okay to divorce for reasons other than abandonment and unrepentant infidelity? I wish I could do something; all I can think to do is try to gently influence other women around me and affirm (and defend?) men publicly when I have the chance. Bah, it’s practically nothing. Useless almost.

  81. And don’t forget, dominating the remote control is abuse

  82. I would go further than shaming the women and shame the pastors and anyone who coddles the women. Letters/emails do not work. Direct, even keel confrontation in the hallway after church is good, you then will get a gang of ignoramuses who are hangers on w/ the pastor top hear your words as well. You can have meetings with them, you can do the old -tell all your friends-, yes shaming the “Frivorcees” (c) is also a good thing.

  83. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    sunshinemary,
    I’d be blind to not see that I have been blessed. I was wired to bounce back. I have a strong family and friend network. I have a moderately successful career with good prospects and, going into divorce, I had $0 personal debt. This has allowed me to get the platinum card and put all legal fees on it. And, finally, my sons never lost respect for me. I know it drives her nuts that my oldest has already put October behind us and is looking at the future, just like me. He and I don’t need to hash it out right now and I hold no malice toward him. It will come out in 15 years or so and will be put to rest that night over cigars on the deck of my (yet too be purchased) fishing boat.

  84. Anacaona says:

    I have thought a little about this: that men in the Church and institutions reflexively take the position that a man is at fault every time in a divorce;

    I think you are being generous this is a cultural thing everywhere. I had seen it first hand the default position when something goes wrong in a couple is that the man did something wrong or didn’t did everything he could, no matter what the woman does (cheating, abandoning, abusing) there is some exterior force at blame (she was abused as a child, she got involved with the wrong company, she needed medication and help…).

    I also think your ideas are good but is also something to tell men that “is not their fault unless they were beating the crap out of the wife or sleeping around…) in my limited experience men internalized the fault in the middle of divorce and they refuse to speak, so far I have only one friend of my hubby that I know that divorced and he never speaks of it, only now that things are falling apart (5 years after his divorce) he is sharing a bit on his facebook emphasis on a bit like all this is happening and I feel burned out, the end.
    A contrast with a female friend that speak all the freaking time about her frivolous divorce painting herself as smart on the same media and getting a lot of likes and attention and support.
    I’m getting the feeling that men in this culture in general think of women bitching as “legitimate complaints” and men bitching as “whining for no reason” when did that happened?
    Is that one of those “men are not biologically wired to sympathize with other men”, that I hear about on the Androsphere so much?

  85. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Anacaona,
    I’m not sure telling a guy he’s whining is as much shaming by other men, as much as, “Light a match, stop cursing the darkness.” I’ll hear out a good friend who has a problem. If he has the same problem over and over and doesn’t learn from experience, I don’t want to hear it anymore. Men perceive a woman relating a problem are in search of a solution. Some have figured out that is not the real reason. However, when a man is presented with a problem, he is looking to solve it. If it is the same problem, day after day and week after week, and there’s been no movement to solve it, we will get frustrated with the person, regardless of gender.

    I never wanted to hear about my ex-wife’s co-workers and how they conspired against her and how if X left, the whole place would be peaceful. If my buddy keeps coming to me with the same problem without saying how he was trying to fix it, he’s going to get tuned out, as well.

  86. lavazza1891 says:

    bskillet: “The tale of Annika Sorenstam is a great example. Famous female golfer. Had to force her way on to the PGA tour. Immediately and repeatedly got walloped by the professional men, the worst of whom can out drive her by 30 yards. But in her case, there was no marking her territory: Competition is the product sold by the PGA, and lowering the standards for who can play is the same as drastically degrading the product.”

    That is not true. She was invited by the sponsor of the tournament on a wikd card. And she did not finish last.

