Chick logic.

Professor 

The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with — women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.

Hat Tip Dr. Helen.

This entry was posted in Feminists, Foolishness, Manosphere Humor. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Chick logic.

  1. Pingback: Chick logic. | Manosphere.com

  2. okrahead says:

    Prison is a system designed for men… Perfectly describes the feminist view of marriage.

  3. gmg says:

    The prison population is too big to begin with.

  4. innocentbystanderboston@yahoo.com says:

    Well this makes perfect sense.

    Prison was designed for men because men are accountable for their actions. Men incarcerate other men who aren’t accountable. We have prisons to incarcerate men who would otherwise violate women.

    Women (on the other hand) could not possibly violate men and are NOT accountable for anything. Women don’t hold other women to account so why should they be held responsible for anything with their life incarcerated? Nothing is ever their fault. When Andrea Yates drowned her five children, women blamed her husband for not having her committed. To Women, this makes perfect sense because they know that they aren’t moral agents.

  5. So what the hell would she have us do to female convicts? Give them a detention?

  6. Bluepillprofessor says:

    I agree with the professor. It is a total waste to put women in jail. They should be properly punished in the public brothels.

  7. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary.

  8. JF says:

    Here’s the solution: Attack the root: Abolish the pagan Prison Growth Industry. Bring back the Mosaic Code of strict accountability that is concomitant with true scriptural Patriarchy. Men who harmed others would be at the mercy or non-mercy of the victim or victim’s family they harmed. All women are chattel. When God designed a nation, that is what He designed.
    Won’t ever happen again, of course. Mankind prefers communism and Babylon, aka, the system we now have.
    Mankind always does get what mankind deserves. That’s Bible.

  9. Pingback: Chick logic. | Will S.' Anarcho-Tyranny Blog

  10. Lyn87 says:

    From the horse’s… uh… mouth:

    Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. It is the case against the prison industrial complex and for community-based treatment where it works better than incarceration. But there is evidence that prison harms women more than men, so why not start there?

    I can answer that.

    Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. [Not quite – the case for imprisoning fewer women is even weaker than than the case for imprisoning fewer men, since more men are false imprisoned and imprisoned for longer sentences than women for the same crimes. There is no case at all for closing women’s prisons entirely.] It is the case against the prison industrial complex and for community-based treatment where it works better than incarceration. [Which is also true for men.] But there is evidence that prison harms women more than men, so why not start there? [Why not start there? Because as soon as women are no longer effected it will stop there too.]

    If feminists will not be content until 51% of all CEOs are women, then they should also not be content until 51% of all prisoners are women as well. Closing women’s prisons with a vague idea that they’ll get around to reducing the number of male prisoners “some day” is the most vile kind of sexism – pure and simple.

  11. Bango Tango says:

    Of course another attempt at creating a different standard for women and turning them into a distinct class above men. A gender caste system is what they are trying to create and normalize. Women will dominate the universities and men will dominate the prisons. Women will be in their ivory towers with the chosen few alphas and the majority of men will be the subhumans workers living below the city like in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.

  12. Lyn87 says:

    In addition:

    I’m all for drastically reducing the number of people in prison in general, but the system already favors women so heavily that – for a woman to be actually imprisoned for serious time – her guilt must be well-nigh incontrovertible and her crime serious. So let’s start with men’s prisons instead – there’s a LOT more fat to trim there, so let’s pluck the low-hanging fruit first. After releasing 93% of the male prisoners we will reach rough equality, and then we can think about releasing a few of the women (one woman for every additional man). Or… we can convert some of the prison space currently used for men and give the girls more room.

  13. Bango Tango says:

    Where do men belong? In their proper place – The Depths!

    Naturally.

    Cage Of Freedom (Giorgio Moroder – Jon Anderson): http://youtu.be/_C8MtzRK2ZY

  14. Societal Decay says:

    I think this idea was well-debunked by an episode of “The Powerpuff Girls”:

  15. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice find!…..This is the type of article that I would expect to find in the Toronto Star.”Chic Logic” for sure! In fact,this article is so stupid it defies even basic logic.Interestingly,this moron says women should not be jailed as incarceration rates for women have risen 647% in the last 30 years.I am sure that if you did some research you would find that female crime has also risen by 647% in the last 30 years.The “Modern Educated Woman”???….What a joke! This stunned c*** has her head so far up her stupid ass she cannot see daylight.

  16. Ravioli James says:

    That second paragraph tho…

    “The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with — women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.”

    *Head explodes from sheer stupidity*

  17. Norm says:

    But wymyn always wanted to be “equal”. The feministas sure like to cherry pick.

  18. MarcusD says:

    In keeping with title of this post:

    8 Simple Rules for dating a Duggar Daughter
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=919805

    The responses will not surprise anyone who is familiar with the crypto-feminist/Marxist tendencies of CAF.

  19. MarcusD says:

    So, a little juxtaposition:

    “We should stop putting women in jail. For anything.”

    And from the CAF link above:

    “The infantilization of women that exists within Christian Patriarchy is highly problematic.”

  20. Opus says:

    I had always assumed that America has a prison population of some two million because America is full of so many bad people – and now I learn that those bad people are nearly all men.

    Do you operate what we call Open Prisons?

  21. But there is evidence that prison harms women more than men, so why not start there?

    Can someone link this awesome evidence? Or does it just have to be believed like most politically correct ideas these days?

  22. Dave says:

    This is how the feminists have changed America and pretty much the west.
    1. They introduce a radical, unbelievable idea which disproportionately favors women.
    (e.g. divorcing mothers should get custody of kids as a matter of default; divorcing women should continue to get the benefits of marriage that is being denied to their ex-husbands; women who work less should get paid exactly as men who work more; women hardly ever lie about rape; domestic abuse is equivalent of male abuse of female victims; etc, etc)
    2. Of course everyone would be shocked, and the issue would be discussed, mocked, x-rayed, etc for days, if not months (as is happening now).
    3. BUT no one among the men or their friends would write a thoughtful, line by line counter to this radical idea. Just as is happening now.
    4. Failure to write this counter IS the most crucial reason why the feminists have gotten victory on virtually everything, not many years down the road when society eventually gives in through gynocentric policies. It is this thoughtful response that could have been used as a weapon by the thoughtless masses as a rallying point to counter the sprouting nonsense being advanced by the feminists. Since the response does not exist, and most people are too busy to think for themselves, their resistance is weakened.
    4. Over time, the shock factor settles down, and, though most people still do not agree with the idea, they are no longer shocked by it.
    5. But notice that no one has written any seriously thoughtful response to the original stupid idea. 6. Thus, the next time the idea is introduced, a few people are ready to accept it. All that is needed then is to repeat it often enough and it goes mainstream. This is actually how many radically unbelievable ideas gain traction, and go mainstream. Gays used it. Very well.

    HOW TO KILL A RADICAL FEMINIST IDEA
    Write a thoughtful response to this radical idea! You may mock it, discuss it, lampoon it or misrepresent it. BUT a thoughtful response MUST be put out there, IMMEDIATELY the original idea has been expounded, or soon after. It is a battle of people’s minds. I hope that Dalrock, Rollo, etc would seriously consider writing a thoughtful response which can be understood and used by the masses to counter this nonsense. It is not enough to treat their ideas with disdain.
    This is exactly how the feminists have defeated many ideas which were supposed to have helped men. A man advised other men to bypass career women when seeking for a wife. Feminists wasted no time in responding, line by line, to this radical idea. Result: everywhere the original idea is discussed, the counter is immediately available to help those on the other side.
    Let’s do the same.

  23. Frugal Nerd says:

    The logic displayed in the article reminds me of this Star Trek episode:

    At this point those fembots have a greater chance of earning my affections than the article’s author.

  24. Casey says:

    All I can say is WOW!

    This kind of logical disconnect is so stunning, all one can do is stare at this verbal train wreck with your jaw dropped open.

    Women will not be satisfied…ever!

    Even if they manage to enact formal slavery for ‘men only’, they will still tell tales of woe of how unfair it is to be a slavemaster.

    Dalrock’s point of view that we may soon see some rolling back of the worst anti-men legislation does not resonate with me.

    I see no relief in sight for men.