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030523&slug=webgolf23

  87. ybm says:

    I don’t see anywhere on that post the claim that she finished last. And being ‘invited’ on a wild card doesn’t disprove anything if you have any memory at all of the whole situation. There were articles from everywhere, CNN headlines etc. about how she MUST be on the PGA tour by the sisterhood. Op-eds screeching about the good ol’boys club that couldn’t accept that a woman might be better than them. It was embarrassing for an already embarassing “sport”.

  88. Anacaona says:

    I’ll hear out a good friend who has a problem. If he has the same problem over and over and doesn’t learn from experience, I don’t want to hear it anymore.

    But if the guy’s problem is getting raped on divorce court then how can he solve it? I do have experience with hubby looking for ways to fix my problems but I’m a problem solver so I usually thank the input (except on certain cases like when I was watching Smallville the solution was quitting the crappy show but I couldn’t hubby was really amused by me bitching about it though, stupid show)., Just curious do men think that somethings are just out of some people’s hands?

  89. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Just curious do men think that somethings are just out of some people’s hands?

    I do. I’m not saying it’s an absolute. I was thinking of a guy talking about his girlfriend being a nag or the boss hammering him. In the case you brought up, I’d still hear him out. I’d try to point him in helpful directions, though. Read this, pray about it, ways to reduce stress, etc.

  90. lavazza1891 says:

    “It is no coincidence that Sorenstam did it only after Tiger Woods had come in and completely revolutionized golf, making it a mainstream sport by radically raising the standards of performance.”

    Sorenstam turned pro in 1992 and won her first LPGA major in 1995. Woods turned pro in 1996 and won his first PGA major in 1997.

  91. ybm says:

    Do you live a different planet from everyone else? Is it because she’s from Sweden and so are you if I recall? So you automatically jump to her defense or something?

    Trying to draw a comparison between what TIGER WOODS did to golf and a nobody like a Sorenstam. This is an argument you cannot win, EVER. Golf was going through a very rough time in the two decades before Woods showed up. Tiger Woods rose to fame on Monday Night Golf program, which he had been participating in since 1999.

  92. bskillet81 says:

    Sorenstam turned pro in 1992 and won her first LPGA major in 1995. Woods turned pro in 1996 and won his first PGA major in 1997.

    You’re missing my point. I’m not saying she got into golf because of Woods. Rather, I’m stating she didn’t try to go onto the men’s PGA tour until after Tiger Woods had made the men’s tour skyrocket in popularity.

  93. lavazza1891 says:

    ybm: Well of course I defend one of my country’s most successful golfers against inaccuracies. It was a one-off where she wanted to see how well she could do (on one of the shortest courses on the PGA Tour) and to help build up the reputation of the LPGA Tour (my guess). She has an excellent reputation in the golfing community, male and female.

    “I’m not looking at the Colonial or trying to play in a PGA event to do something like Martha Burk is doing,” she said. “This is for me personally. I want to see how good I am.

    “I’m not trying to put the guys on the spot or trying to prove anything. This is for me to take my game to the next level.”

  94. lavazza1891 says:

    “Golf was going through a very rough time in the two decades before Woods showed up.” I would not agree. That was the golden age for some of my golfing heros.

  95. lavazza1891 says:

    “Rather, I’m stating she didn’t try to go onto the men’s PGA tour until after Tiger Woods had made the men’s tour skyrocket in popularity.”

    Well, she took women’s golf to a different level. The female competion had yet to catch up, so of course a male tournament would enter her mind at some time, regardless of the status/money of the men’s tour.

  96. bskillet81 says:

    It was a one-off where she wanted to see how well she could do (on one of the shortest courses on the PGA Tour) and to help build up the reputation of the LPGA Tour (my guess).

    This only further demonstrates how she wanted to lower the performance bar for herself. She picked a course where length off the tee would not be as important. That way, she wouldn’t have to compete with the men when they were in their prime element. She still finished 96th out of 111, and 84th in driving distance. She sucked compared to the men, pure and simple. Had she tried it at Augusta (which she would never have been able to qualify for), it would have been even more embarassing.

    Is she a great golfer? Compared to the average person, yes. Is she anywhere near as good as the average male PGA professional? No. Not even close. Did she do the whole thing for the sake of feminism? Obviously.

  97. ybm says:

    Honestly I don’t even think it was her idea. Nick Price was really the voice of sanity in the whole debacle, he was saying the whole time ‘this is just crass publicity and nothing more’. Sorenstam was not a good enough golfer to win the tournament, and even she said she could only win if the stars aligned perfectly. She really shouldn’t be the target of the attacks.

    It was all about Augusta. This all happened right in the middle of Martha Burke and her NOW protests at Augusta. It was crass political posturing on the part of the PGA, caving to the demands of female supremacists. Nick Price was the only one who said she is welcome on the tour, if she qualifies like everyone else.

  98. sunshinemary says:

    Thinking of Augusta and of women trying to invade male spaces made me remember a hilarious episode of the Flintstones from my youth…the one where Wilma and Betty decide that Fred and Barney’s all-male club should be open to them, too, so they sneak in. Here’s the clip of how their night ended up, in case you’ve forgotten this episode or are too young to have watched the Flintstones… :)

  99. lavazza1891 says:

    “Is she anywhere near as good as the average male PGA professional? No. Not even close.”

    PGA includes all professional golfers, you don’t have to have a plus handicap to teach (in fact you only have to be less than 15 over on 36 holes). But if you mean professional golfers playing regularily on the PGA Tour, you are right, but that is also true for most PGA professionals. Many very succesful golfers have had problems passing the Q-school after injuries or loss of form.

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports/golf/pga-tour-q-school-a-grind-for-tour-veterans/nLmCm/

    “Did she do the whole thing for the sake of feminism? Obviously.”

    Why would you say that feminism was her motivation? Feminists might have tried to use her exploit, but they do that with everything.

  100. Looking Glass says:

    @Anacaona:

    Men don’t think things are “out of their hands”. We know most things are. So, the only thing you can do is what you can do. Bitching about what you can’t or won’t is just wasting your breathe. There’s a reason we view “bitching” to be non-masculine. As a guy, if you have a problem, go and solve it. If there’s nothing you can do about it directly, take care of yourself and deal with what you can.

    So, if a guy is constantly complaining about something within his power, then we’ll tune him out because he’s being an idiot. This is the general, default, view most guys will have to the way women complain. It also leads to the problem with the “standard guy” having issues with a Fitness Test. It doesn’t cross our minds to complain about something not being X way when you’re fully capable of doing it. So if a guy’s woman asks for X to be done, the thinking is “well, that’s not too hard to do” when she’s really just testing him. Thus the downward spiral.

  101. lavazza1891 says:

    “Nick Price was the only one who said she is welcome on the tour, if she qualifies like everyone else.”

    All tournaments have spots that the sponsor can give to golfers who are worse than the golfer who would play unless this was the rule. One of the majors is even an invitational, where 40 out of 90 players are not there because of current form, as measured by official world ranking.

  102. Anacaona says:

    As a guy, if you have a problem, go and solve it. If there’s nothing you can do about it directly, take care of yourself and deal with what you can.

    I get that, but this is also the reason married guys don’t pry on their divorced friends and take at face value that it was his fault somehow. So is not really an effective way to deal with “bitching” in the current state of affairs. So Deti’s idea although good it will be hard to spread as a legitimate technique for men to make people realize the truth behind frivorce, IMO, YMMV.

  103. infowarrior1 says:

    The only time a man is interested in an all female space is if he is perving :) Heh heh heh.

  104. Comment_Whatever says:

    Some idiot female golfer getting her but kicked is clearly more important than every single working woman stealing thousands and thousands of dollars in health care subsidies from all working men(and now all women stealing from all men) every single year.

    Please carry on.