  25. Frugal Nerd says:

    A few thoughts from my nerd brain after reading the entire article:

    1. Eliminating women’s prisons does not equate with the Abolitionist movement of the 19th century. The women being incarcerated are in prison because they broke the law – and in 21st century America a woman has to put effort into the commission of a crime to get incarcerated. The abolitionist movement from before the Civil War was to free people from slavery when most had been born into slavery or otherwise had committed not crime deserving of forced labor.

    2. This is almost entirely an emotional argument. The author uses only two numbers – and the only one that was actually helpful to her argument logically was the 68% of women who had no further involvement with the prison system after graduating the Women in Recovery program. Funny how that number is not backed up by documentation. The other number was the aforementioned 7% of the prison population being women to begin with.

    3. Keeping convicted criminals near their hometowns greatly increases the chance that they can continue criminal activity from within prison. This is precisely why Al Capone was locked up in Alcatraz instead of a prison close to his family. Capone ran Chicago and the FBI wanted to severely limit the amount of control he could exert after he was convicted of tax evasion. Criminals need to be separated from their criminal support networks to help keep the entire population of a city/region safe.

    4. Believe it or not there is a logic in making an entirely emotional argument for such ideas. Emotional arguments are very difficult if not impossible to counter with logic when the intended audience is incapable or unwilling to think logically about a problem. People are much more easily manipulated when they are thinking emotionally.

    Please excuse me while I stop my eyes from bleeding due to reading the article.

  26. Aservant says:

    The author says, “This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.”

    No, what it really means is that women are getting away with murder and many other crimes in a proportion vastly greater than men, and that men are held to a much higher standard of justice by other men.

  27. Dave says:

    Emotional arguments are very difficult if not impossible to counter with logic when the intended audience is incapable or unwilling to think logically about a problem.

    Actually, both emotion and logic play a role in moving the feminist movement forward, and both have their place. The proponents know exactly what they are doing. If you want to get people’s attention, appeal to their emotions. But if you would like to create permanent change in terms of policies, appeal to logic. Even successful preachers use Unfortunately, once emotion has prepared the people, logic will naturally build upon the foundation, and seek to establish it as fact.
    The best time to oppose the nonsense is now, when emotion is still somewhat unsettled and people still can’t believe their ears and eyes, and the best way to do this is to take a step ahead through logic. Our failure to respond well now will make this a policy in 5-15 years.

  28. Tam the Bam says:

    “So what the hell would she have us do to female convicts? Give them a detention?”
    Botany Bay, that’s what it’s there for.


    nb: a representative pastiche, not antique

  29. Novaseeker says:

    When I was in law school, the feminists were discussing having a dual-track criminal law system, such that there would be one set of rules/penalties for men, and a different set of rules/penalties for women. The jutsification was that the crimes committed tend to be different, done for different reasons, and the likelihood of public danger tends to be greatly different. So, keep the current system, more or less, for men, and have a different system for women which is based on more flexible rules (seeing context as excusing what should not be considered “crime” per se), and penalties that are rehabilitative primarily due to the lower danger to society factor involved in many cases. This was being argued with a straight face by feminist law professors (men and women) at the time, and that was ~30 years ago. This kind of thing is just one element of it, really, and so it’s quite unsurprising to me.

  30. Novaseeker says:

    The idea, by the way, is that the existing rules and penalties were created in the context of male crime, for the most part — the claim is that this is the context in which they were designed/created, and therefore that is the proper context in which to apply them. The rules and penalties were never created or designed to deal with female crime, and therefore what is needed is a system which is created and designed in that context (female crime) to deal with it appropriately, rather than shoe-horning women into a system of rules and penalties that was created and designed to deal with men almost exclusively.

    Does violence to equal protection under the law and so on, of course. The fallback position, when attacked on that basis, is to change the entire system (including the rules and penalties for men) to a more female-oriented, contextual/rehabilitative system, even though the benefits of this remain extremely implausible.

  31. Novaseeker says:

    5. But notice that no one has written any seriously thoughtful response to the original stupid idea. 6. Thus, the next time the idea is introduced, a few people are ready to accept it. All that is needed then is to repeat it often enough and it goes mainstream. This is actually how many radically unbelievable ideas gain traction, and go mainstream. Gays used it. Very well.

    @Dave —

    This doesn’t seem like a very good example of what you are describing. There were numerous reasoned, thoughtful responses to the idea of gay marriage. Numerous, numerous essays, books, written which were thoughtful and not filled with invective or disdain. They still lost. They lost because what the gay movement did is make the issue personal. That was done through media’s portrayal of gays (tv shows, movies) in a widely disproportionate number relative to the percentage of the population they actually are (making people think 20-30% of people are gay, rather than less than 5% as the government’s own stats confirm) AND making it about the people in their lives — workplace, school, family — and not being an asshole to these people and getting in the way of them being happy. People generally don’t like to consider themselves assholes, and the gay movement did a great job of lionizing people who accepted gays as normal and gay marriage as a good thing, while making those who did not feel like they were being mean assholes to people who had done nothing to them to deserve it. It was NOT a reasoned argument approach. The reasoned argument approach was had, but it didn’t have an impact, because the *personal* approach was such a winner on the individual level. By making it personal, and not about ideas, the gays won. And so while, on the idea level, the idea of homosexuals marrying is the most radical innovation in the history of the ordering of human social relations and family life, it swept the culture within a decade because most people in *our* very individual “pursuit of happiness”-oriented culture don’t like to think of themselves as mean assholes standing in the way of another person’s happiness.

  32. honeycomb says:

    @Aservant .. yep’per.

    When I read her piece I was reminded of an old expression .. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”. It’s funny she thinks of prison like marriage. In her mind no woman should be forced to endure prison just as divorce laws in-prison men to women. I can’t but help see her arguement without drawing this parallel.

    She speaks from a (mental) prison though .. aka feminism. And they want every woman on that plantation.

    If anyone wishes to do a line rebuttal ensure you add that her “chick logic” is sexist (re: men bad and deserve prison / wimminz r gudder than prison).

    http://s334.photobucket.com/user/067yjonesd1/media/74f82530a6dd19de9e0936c34b4a4f5f_zps8c1259e3.jpg.html

  33. honeycomb says:

    [sarcasm on]
    She’s to cute .. she’s a repected professional .. she’ll never do it again .. pwwweeeeeeeeaaaaaassssssssssse don’t send me to jail.
    [sarcasm off]

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826234/Devious-nurse-fakes-DNA-test-forges-birth-certificate-fool-man-thinking-fathered-baby-one-night-stand.html

  34. This is the feminist end goal……

    http://lucy83.hubpages.com/hub/Matriarchy

    ……it won’t be as civilized as they imagine

  35. Cecil Henry says:

    Do we have prisons for dogs, bears, and misbehaving elephants???

    NO. Why?? Because they are not considered rational, moral beings capable of being held accountable for their actions. Feminists say women belong in this category as well. Interesting. They shouldn;t be voting then either.

    By their logic, since blacks commit crimes, especially violent crimes at about 90% higher than their proportion of the population, then perhaps we only need prisons for blacks. Whites can be disciplined in other ways….

    Sure…..

  36. Pingback: Tolle Begründung für “Keine Frauen mehr ins Gefängnis” | Meinungen und Deinungen

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    Feminism has progressed for well over a century via appeals to “fairness”. It is no accident, for example, that the anti-Family Court is a court of equity, a court of “what is fair”, rather than a court of “what law was broken”. Affirmative Action was sold on the basis of “fairness”, as was Title IX.

    What Novaseeker says about feminists in law school back in the 80’s should not be a surprise, nor should this trial balloon surprise either. In a way, separate-and-unequal justice systems for women and men already exist. VAWA is one, and Yes Means Yes Until It Doesn’t is another. However there is a superficial veneer of sex-neutrality on both those examples, in theory a man in the Cal. U system could file a complaint against a woman, in theory a husband being abused physically by his wife with one or more weapons could employ VAWA.

    Separate track criminal law systems are a step beyond those, because the illusion of sex-neutrality is explicitly tossed away. So it seems radical to us at this time. Expect to see this idea pushed in the TV lawyer shows (is “Law And Order” still on?) in the next few years, as media brainwashing is one of the main tools of the regressives.

    Viewed abstractly, this proposal would create a kind of title of nobility. But appealing to the Constitution in any issue having to do with women is a waste of time.

  38. So what the hell would she have us do to female convicts?

    Female convicts? If women never choose evil (or are not moral agents), that’s an oxymoron. If a woman is convicted of a crime, that only proves that the court was corrupt, or that the laws need to be changed, or that a man tricked her (and is the real criminal who should be punished), or that “society” misguided or failed her and is at fault. Not her, never her.