  105. “What, soldiers aren’t supposed to have boobs (or babies)? Soldiers aren’t supposed to appear nurturing?”
    I see now, the purpose of the military is clearly to breastfeed and otherwise nurture our enemies into a higher state of understanding.
    All those guns and bombs and artillery shells are unimportant. It’s breastmilk that wins wars.

  106. ybm says:

    Comment_Whatever says:
    July 11, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Please prove your thesis that the discussion of Annika Sorenstam in any way detracts from the discussion regarding resource transfers in this thread, then expand your discussion to the effect it has on the vox populi.

    My life does not begin and end with men’s rights the way radfems’ lives begin and end with patriarchy. IRL discussing men’s issues takes up less than 5% of my time. 100% of which is discussion with people from online or listening to my friends bitch about their wives/husbands/fathers/mothers/brothers/sisters/boyfriends/girlfriends and using that to discuss things like divorce theft and judicial inequality.

    Fuck I spend more time talking about football than I do about this kind of stuff in real life. Hell, if you want to learn how little radfems actually believe their own shit outside of their blogs; there’s a 23 year old I plough regularly who just loooooooves dressing like a tramp and have her beliefs mocked by me.

    It may be time for you to stop posting and get some fresh air. Life doesn’t always need to be Serious Business.

  107. Je Suis Prest says:

    I normally lurk, but this post struck a chord with me so I wanted to comment. I am a woman in the military and the desire of some women to mark spaces as feminine in ways that exceed practical necessity is an unfortunate reality. Ironically, many of the women who express the strongest desire to change things either aren’t in the military or are not achieving professional success if they are. The first group seem to be bent on changing things to suit their own altered perception of reality, regardless of the impact on people who actually do the job, while the second group want to experience camaraderie but can’t or won’t meet various standards and therefore demand that standards be lowered so that they can be part of the group. The kicker is that much of the fellowship they seek is forged primarily by enduring shared hardship so that they destroy the very thing they want when they insist that standards be lowered. Alternately, they like the idea of being a soldier/sailor/airman but find the reality doesn’t meet their expectations in much the same way that many people find the dream of running a marathon to be enchanting, but find the actually running to be rather more drudgery than they are prepared for.

    Fortunately, our profession is one that is firmly rooted in physical realities and that has prevented some of the feminist wishful thinking from permeating as thoroughly as it has in many other spheres. One of the things I love about my job is a culture that encourages taking personal responsibility and where people can be told that they don’t measure up. This seems to be in direct contrast to many of my friends in civilian workplaces where nothing is anyone’s fault and telling someone that they don’t cut it is considered harassment. Admittedly though, the military is a reflection of society and there are far too many people who insist that they want to be part of something even though they don’t meet the standard and expect that the standard will be changed to suit them while others pick up the slack…

    @ Rock Throwing Peasant – All the best to you and your sons. I find stories like yours heartbreaking, especially for the kids, and you seem to be making the best of a very difficult situation.

    [D: Welcome to the blog.]

  108. Kai says:

    “Comment_Whatever says:
    Some idiot female golfer getting her but kicked is clearly more important than every single working woman stealing thousands and thousands of dollars in health care subsidies from all working men(and now all women stealing from all men) every single year.”

    If it were necessary to prove that the current topic of conversation was absolutely more important than any other possible topic before discussing any further, many of dalrock’s posts about individual issues wouldn’t make the cut.
    Why is there an assumption that to discuss one topic at one time is to neglect all else?

  109. bskillet81 says:

    While we’re on the topic of feminist territory marking in the military:

    CNN – Navy’s new gender-neutral carriers won’t have urinals.

  110. Daniel de León says:

    As if on cue.

    Reuters- White House expands Title IX support science, tech

    Read about here as well.

    As a 19 black male, STEM major, I’m not sure whether to bash me head against a wall or (and I’m not prone to violence) just give up and start burning shit should this go through. It is apparent to me now that feminism cannot be beaten legally rather it is a bacterial disease that when it infects a host, the infected flesh must be cut out and burned.