  39. earl says:

    How far will women go to make sure that no negative consequences come from deplorable behavior?

  40. Ras Al Ghul says:

    The criminal system already considers different crimes to have greater or lesser impact on society and that’s at the federal level the sentencing guidelines (as heinous as that is) and the general sentencing considerations that the judges have at their disposal and the different attitudes the legislatures have for each crime.

    And plenty of studies have shown that women, and especially attractive women get far less sentences than their male counterparts for the same crime. Go look at how female sex offenders are sentenced on a daily basis to see the difference writ large).

    To provide a perfect analogy for why this idea is so bad, consider that in child custody matters women get the children essentially 90% of the time. These are the same judges that sentence women.

    And what is the reality of the 10% women that don’t get their kids? they are seriously messed up, crazy and incompetent and everyone, even at the lay level knows this.

    Its the same with incarcerated women, you have to be a repeat offender, you have to willfully disobey probation and parole repeatedly to get to prison.

    You could make a better argument for giving these women the death penalty because they are the worst of the worst of women in terms of criminality and as a constant threat to the community and far worse than the majority of the male incarcerated population.

  41. James K says:

    Follow the link in the WP article to the New Statesman, and see why the womyn’s hearts are bleeding.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/01/choking-death-should-we-stop-sending-women-prison

    roughly a quarter of female inmates have no previous conviction

    This implies that they must have done something serious. The motto of the British criminal justice system is “giving offenders a fifteenth chance”.

    half of the women say they have committed an offence to support someone else’s drug use

    Conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. That will put you in prison for a first offence.

    Most women in prison pose no threat to society: 81 per cent are jailed for a non-violent offence.

    Such as drug dealing.

    [Women] make up such a small proportion of the UK prison population – although at present there are as many as 4,000 women behind bars – that their specific needs are easily overlooked in national policymaking.

    Women’s prisons were built precisely to handle the “specific needs” of convicted women criminals.

    At the same time, the impact of a prison sentence is often greater on women than on men; because women are still more likely to be single parents and the prime homemaker, they run a greater risk of ending up homeless after prison and losing access to their children. Home Office figures show that each year, about 17,000 children become separated from their mother because she is in prison.

    Notice the non-ironic use of the word “homemaker”.

    Having custody of a child, or merely being pregnant, is usually a get-out-of-jail-free card. So much so that female crims will become pregnant specifically to avoid prison. The women who are separated from their children by prison will either have done something very serious, or be multiple-repeat offenders.

    The Children Act 1989 advocates putting the interests of children first. You might imagine that those 17,000 children would therefore be permanently separated from their junkie mothers – but you’d be wrong. The family courts place a very high premium on keeping children with their mother.

    [Vicky] Pryce’s book draws on her experience of a two-month stint in prison (first at Holloway in north London and later at East Sutton Park open prison near Maidstone).

    Pryce was the wife of a politician; together they committed conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    East Sutton Park has a holiday camp regime and is based in an Elizabethan mansion. UMC prisoners often go on to write a book about prison reform, and Pryce is no exception; but her experience of the real prison system was her four days spent in Holloway (London’s main women’s prison).

    The irony is that no one would have found out about Pryce and her husband’s crime (she took his speeding points) – except she told the newspapers, as revenge for infidelity and abandonment by her husband. You’d expect her to have had more sense: she was Deputy Head of the Government’s Economic Service, and had previously been chief economist at Peat Marwick McLintock and KPMG. I guess intelligence cannot override chick logic and the thirst for revenge.

    David [Gemma’s newborn baby] and Gemma spent a month in hospital together following complications she believes could have been caused by prison nurses reducing her methadone dose during pregnancy.

    Gemma is a heroin addict who has switched to methadone, but would not give up her habit even for the sake of her unborn child.

    A month after we met, [Gemma] regained custody of David.

    Facepalm.

  42. Gunner Q says:

    gmg @ November 7, 2014 at 9:31 pm:
    “The prison population is too big to begin with.”

    I disagree. The United States is the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet. That plus wide open borders and rulers who make a formal policy of rewarding bad conduct and punishing good conduct make me surprised the prison population is as low as it is. Perhaps if liberals would stop cockblocking the death penalty….

    We could do with many fewer laws, of course, but most of those laws impose fines not jail time.

    Dave @ 4:59 am:
    “HOW TO KILL A RADICAL FEMINIST IDEA
    Write a thoughtful response to this radical idea! You may mock it, discuss it, lampoon it or misrepresent it. BUT a thoughtful response MUST be put out there, IMMEDIATELY the original idea has been expounded, or soon after. It is a battle of people’s minds.”

    If I’ve learned anything about human nature, it’s that emotional arguments trump rational arguments every time. This is why math is hard for so many people… it doesn’t get their hormones flowing the way a bikini does.

    Christ was not flattering us when he compared humanity to sheep.

  43. God never said to build a prison. Get your Bibles out and study. God gave a different plan that didn’t involve locking people up like animals.

    Please put aside the cultural programming and let’s examine a better system than the one that was imposed by the Quaker mentality of several hundred years ago. A “penitentiary” was to be a place where the penitent could contemplate their sins and come to the point of repentance. That was the original purpose of prisons. If one looks at many of the state constitutions, one will find that prisons are specified as places not for punitive retribution, but for rehabilitation. This is a failed SJW concept that has been floating around for a long, long time.

    Agency. One either has moral agency or one doesn’t. If one has moral agency, then one is responsible for one’s acts. It’s that simple. God’s plan was very direct and to the point: If a person caused harm, they were to make restitution and would further be subject to public corporal punishment as the judges decided. We’re talking about public caning here people.

    If the individual was not able to make restitution (which went to the victim, not the state), they were sold into indentured servitude for a period of seven years, the money going to make restitution to the victim of the crime. However, there were some crimes for which no restitution could be made (murder, rape, adultery, etc.) and for these crimes the penalty was death.

    There were checks and balances (the cities of refuge) for questionable cases, but by and large the system worked. As God said “Thou shall not allow evil to flourish within the land…”

    As to the propensity of certain races to commit crime and the observably proven power of the pussy pass, I can only repeat my earlier comments: public corporal punishment and restitution or death. It doesn’t matter if the perp is male or female, although arguably being publicly stripped to the waist and beaten is far more of a powerful deterrent to women than to men. Multiply the millions of prisoners in our insane prison system by about $50k a year and that’s the cost of not following God’s plan.

  44. The Brass Cat says:

    This reduces down to the misandrous idea that men are dangerous animals that need to be locked up, and women are always innocent by the virtue of being women.

    When they target the women’s prison system it makes me think they’re running out of new targets.

  45. Jonadab says:

    The obvious liberal solution to the inequity is to imprison more women for longer sentences. Spread the misery…. oh wait more feminists on the street is spreading misery . Maybe that’s why men would rather be in prison in the first place, better behind bars than to be targets of feminist fury.

  46. Maunalani says:

    I just love how our higher education system has totally dispensed with basic logic.

  47. Dave says:

    If I’ve learned anything about human nature, it’s that emotional arguments trump rational arguments every time.

    Actually, that is not true, as any experienced lawyer will readily tell you. In this case however, an emotional argument merely prepares the way for the coming “logical argument”, because once people have accepted the emotional argument, it is then they have to find the logical reasons to establish their previously accepted emotions. In other words, the collective hamster only spins to reconcile reality with the previously accepted emotional state.

  48. Bucho says:

    “This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.”

    So should we go back to public stoning?

  49. Gunner Q says:

    “God never said to build a prison.”

    Possibly because ancient Israel couldn’t financially afford to. That would explain why Mosaic Law doesn’t have many punishments between “pay for the cow” and “kill him with rocks”. In the NT, God orders us to remember prisoners, not liberate them.

    Saying prisons are wrong because God never ordered one is like saying it’s wrong to ride in a plane because God didn’t give us wings.

    On a non-Biblical level, I’ve heard enough prison conversion stories to know that prisons can and do force evildoers to confront their actions and (frequently) repent of them.

    “If I’ve learned anything about human nature, it’s that emotional arguments trump rational arguments every time.

    Actually, that is not true, as any experienced lawyer will readily tell you.”