  111. Comment_Whatever says:

    So, finally getting an answer. That’s cute.

    Thousands of dollars a year is serious money to 90% of Americans. Very serious.

    Also, the issue of blatant female cowardice has a direct baring on “females wanting to be military/cops/firemen”.

    Given that the “she is scared” excuse is used with such wild abandon by every woman, it is only the “decency” of modern men, including those here, which allows even women to make the “brave female wanting to be in the military/firemen/cops” argument.

    How many days do you think a normal American woman can go without using “she is scared” to justify some nasty behavior?

  112. Pingback: Links and Other Stuff | The Society of Phineas

  113. Twenty says:

    @Daniel de León

    Hang in there, man. You’re a black STEM major. That can really pay off, and give you the means to defend yourself from our feminized society. “Burning shit” is just what they want.

  114. Daniel de León says:

    Good God my grammar in that last post was awful.

    @Twenty

    I’m trying man. It’s so frustrating trying to watch the possibility of this and other opportunities that may make or break your future slip through your hands like sand. Not to mention that it’s happening prior to an impending economic train wreck.

  115. ray says:

    It was a clarifying moment. I hear you, ray.
    From that point forward, when I spoke out, the wives whispered, “He’s bitter because his wife kicked him out” and the husbands nodded. You see, because I was “kicked out” of the marriage, men can rationalize that I was the one unworthy of marital commitment, unworthy of my ex-wife. Wives keep their husband away from the undesirable man as the next guy is getting set up for the beating.

    RTP — thx for yr thoughts

    i’ve lost count of the times i’ve witnesses the exact same phenomena over the decades, across contexts

    women begin by colluding verbally against any percieved male “enemies” (in smallish towns, 80 percent of the females will know half your life story within a month, via the Womantongue Network)

    next stop: weakest male is lured-in to go to bat for the Poor Oppressed Dears beset by The Abuser (in this case, david collard)

    next stage: next weakest males jump in, sensing that now it is (relatively) safe to “get in their shots”

    balance of males: sit silently on sidelines until the putsch is complete; later pretend ignorance of the incident

    look, the point i was after was this: if a leading-edge ” manosphere” site cant figger out (and stand up against) a few females playing the standard I’m-Afraid-Make-the-Bad-Man-Go-Away Game, then what chance dows a lone guy have in the utterly feminist environments of the workplace. . . university . . . home . . . church?

    he has no chance

    i’ll say it again, talk is cheap — posturing against feminism is easy, but in a situation where almost nothing was at stake (beatdown by suz, antigrrl, and another one whose name i forget), ALL the guys STILL caved and adhered to the inflexible feminine/feminist script

    growing a pair of few weeks after the damage in already done doesnt cut it — once the trust is broken, the target is never going to respect, or have faith, in those men again

    they’d do it again in an instant, and rationalize it away the next as justified (male hamster)

    now, the example i used carried trivial stakes (nothing at stake but perceived male staatus and pride)

    but what happens when the stakes are truly significant (job, child custody, access to education, legal accusation, etc.)?

    then, the submission of males to female manipulations and imperativesi = absolute disaster for boys, men, fatherhood, masculinity

    any male holding females to task is shamed and excluded; the Grlls win again, expending almost no effort, except to incite other males to do their dirtywork

    thus, my comment that those presenting as “physicians” to other men need to “heal themselves” first of their latent chivalry, jealousy, and cowardice before they offer advice to other men

  116. Just1X says:

    @Dalrock
    came across a topic that’s very relevant to this site
    Gimme Five! I’m going to church because of women bishops
    http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/gimme-five-im-going-to-church-because.html

    The whole thread is of interest, but one commenter referred to research that you might be interested in.