    Mathematicians, too, because they’re talking about their detail-oriented work. I bet most advertisers, marketers, salesmen, administrators, journalists, police and clergy would disagree.

    People can be rational but it takes a lot of effort, and even then they often just walk away. Look at the PUA community. Those guys train, sometimes for years, to have sex with near-strangers at the risk of incurable STDs, unwanted pregnancies and a lot of broken-whore drama. Risking permanent damage for temporary pleasure isn’t a logical choice… but sex is a lot more FUN than being safe and celibate, and that’s a conscious decision they make.

    It’s a feature of humanity, not a bug. I daresay this is the big difference between humans and angels, and that a big part of life in this reality is learning to be irrational without becoming entirely self-destructive. Because a life dominated exclusively by reason is not… well… not FUN.

  50. MarcusD says:

    “I just love how our higher education system has totally dispensed with basic logic.”

    The cultural Marxists/critical theorists/etc have stated that logic (at least when it doesn’t affirm their positions), is oppressive (or of “The Patriarchy”™, etc).

  51. Dave says:

    Just a thought….
    So, if indeed men are smarter, stronger, more resilient and more resourceful than women, why are women winning with their unnatural feminist ideals? Why have they succeeded in running a rope around men in virtually every part of life in America? Why are men still putting up with it?
    MGTOW is really not a form standing and fighting for one’s rights. MGTOW is a form of a defeatist approach to this issue. It is like someone coming into your living room, and telling you that you may only watch one channel on your TV. With MGTOW mentality, you decided that you’ll stop watching TV altogether because you could not watch the channels that you liked. That is right in your own living room.
    By going MGTOW simply because of the feminists, aren’t men allowing their very existence to be defined and regulated by these women? Is there any masculinity in going MGTOW? Is it natural? Could it be that one of the reasons why some women are not attracted to some men is because those men failed to demonstrate true, unapologetic masculinity?
    Just thinking aloud here….not directing these questions to anyone in particular.

  52. Just Saying says:

    it isn’t fair that men are more likely to go to prison than women.

    So more women need to be sent to jail (no less) – like everything else where they try to legislate outcome. It only makes sense that women should go to jail for more things and for longer than men. We need government programs designed to ensure that more women go to jail. It seems like that is what’s needed if you follow the Feminist logic, since women out number men, more of them need to go to jail. Simple…

  53. MarcusD says:

    So, if indeed men are smarter, stronger, more resilient and more resourceful than women, why are women winning with their unnatural feminist ideals? Why have they succeeded in running a rope around men in virtually every part of life in America? Why are men still putting up with it?

    Not that I care much for Freud, he does say this:

    The next discord is caused by women, who soon become antithetical to cultural trends and spread around them their conservative influence——the women who at the beginning laid the foundations of culture by the appeal of their love. Women represent the interests of the family and sexual life; the work of civilization has become more and more men’’s business; it confronts them with ever harder tasks, compels them to sublimations of instinct which women are not easily able to achieve. Since man has not an unlimited amount of mental energy at his disposal, he must accomplish his tasks by distributing his libido to the best advantage. What he employs for cultural purposes he withdraws to a great extent from women and his sexual life; his constant association with men and his dependence on his relations with them even estrange him from his duties as husband and father. Woman finds herself thus forced into the background by the claims of culture, and she adopts an inimical attitude towards it.

    -Civilization and Its Discontents (Chap. 4), Sigmund Freud

    Besides that: feminists gained their early victories not because of women, but because of men. Ironically, modern feminists owe their existence (as feminists) to men. That realization probably doesn’t make them very happy.

  54. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    “Novaseeker says:
    November 8, 2014 at 7:05 am
    Does violence to equal protection under the law and so on, of course. The fallback position, when attacked on that basis, is to change the entire system (including the rules and penalties for men) to a more female-oriented, contextual/rehabilitative system, even though the benefits of this remain extremely implausible.
    – and –
    Novaseeker says:
    November 8, 2014 at 7:13 am
    The reasoned argument approach was had, but it didn’t have an impact, because the *personal* approach was such a winner on the individual level. By making it personal, and not about ideas, the gays won.”

    Since reason doesn’t work well in this case, perhaps the rhetorical is called for here, with a little “agree and amplify”:

    “You know, you’re right! We need a two-track system of law and justice for men and women. But it needs a descriptive name that sticks in people’s heads; something they’ll remember and get behind. I have it!

    ‘”Separate But Equal’!

    “So, when do we start?”

  55. greyghost says:

    MGTOW is because the men are civilized .The alternative is car bombs assassinations and civil war. MGTOW sounds pretty good huh Dave.

  56. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Dave

    >>…MGTOW is really not a form standing and fighting for one’s rights. MGTOW is a form of a defeatist approach to this issue. It is like someone coming into your living room, and telling you that you may only watch one channel on your TV. With MGTOW mentality, you decided that you’ll stop watching TV altogether because you could not watch the channels that you liked. That is right in your own living room.
    By going MGTOW simply because of the feminists, aren’t men allowing their very existence to be defined and regulated by these women? Is there any masculinity in going MGTOW? Is it natural? Could it be that one of the reasons why some women are not attracted to some men is because those men failed to demonstrate true, unapologetic masculinity?…

    My son-in-law gave me the same lame argument when I announced after many years of activism etcetera on men’s issues that I was Getting The Hell Out.

    He called me a coward, and insisted that I was supposed to stay and fight.

    Fight like him? Hahaha heeheehee hohoho. He is a big blowhard and his idea of fighting was one trip to a mass protest in D.C. About as anonymous as you can get without hiding under a basket.

    My idea of fighting was a bit different. I spoke out socially in small groups starting in the Sixties. In 1978,, I started writing militant op-eds with my name and address on the bottom, one every two months for 15 years, in a small rural city of 100,000. If I had said I was the most hated man in the city, not one person would have argued with me about it. And, for ten years, I spent around 20 hours a week on all aspects of men’s and father’s rights, a total of around 10,000 hours.

    And, supplied no-fee counseling to divorced fathers, including suicide counseling, to an estimated 1600+ men and a few women.

    Yet, having done nothing public himself, tub-a-guts do-nothing SIL calls me a coward when I said I had done my part and was going to GTHO.

    Your circumstance is slightly different, of course.

    But, you are essentially shaming men for making a rational decision about what they are going to do WITH THEIR OWN LIFE, what with the misandrist society and Marriage 2.0 they are trying to protect themselves from.

    You are not alone. This B.S, is very common in our society from people who have never especially done anything themselves except write anonymously in the Internet. And, those who want men to get back in harness making a good living for the law firms, and paying lots of taxes for welfare mommies.

    I am sure your opinion made sense to you. But, it really doesn’t. Each man has the right to determine his own life as best he can.

    And, you can be sure, even if you deny it, your life is also defined and regulated by your society and the people around you. MGTOW have much more control over their lives than you do.

  57. She has a different definition of “straightforward” than most people.

  58. Frugal Nerd says:

    @Earl:

    “How far will women go to make sure that no negative consequences come from deplorable behavior?”

    Until one of two things happen. First, and the much more unlikely as of now, is when attempting to escape negative consequences has very negative consequences. Second, and much more likely, until the dying breath of Western Civilization and they actually need men again to provide and protect.

  59. Bluepillprofessor says:

    “Even if they manage to enact formal slavery for ‘men only’, they will still tell tales of woe of how unfair it is to be a slavemaster.”

    Women are NEVER happy. If you are Alpha Chad Thundercock who puts it to her like a stallion she will start pining for a caring Beta who is “nice” and takes the time to hold her and listen to her problems. If you care and take the time to listen to her problems she will start pining for Chad. If you destroy your health to satisfy her she will demand your life. If you destroy your entire civilization to appease her she will demand the entire Earth. If you give her the entire Earth, she will demand what is under it. If you give her the Moon she will demand the solar system and insult your masculinity for failing to provide it.

  60. TruthOrConsequences says:

    BluepillProfessor … well said {generally speaking} as not all women can be described in this fashion which needs to be qualified since you will hear the SAME from women replying however, there has been a growing number %-wise over this period who fit the bill. This is why a growing number of males just cannot handle them anymore but still need the tactility while missing not much else from females. It has gotten THAT bad in western culture; at the breaking point when separation/divorce combined is nearing 50%. PROFESSOR, think how much of a catastrophe this is compared to ONLY 50 years ago when the word divorce was so seldom heard on any Media be it news, TV shows, Movies, on the streets, in homes, anywhere …

  61. MarcusD says:

    “calling yourself a male feminist is like calling yourself a jewish nazi”
    https://archive.today/yTPJ9

    The irony is that it’s a feminist blog (rather than MRA, etc).

  62. MarcusD says:

    “what misandry means to me”
    https://archive.today/iITfR

    Feminists will likely object, but, the above “is what a feminist looks like.”

  63. The real me says:

    I thought the prison system was designed for criminals???

  64. Tam the Bam says:

    Anon72: “And, those who want men to get back in harness making a good living for the law firms, and paying lots of taxes for welfare mommies.”
    Yup. I got that too, with a whiff of “Man up (for me), slackers!” in the background. Probably past its use-by date, check the can.

  65. Spike says:

    The article raises a fundamental question: What is a man’s life worth?
    Some here would be familiar with the story of Kiranjit Aluwahlia. She burned her husband to death with home made napalm while he slept.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiranjit_Ahluwalia

    Do you know how to make napalm, Dalrock? You have to mix styrofoam, petrol and caustic (which she added) beforehand. We are therefore NOT talking about heat-of-the-moment manslaughter here – a knife was used in the heat of the moment, for example. This indicates that she planned to kill her husband – Deepak – beforehand. Thus, she murdered her husband.

    She claims she reacted to a decade of abuse, yet there are no medical records. Her husband was a taxi driver, so it beggars belief that she could not escape to a shelter. She said he beat her, and perhaps he did, yet we have only her word for it.
    While the courts gave her Murder, she was allowed out on a technicality after 3 years! Even more bizarre, she was given a bravery medal by Cherie Blair, wife of former British PM Tony, and had a film made of her “ordeal”.

    There you have it: 3 years for a man’s life. Now, feminists like this article’s author want even less.

  66. Tam the Bam says:

    “.. given a bravery medal by Cherie Blair, wife of former British PM Tony” No surprise there, given her hubby’s longstanding hobby of ordering the burning of shedloads of anonymous brown chaps to death for no particular reason. Trebles all round!

  67. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Tam the Bam says:
    November 9, 2014 at 4:33 am

    Past its use by date? of course not. Still timely based on recent criticism by Dave of MGTOW.

  68. Anonymous age 72 says:

    And there was no man up by me. My point was stop the shaming language directed toward men hwo make a different decision than you do. Supporting MGTOW can hardly be called Man UP.

  69. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Cost of raising children:

    From time to time a man will say his reason for not wanting children includes the extreme cost of raising one. Published figures run into multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. While there are many reasons in Marriage 2.0 not to marry and have children, those costs are not very accurate.

    I followed the government’s estimated cost of raising a child, since the early 80’s, when the decision was made to fund no-fault dearie divorce by enslaving men for life. Yes, we saw it coming, but a One Man Army is also called a cadaver.

    The dearies started publishing figures on raising children, with the father naturally expected to pay his half.

    I hold professional status in accounting, though I chose not to go into that work as such. Standard cost accounting relies heavily on INCREMENTAL COSTS.

    That means you calculate the cost of one more item, rather than dividing all costs by the total number of products.

    As an extreme example, let us assume you make 1,000 of an item, and it costs you one million dollars. That means each item costs $1,000, right? But, much of that may be start-up costs, purchasing expensive machinery and buildings, and development costs.

    Another thousand of that item might cost you only $10,000 more, which would mean $10 each, not $1000 each.

    And if it is a hot item, you might be marketing a million, and each one might only cost $5 each.

    Setting your price involves a lot marketing savvy.

    But, the point is you need to find the actual cost of producing more items of the same kind.

    In the 80’s, the feminists, with no protest from any significant number of men, figured things like this.

    A 2 bedroom apartment might cost $900 a month, so a woman with a child spends $450 a month on housing that child. The man’s half would thus be $225 a month.

    In reality, a one bedroom apartment might cost $700 a month, so the incremental cost of housing that child is only $200. And his half would be only $100.

    A car might well run $5000 a year, so according to feminist figures, the child’s half should be $2500, or $200 a month. In truth, women who tend to stay home nights with their babies sometimes spend less each year on a car and gas.

    So, how much do Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs, a quart of milk, and a couple McDonald’s Happy Meals cost?

    Anyone can spend any amount to raise a child. Dearies married to billionaires supply child support requests in the thousands of dollars a day per child. How funny!

    And, stupid judges (but I repeat myself) grant those orders.

    When you see figures on how much it costs to raise a child, remember how those figures are calculated and divide by two or three, maybe even more.

    So, what do I think child support amounts should be? If we are talking government ordered child support, my belief is $0.00. When a woman takes a man’s children away from him; he is not allowed to make any decisions on where they live, may not even be allowed to know where they live; has no input on their diet nor clothes nor recreation or religious upbringing; he is exempt from any responsibility whatsoever. Period.

    When men feel like fathers, they will do anything to provide for their kids. Work in dangerous coal mines. Paint 1,000 foot TV transmitter antennas. Work on oil platforms. Work two jobs, maybe three. No one needs to force them to work for their own children when they are their own children.

    When a man doesn’t even recognize his own children, he doesn’t care any more. Yes, that happens very often!

    The Great American Wimp has been had! And, continue to mostly fight and bicker among themselves.

  70. James K says:

    @Spike:

    The BBC story linked from Wikipedia says it all:

    “An Asian woman who was jailed for life for setting fire to her husband has been honoured at an awards ceremony for breaking the taboo of domestic violence.”

    This murderer now has a career as a “Human Rights Activist”. Nowadays British women do indeed have the “human right” to murder their husbands, and escape justice by pleading the “battered wife” defence. Several other women have received light sentences or walked free.

  71. Anonymous age 72 says:

    In the mid-80’s as feminists were starting to implement the system by which cuckolded men would fun no fault divorce for adulterous wives, MS magazine printed one month an article describing the appropriate child support system.

    They said clearly at divorce, a man’s life-time income was actually the property of the whole family. If there is a wife and two kids, then clearly 3/4 of his lifetime income belonged to the two children and the wife. And, of course to be paid not to the kids, but to her. First to help her raise the kids, later to compensate her for having raised the kids. So, did he ask her to raise those kids by herself? Probably not.

    A few days later, a lesbian legislator from the State University gave a press conference giving the same suggestion.

    I fired off an op-ed to the big newspaper in the state capitol, pointing out how obedient to their leaders feminists really are. I included the page number in MS magazine.

    A lobbyist I knew told me later one of the male legislators ran out and got a copy of MS, and showed it to his male peers. They heckled her mercilessly, and she dropped it for the time.

    But, in the intervening 30 years, they have been pushing; shoving; and kicking toward that exact goal. When they reached the limit on child support, they changed to lifetime alimony, which is just another way to get a bigger portion of his lifetime income as they proposed in the 80’s. They never stop pushing toward their original goals, including killing 90% of all men on the planet.

  72. So, if indeed men are smarter, stronger, more resilient and more resourceful than women, why are women winning with their unnatural feminist ideals?

    One reason among others: a strong man often lets weaker people get away with things he wouldn’t accept from an equal out of pity, though he thinks of it as charity. The parts of Atlas Shrugged where Hank Rearden deals with his family are brilliant on this. He realizes they’re twisted and unhappy, but for that reason he puts up with (and funds) bad behavior from them, even their attacks on him, thinking that they don’t know any better and he’s capable enough to cover for them.

  73. Dave says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:

    But, you are essentially shaming men for making a rational decision about what they are going to do WITH THEIR OWN LIFE.

    Far from it. I am not shaming men for their individual decisions, and I apologize if I came across that way. I was merely thinking out loud, because, having lived in at least 3 countries in the last 25 years, and having visited several more over the same period of time, I could not be surprised as to how much latitude western women have in their society, and how much their men have been able to put up with.

    You are not alone. This B.S, is very common in our society from people who have never especially done anything themselves except write anonymously in the Internet.

    My hat tip to you for all you’ve done along these lines throughout the years. I quite understand how difficult it must have been for you to have helped a lot of people and yet see no lasting gains.

    And, those who want men to get back in harness making a good living for the law firms, and paying lots of taxes for welfare mommies.

    Nope. What I meant to push was for men not to allow themselves to be regulated and defined as if they were caged birds. Going MGTOW will radically alter the lives of any man who had aspired to get married and have a family. American women are not the only women on the planet, and, rather than pushing MGTOW (which may deprive them of what they really desire and will likely create long-lasting resentment in them), men could do better than that.