    Commenter Flossie 9:08 makes the following comment
    “Back to the specific issue of young people, some time ago former Anglican priest Robbie Low wrote a very interesting article on a Swiss study to determine whether a person’s religion carried through to the next generation and, if so, what, if any, were the critical factors. The main factor seems to be the religious practice of the father. He concludes by saying:
    ‘In short if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers. If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally. A non-practising mother (with a regular father) will see a minimum of two thirds of her children ending up at church. A non-practising father (faithful mother) will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door. If his wife is similarly negligent that figure will rise to 80 per cent!’
    ‘The Truth about Men’ can be read here: http://trushare.com/83APR02/AP02LOW.htm

    Men do not like a feminized church. Men leave, children will not stay.

  117. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 7-15-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  118. freebird says:

    Another example of fem territory marking is the very minds of young boys.
    Now labeled with oppositional disorder and testosterone poisoning,their young minds are drugged into compliance with fem-values.
    Grown men,afraid of false accusations of molestation
    rightfully abandon these not-their-boys in order to avoid legal problems and registry for life as social outcasts.
    Literally boys and men w/o a country.
    Women have the cuntry by the balls,thanks “Peace Officers.”Job well done,you’re now the alpha male,with all the power in your pistol.

  119. Shinzaemon says:

    Damn, Freebird. Everything you said is so true.

  120. Pingback: NOTAS DE SIMPLES LEMBRANÇA, # 23. « NO EXTREMO OCIDENTE

  121. Chachi says:

    The whole outrage over something as simple as a breastfeeding photo strikes me as very odd. In many other cultures it is accepted that this is what the breast is intended for, with public breastfeeding being not an uncommon sight. People grow up seeing parent/child functional displays of the breast. In this culture however the only acceptable display of the breast is an exclusively adult sexual display, completely divorced from the breasts natural function and its natural recipient, the hungry child.

    This is always why any mainstream display of the food giving breast must also be sexualized; round, firm, perky, pretty, photoshopped, alluring, no stretch marks, no veins, smooth and perfect, BUT feeding a child, as merely an afterthought.

    Perhaps if we grew up seeing real breasts performing their real function on a daily basis we wouldn’t be so “grossed out” by something that is normal and natural and good for children. But heaven forbid we put children first, at the expense of media and fantasy driven adult sexuality, right?

    $$$$$

  122. Chachi says:

    “This is why feminists have so little interest in building up their own organizations. ”

    I always wonder about women who complain about being in a male dominated religion. Nothing is stopping anyone from creating their own religion, that’s how its always been done anyway. To be fair there are some people doing that today, (kudos to them), just not the ones who complain all the time about the religion they are currently in. Constant complainers do not make pro-active prophets and saints.

  123. Pingback: Feminist territory marking, NFL style. | Dalrock

  124. korezaan says:

    “While it is massively expensive, at least it is entertaining.”

    There is a fixed cost for civilization; either individuals will take the expensive price of discipline on the individual level to cut weeds down as they appear, or the price will appear at the top cultural level where firebombing needs to happen in order for anything to survive above state of nature.

    It is unfortunate there is no actual way to firebomb culture without massive show of force and power. Which in turn itself is difficult due to the massive and invasive growth of the jungle of feminism preventing the organization of…. well, anything, really.

  125. Pingback: Let them eat cake. | Dalrock

  126. retrophoebia says:

    Going to add a couple items to this, as it’s pertinent today. First, feminist territory marking just went to a whole new level with the relaxation of the combat exclusion today.

    Second, per your point, and illustrative of the flaws with the above policy change:

    The first desire is the face which shows up first when demanding concessions. Here is this incredibly capable woman who can do what the men are doing. Why won’t you let her in? The reality of her actual ability will vary.