    In my opinion, I think one of the reasons why many western women get bored and start looking for mischief (including frivorce) is because they have too much time on their hands. It might even explain why many of them are delaying marriage as well. Most families in America have 1-2 kids. What is a woman supposed to occupy herself with after 2 kids and at age 32? She is still relatively young; she mixes with the opposite sex on a regular basis, both at work and at play; the media regularly tells her that there is more fun outside her marital home. Worse still, she really has no compelling marital duties to be preoccupied with. Such a woman must have a strong moral fabric to shun the regular doses of temptations with which she is being fed at every turn.
    Someone said earlier that America’s population is growing. Well, newsflash: America’s population is growing mainly because of immigration. Without the Mexicans, the Africans and the Asians, and pretty much the rest of the world coming in, American subways will be like deserted towns in the heart of Michigan.

    But let’s take a look at the patriarchs. Those guys married young. Before then, they learned trade, and had businesses (most were not employed by anyone). They ran their own businesses. They had children—lots of them. They got their women occupied, either in the business or at home. They knocked them up every chance they had. The result? Their women were simply too busy to listen to nonsense from anywhere. Even today, the observation still stands: families who have lots of kids, hardly ever divorce. My hat tip to Mr. Duggar, of the Duggar Family, 19 and counting. Mrs. Duggar ain’t going anywhere, come hell or high water. And, no; I am not advocating that every man has 19 kids, or anywhere near that number. But keeping the woman close, keeping her occupied, is likely to lessen the chance of frivorce.

    I am sure your opinion made sense to you. But, it really doesn’t. Each man has the right to determine his own life as best he can.

    If those men are happy and fulfilled with their choices, why not? I never said a man could not determine their own way. I was merely expressing an opinion that denying oneself the pleasure of a family simply because some people poisoned the marital water, is probably not wise, and only leads to resentment, bitterness and a hollow existence.
    I would expect those MGTOW men to stop talking about the women. After all, they’ve already gone their own way. Why should they continue to complain about the same women? Why not completely ignore the women, and truly behave as if the women didn’t exist?
    To me, their continuing preoccupation with the cause of their going MGTOW is evidence that they still have some unresolved issues. They are probably experiencing some pain as a result of their decisions. That if they had their ways, they would rather not be MGTOW. They would like to be married and have kids.
    If the women became more feminine and more moral today, those men would more likely get married, rather being MGTOW. That much is clear.

    And, you can be sure, even if you deny it, your life is also defined and regulated by your society and the people around you. MGTOW have much more control over their lives than you do.

    If I decide to stay in a society, it means I agree to put up with their regulations. There is no society that does not regulate its members. However, as soon as I realize that the society’s regulation runs counter to my cherished desires, particularly those that I counted extremely important, I reserve the right to cease being a member of that society.

    That said, I have to admit that I don’t have as much experience as many people here, but I have personally come across decent women in this country. Marriageable women. Yeah, I know, that sounds like claiming to have seen a unicorn. But it’s true. America still has solid women of all races that can be wifed up. Of course they are not always entirely ready to be married when you first meet them, but as a man, you can mold any woman you are interested in to be what you want her to be, once you are consistent in your love and in your firmness. All women have similar natures and a fundamental desire to please their men.

  74. Hugh Mann says:

    @Bluepillprofessor – “If you destroy your entire civilization to appease her she will demand the entire Earth. If you give her the entire Earth, she will demand what is under it. If you give her the Moon she will demand the solar system and insult your masculinity for failing to provide it.”

    The Brothers Grimm had a story for it – The Fisherman and His Wife.

    http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm019.html

  75. Dave says:

    The Brothers Grimm had a story for it – The Fisherman and His Wife.

    O my. What an interesting story! Bluepill meets Narcissus.

  76. Tam the Bam says:

    “the patriarchs. Those guys married young. Before then, they learned trade, and had businesses (most were not employed by anyone). They ran their own businesses. “
    So I should have left school age12 and become a goatherd or a potter, then? Be a made man by say, 23? 35? Not going to cut it these days. Ask any coalminer or auto mechanic.
    And then I’d be up against the cradle-snatching charge, from the strong, sassy, independent women of my age who would be outraged, outraged I tell you that a crrreeepy older dude was not picking their collapsing uteri for my vision of progeny, but teenage girls. Only way to nerf out 19 kids before she carks it. OK maybe I could tack on a 2nd wife after, like some of my Victorian ancestors, but ..

  77. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ November 8, 2014 at 6:17 pm:
    “Just a thought….
    So, if indeed men are smarter, stronger, more resilient and more resourceful than women, why are women winning with their unnatural feminist ideals? Why have they succeeded in running a rope around men in virtually every part of life in America? Why are men still putting up with it?”

    I have four responses. One, this is from God. Things are changing too fast, too dramatically for our collapse to be natural. I don’t think God is doing it as any kind of response; more likely, this was part of God’s plan for America from the beginning. Being special isn’t always enjoyable; just ask Alexander the Great. God used him to unify the Middle East’s language and culture in preparation for Christ’s arrival. Then he killed Alex the moment he was no longer useful and smashed his brand-new empire.

    Two, women aren’t driving things, although democracy makes it look like they are. They’re being manipulated by the Elites. The same lack of long-term thinking that allows women to like feminism also means women can’t be working to their own, big plan. They’ve been deceived into following a script just like Eve was. This is the one reason I’m not a misogynist today.

    Three, the Church’s moral death and retreat from public life has left us Christians disorganized. The best we can do is sign petitions, support good lobbyists and such but that’s mostly fighting the enemy on the enemy’s turf of biased judges, jerrymandered districts and mandatory public education.

    And four, Christians rarely have power because we don’t value it. The Godless seek power because they can use and abuse it freely while a powerful Christian knows he must answer to God.

    “…as a man, you can mold any woman you are interested in to be what you want her to be, once you are consistent in your love and in your firmness.”

    That’s like saying car drivers can do their own maintenance, diagnostics, repairs and major overhauls with no support from professional garages. It’s technically true but, absent natural talent, an extraordinary effort that most drivers should not be expected to make. I’ll buy a car to make my life easier and more comfortable; I won’t buy a car for the privilege of giving it daily maintenance. Not unless I’m a “pickup artist” anyway.

  78. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Dave says:
    November 9, 2014 at 11:55 am

    I am not going to say I agree 100%, but your expanded comment is excellent. Thanks for the clarification.

  79. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Dave

    >>America still has solid women of all races that can be wifed up.

    Yes, and I tend to agree with that. But, there is a problem that creates terminal status for men marrying in the United States.

    THERE IS NO WAY TO BE SURE A WOMAN IS SUITABLE TO BE WIFED UP.

    You can’t tell us. I can’t tell us. In truth, no one can tell us if a woman is suitable to be wifed up.

    At least not when she is young enough to have children.

    I never met a divorced man who didn’t think before the marriage that he had found a good wife. Not one. Not even men who too late realized they had ignored red flags that would cover the Grand Canyon.

    There are some common psychiatric disorders which produce the absolute horror stories, even among horror stories. And, those disorders make those women look like saints until they get you in their trap and metamorphose into the Wicked Witch of the West.

    The only way to be sure is to put your very life, and that of your children on the line, marry and see what happens. Increasingly men aren’t willing to take that chance.

    We can speak theoretically on how to tell the fiends from the angels, but in the end most men simply don’t have that capacity.

  80. Dave says:

    The only way to be sure is to put your very life, and that of your children on the line, marry and see what happens. Increasingly men aren’t willing to take that chance.

    I think it is actually better to seek God’s guidance in the choice of a spouse. That is one important area that has been ignored by many professed Christians, including many on this site. There is very little, if any, mention of the Divine role in helping to solve the myriads of problems facing us in today’s America. With God, life ceases to be a shot in the dark, but a well orchestrated set of events which bring us lasting satisfaction.
    That said, a smart guy would take the appropriate steps to protect himself from the many sharks parading as wife materials.

  81. Opus says:

    No one answered my question as to whether America has Open Prisons. Either way I guess there are different categories of prisoner based on an assessment of risk. My parents were friendly with a couple, where a daughter of theirs killed an old lady for the contents of her purse. She was always, apparently, a strange girl. Thirty years on and now middle-aged she pleads her innocence but nevertheless is allowed out on weekend visits to her parents and lives in what one can only describe as a country mansion – her own room, I suppose – and with little if any security.

    Perhaps that is what the Feminists have in mind.

  82. Dave says:

    Things are changing too fast, too dramatically for our collapse to be natural.
    [Women]’ve been deceived into following a script just like Eve was. This is the one reason I’m not a misogynist today.

    I totally agree with this observation. The rapid decline in America’s morals and influence over the last ten years or so are beyond natural causes. I suspect that America is being removed out of the way in preparation for the coming of the Antichrist, because the latter cannot assume prominence as long as he has the World Police on duty. Prophecy suggests that the Antichrist will come from the Muslim lands (possibly Iraq? Syria? See Daniel 11:21).
    Also, it is my contention that western women are as much victims of feminism as the men. Maybe even more so, since the women tend to be exposed to the steady dose of the poison of feminism from the crib to the grave. They get told at every turn that they are better than the boys; that they deserve better, no matter how great they have it now; that they have endless time to delay having a husband and children; that they never do wrong; that there are no consequences for their crazy choices……UNTIL reality hits, at which time it probably too late.

    the Church’s moral death and retreat from public life has left us Christians disorganized.

    That is an important observation. More than that Christians getting disorganized, it has left a big void in the public square. The church’s job is much more than merely pointing people to Christ; it is also saddled with the task of keeping the societal Conscience alive by feeding it with the truth on a regular basis. There is no other body whose influence determines the moral tone of society as the church. Before any evil gets established in society, the church must give tacit approval to such evil. This was true with the Holocaust. It was true with slavery in America. It was true with homosexuality (when was the last time the big time preachers spoke uot against it?). It is true of frivorce. It is true of single motherhood. Society cannot move ahead as long as the church fearlessly and publicly proclaims the truth against such evil in the power of the Holy Spirit, because nothing shapes public opinion like the truth proclaimed with Holy Ghost power.

    …That’s like saying car drivers can do their own maintenance, diagnostics, repairs and major overhauls with no support from professional garages. It’s technically true but, absent natural talent, an extraordinary effort that most drivers should not be expected to make.

    Actually, every man is expected by God to lead, teach, love, provide for, and protect his wife from external aggressors (which include feminist ideas). You, as the man, must be stronger, wiser and more knowledgeable than your woman, because it is your job to answer her questions and lead the way. It is a mistake to assume that the molding of your wife depends on some external bodies (e.g. the pastor, society or government); it does not. Granted, her parents ought to have done some ground works for you, qualifying her to be a wife material for you. But you are the one saddled with the task of molding your wife into whatever you want her to be. I sincerely hope that everyone thinking about getting married understood this. A woman who would not be lead by her man is not qualified to be wifed up. A woman who strives for the so-called “equality” with her man is not qualified to be a wife.
    This is another reason I personally don’t think the so-called female hypergamy is all evil. I think it is actually sometimes good. You cannot have true femininity without accepting some hypergamy. A woman cannot submit to a man she does not consider superior to herself. Thus, it is natural for a woman to seek out and submit to a wealthier, wiser and stronger man. Rejection of hypergamy by men is an acceptance of the feminist equality nonsense.
    Of course, spiritually, the man is not better than his woman. God will not answer his prayers and reject hers simply because of their genders. They are equal in Christ. But in life roles they are not. He is the man; she is the woman. A woman who wouldn’t accept that is not fit to be wifed up.

  83. Exfernal says:

    @Dave

    If pigs could fly… if there were no unilateral no-fault divorce…. MGTOW just take the least bad option they have.

  84. AD1984 says:

    I’m with JF: eliminate prisons and bring back Biblical Law – “two witness” requirement, compensation fines, restitution, execution, etc.

    Bonus: women who make false rape charges would get the death penalty, because that’s what a rapist would get. (Deut. 19:18-21)

  85. Gunner Q says:

    Reading up on the new 2015 gun laws in California, it appears Cali will be the first state in which a family member can directly petition a judge to have a “threatening” relative forcibly disarmed. In other words, a wife (or mere feminist relative) can now disarm a man at will. Bill AB1014, if anybody wants a headache.

    The threatpoint marches on.

  86. Lyn87 says:

    GunnerQ,

    That’s been going on for a very long time already. A woman can get a TRO very easily, and the thugs in blue generally confiscate whatever firearms the accused man has, since he’s a “DV threat.” TRO’s are almost always a bad idea, and – like mandatory arrest – they often make things far worse than if the cops had just left well-enough alone.

    One of the mistakes the military made in Iraq and Afghanistan was this: when they wanted to bring somebody in for questioning they would burst in with weapons up, throw the guy on the floor in his own house in front of his family, zip-tie his hands, and drag him out. A very large number of the guys they did that to were not guilty of anything, and the military knew it, but they didn’t know who was good and who was bad so they did it to everyone. The net result was a vast increase in people willing to fight against the U.S. and our coalition partners. They eventually figured out that the tactics they were using were humiliating a whole lot of people who were not enemies, and that we were doing a better job of recruiting for the enemy by accident than the enemy was doing on purpose. They changed the tactics once the Information Operations guys figured it out. They generally stopped kicking in doors and throwing guys on the floor in front of their wives and children. If they wanted to talk to somebody they knocked on the door and didn’t cuff him in front of his family. If they retained someone and discovered that he wasn’t an enemy (which was most of the time), they would have a ceremony on “release day” where they would invite the families to be present and thank the men for their patriotism and assistance. It totally flipped the script – instead of joining the enemy ranks, a lot of those guys would help the U.S. / Coalition after their release.

    Then I look at the collaborators in our own midst – police, judges, social workers, etc – who seem to take great pleasure in grinding men beneath their heels on behalf of women – and I wonder how long it’s going to be before regular men start pushing back. Too many police are in the “maximum shock” mode because most of them are bullies and/or cowards, and they fear any man not in their uniform. They have little reason to (being a cop is a remarkably safe occupation), but if they keep doing what they’re doing, men will eventually give them real reasons to fear. Will anyone tell them to learn the lessons we learned in the sandbox?

  87. James K says:

    Chick logic is the default setting for British judges and Social Services.

    Mother who slashed her four-month-old son’s feet with razor blade is spared jail and continues to look after child because judge thinks attack was HER ‘cry for help’:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828605/Mother-slashed-four-month-old-son-s-feet-razor-blade-spared-jail-judge-thinks-attack-cry-help.html

    The court heard Thompson had a history of self-harm and suffered from a personality disorder caused by childhood abuse and bullying at school.

    She has also suffered from the eating disorder bulimia for most of her adult life.

    The view that women can do no wrong is so pervasive in the British criminal justice system, that it even trumps child welfare (despite the fact that statutes strongly favour the latter). Someone who slashed a cat or dog with a razor would be banned from keeping any animals for several years. The law treats a woman’s children as her property, to be used and disposed of as she wishes.

    There was a brief controversy among British feminists this year on the subject of gender-specific abortions (South Asian families sometimes abort daughters so they can try again for a son). The dispute was quickly resolved: the sistahs decided that not even femicide may stand in the way of a female’s mother’s right to choose.

    Note to tradcons: this is what happens when you venerate motherhood.

  88. BrainyOne says:

    I agree this is the radical feminist ideal of “justice”, but while there is de facto privilege for women in the criminal justice system in the U.S., there is simply no way this could ever become de jure (e.g. separate punishments in law based upon sex), just like efforts to have consent be only an affirmative defense in rape cases. Radical feminists here are up against our Constitution, a formidable obstacle which doesn’t exist in places like the U.K.

    And letting women murderers off simply will not fly, regardless. The victim’s family will hunt down the perp and administer their own private version of justice, and good luck finding twelve people willing to send the victim’s family to prison when they hear the facts of the case. The whole point of the rule of law is that a society where people fight things out in courtrooms is much preferable to one where they fight things out on the street; but if you systemically deny justice in the courtroom street justice is what you will get.

    Also, this whole shibboleth of “non-violent” offenders needs to be challenged. The idea that a drug dealer is “non-violent” is BS. True, the sale itself doesn’t involve violence, but it involves the distribution of highly harmful substances into the population, which is, and rightfully should be considered, violence.