    There’s this excellent article by Katie Petronio, which drives home the point that however much the woman may want and even be able to do something, reality will still intrude, sometimes in unexpected and unpleasant ways. This brings to mind my favorite Chesterton aphorism, something along the lines of “Before you pull a fence down, make sure you know why it was put up.” Women often don’t see the structural problems with entering a male field–all they see is the “oh, she’s capable, she should be able to do X right alongside the guys” without thinking through the “why” of why women aren’t already doing that. Exceptions don’t, in this case, prove the point.

    I’d be very curious to see when the female-in-combat policy is changed, or, more likely, riddled with so many exceptions by the services that it becomes merely symbolic.

    Anyway, saw the headlines today and remembered this article. Cheers.

  127. ybm says:

    Good. Now make all able bodied women sign up for selective service just like men have to do.

    I have my white feather in hand ready to go, do you?

  128. Pingback: “Offensive” historic nose art safe in the Air Force museum for the time being. | Dalrock

  129. Pingback: Intrasexual Competition and the Strong Independent Woman. | Dalrock

  130. Opus says:

    I have been asking myself how one would define manly pride – it is after all not something one thinks about. I was thinking thus of an occasion when my Mini Cooper had a flat in heavy rain miles from anywhere. I may have been with one of the motoring organisations but I was miles from a telephone. Naturally, I changed the wheel and probably never mentioned to anyone my mishap. I just got on with it and would have done so no matter the problem. I suspect it is that which is largely absent from females. Every event has to be a drama with themselves at the centre and preferably a man to blame or belittle. When there is no drama they tend to pose. Consider Sheryl Sandberg boasting about the fact that she is top secretary at Facebook writing a book about it and posing in expensive dresses for its cover and for various articles in magazines. Anyone would think looking good and work were synonymous or that no one had ever previously been an upgraded typist. Mr Zuckerburg has not I think similarly written, but then again he does not look good in a frock or with long hair and make-up. Nor has Ms Sandberg created anything – not so much leaning-in as crashing-in with the expectation that the Facebook aura will rub off on her – as so far it certainly has. Women like Sandberg do tend to look as if they are cargo-cultists with manna dropping from the skies.

    Even when I do nothing I also get manly pride – because the fact that there is no feminine touch about my apartment simply does not bother me one bit. Material Possessions are largely irrelevant to me. I no more notice their lack than I do the presence of dust. Women do not seem to be able to live like this – no woman has a man-cave; a small space to retreat to. It is noticeable that both sport and hobbies are almost entirely male preoccupations, and when a woman is interested therein one suspects an ulterior motive. Women would like to be like that but do not actually enjoy it when they get there. It is then that they begin to change the rules and feminise the surroundings. It is then that men innocently going about their business find themselves called-out for harassment: Women like Adria Richards (Donglegate) making a family man lose his job for a joke she had not even understood or that double barrelled English woman obsessed that there were not enough women on Bank Notes (there has always been at least one since 1952) – a fact to which she is seemingly entirely oblivious, or La Watson and her fabricated tale of elevator rape (being asked back for coffee) or Anita Sarkeesian with $150,00 of kick-starter money to make a video as to sexism in Computer Games – perhaps it would have been better had she invented a new one herself – or with all that money paid some man to do it for her.

    Which reminds me of that attractive female Pastor I knew in D.C. boasting that some Mangina male had rewritten in non-sexist (presumably making the hymn completely bland) language the words of some popular Hymn. Instead of bowdlerising an old hymn would it not have been better for some empowered woman to write a new one herself. No, better to get a man to a do a woman’s bidding and doubtless in the hope of a smile or touch. The fact that Jesus is male is clearly a theological problem for many female Pastors, for indeed I read that some Latin American Anglican Bishop has now announced (she’s not the first of course) that St Paul was wrong about sex and that what he should have embraced was Diversity. I confidently predict that female Pastors will empty the churches.

  131. Pingback: If women can’t be manly Marines, then manly Marines must wear girly hats. | Dalrock

  132. Pingback: Combating the feminization of the church | Breaking through illusions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s