  89. Lyn87 says:

    I was in general agreement with BrainyOne in the first two paragraphs, although I avoid making predictions like, “there is simply no way this could ever become de jure,” [emphasis added] because such things happen all the time. There was a time in our history when people might have said, “there is simply no way the Federal Government will ever make it illegal to carry a pistol, and conduct full-body searches of every man, woman, and child to ensure they aren’t carrying one.” Yet that happens at airports, schools, stadiums, and government buildings every single day. Or… “There is simply no way that the Federal Government would ever make it a crime to possess a plant that grows wild all over the Southwest,” yet not only is that the case, but BrainyOne endorses it. I’ll agree that we are not ready for dual-track laws yet – but history tells us that, when enough people want something, it will be declared constitutional.

    Which bring me to the third paragraph, which is a perfect example of chick logic:

    Also, this whole shibboleth of “non-violent” offenders needs to be challenged. The idea that a drug dealer is “non-violent” is BS. True, the sale itself doesn’t involve violence, but it involves the distribution of highly harmful substances into the population, which is, and rightfully should be considered, violence.

    Uh… no. The inability to distinguish between real violence and feelbad is a big part of the reason why we have so much anti-male bias already. There’s a world of difference between poisoning a town’s water supply (real violence) and selling an intoxicant to a consenting adult (feelbad). Actually, it is the shibboleth that things that make women and weak men nervous should be banned or regulated that the MRM generally fights against, because the mindset that seeks to criminalize the sale and possession of random intoxicants is the same mindset that seeks to criminalize and penalize masculinity itself with things like VAWA, TRO’s, presumptive mother-custody, no-fault divorce, and alimony.

  90. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn,

    The new law thing is that women can bypass law enforcement entirely and take his guns specifically. No need to be going through divorce or have a “domestic violence” record to show.

    A part of me wonders if another reason for the law is preparation for a suicide epidemic. The Elites didn’t seize power just so their new man-slaves could off themselves instead of working the plantation.

  91. BrainyOne says:

    There was a time in our history when people might have said, “there is simply no way the Federal Government will ever make it illegal to carry a pistol, and conduct full-body searches of every man, woman, and child to ensure they aren’t carrying one.” Yet that happens at airports, schools, stadiums, and government buildings every single day.

    And when would that time have been? When has the constitutional right to bear arms ever been interpreted as the “right” to bring a firearm anywhere you damn well please, including an airplane, anymore than the right to free speech was ever interpreted as the “right” to yell fire in a crowded theater? Even the NRA doesn’t interpret the Second Amendment this way. If you can come up with even a single court precedent at the state appellate level or above that supports this interpretation, I’ll be all ears.

    I’ll agree that we are not ready for dual-track laws yet – but history tells us that, when enough people want something, it will be declared constitutional.

    It’s not that simple. “Enough” people would love to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment, including prosecutors, police, “law-and-order” tradcons, crime victim advocates, and others, because the Fourth Amendment means and has meant that obviously guilty criminals have gone free. Yet it still survives to this day, and criminal convictions are thrown out based on Fourth Amendment violations. Because “enough” sensible people also realize that the Fourth Amendment is what protects us from a police state, and a police state is a far worse state of affairs compared to an occasional guilty criminal escaping punishment. And today “enough” sensible people realize that giving criminal immunity to an entire class of people can only result in complete disaster for our society, for the reasons I mentioned. And anyway, “enough” people are never going to want this. The vast, vast majority of women do not, and never will, support amnesty for female perps (unlike other goals of radical feminism).

    The inability to distinguish between real violence and feelbad is a big part of the reason why we have so much anti-male bias already. There’s a world of difference between poisoning a town’s water supply (real violence) and selling an intoxicant to a consenting adult (feelbad).

    I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence here, but disagree profoundly with the second, at least in the way you mean it. You are quite in agreement with the radical feminists, who say that most women in prison are guilty only of “feelbad”. However, it is the radical feminists who are guilty of “feelbad” in failing to recognize the real violence perpetrated by women.

    Let’s examine this “selling an intoxicant to a consenting adult” thing a little further. Let’s say you are a bartender, faced with a patron who is feeling really, really good, and announces he is about to drive home in 20 minutes or so. During those 20 minutes, he is served four more drinks from you. He then gets in his car and runs over two people on the way home. You, the bartender, are guilty of criminal negligence in serving him those drinks and not making any attempt to stop him from driving. Your crime is a real crime of violence, despite the apparent “non-violent” nature of it, and in most jurisdictions you would (or should) be prosecuted for negligent homicide. But wait, what if by sheer luck the patron gets home safely? Does that mean you should be immune from criminal liability? Common sense says “no”, and that is why we prosecute DUIs even if no accident results. But don’t tell me DUI is a “non-violent” crime.

  92. Lyn87 says:

    BO,

    You can do better than that. The Second Amendment was widely interpreted to mean exactly what it says. You want court rulings? Too easy. At least two U.S. Supreme Court rulings – United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser v. Illinois (1886) – said exactly what I said and exactly the opposite of what you said.

    As for the Fourth Amendment – it has already been eviscerated. It is frankly illegal to engage in anything but the most trivial level of commerce and retain your Fourth Amendment rights with regard to your financial activities. Sources as ideologically diverse as Mother Jones and Reason agree that the Fourth Amendment has been severely compromised, although it is not yet fully ignored.

    As for “feelbad” – it is you who are agreement with the feminists, not me: you want to imprison people for the harm they might do. It is that mindset that causes cops to arrest male victims of domestic violence merely because they possess the physical capacity to harm the women who are assaulting them. It is that mindset that forces men to pay their ex-wives to support children conceived in adultery because preventing potential privation is more important than justice… when it comes to men, anyway. Your bartender example is nonsensical as well: you are not just advocating holding people responsible for not hindering the potentially dangerous acts of others (itself a dubious prospect). You’re not asking for regulation – you are advocating prohibition. (Because that worked so well last time?) Like feminists, you are demanding criminal sanctions against people even if they pose no threat to anyone at all for mere possession of something you/they don’t like – for you it’s drugs, for feminists it’s a penis. I assume you want to put car manufacturers in prison, then, because they build and sell dangerous products that kill far more people than illegal drugs do… or does the police state you wish to create only ban dangerous things you don’t use yourself?

  93. Aservant says:

    Excellent post Lyn87. You took the words right out of my mouth and saved me much writing. Thanks.

    In confirmation of your first point, I happened to watch an episode of Dr. Phil recently. I say “happened to” as don’t normally watch the show, or TV even for that matter, as I don’t own one, but I was in a place where Dr. Phil was on. On this particular episode, Dr. Phil was hosting a young woman who was “dating” the incarcerated killer of her brother. Her story is that after his murder, she was very full of rage that she needed to deal with, so wrote to her brother’s murderer in prison. This was the beginning of an over 10 year correspondence that has now led both the sister and her mother asking the parole board to free the killer. They believe that he is now “reformed” and it was just an “unfortunate incident” that resulted in a person being murdered. The sister has hopes to marry the man if all goes as planned. Furthermore, she even has 2 young children from another relationship but is still considering bringing this thug that killed her brother into her home. And yes, he definitely looks the part of a thug still.

    So would the families of the victims of female murderers hunt down the perpetrators? Maybe some, but most, I doubt it. The establishment and mainstream of our society is becoming incapable of seeing women as fallible in anyway. This episode of Dr. Phil is just one example, but a good one, and only one example of thousands.

  94. BrainyOne says:

    The Second Amendment was widely interpreted to mean exactly what it says. You want court rulings? Too easy. At least two U.S. Supreme Court rulings – United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser v. Illinois (1886) – said exactly what I said and exactly the opposite of what you said.

    What on earth are you talking about? Nowhere do these decisions hold that it is a constitutional right to take firearms anywhere and everywhere. They involve different issues entirely.

    As for the Fourth Amendment – it has already been eviscerated….

    Then why are convictions thrown out on Fourth Amendment grounds?

    That’s not to say there aren’t efforts to nibble away at it, although these cases (the ones you link to) involve issues at the margin which could be otherwise resolved. The renters’ case could be solved, for instance, by not requiring renters to allow the inspectors in, but if they don’t they are fully responsible for documenting code violations themselves and they waive all right of redress against a landlord for such violations should they both refuse to allow inspectors access and to document violations themselves.

    …you want to imprison people for the harm they might do. It is that mindset that causes cops to arrest male victims of domestic violence merely because they possess the physical capacity to harm the women who are assaulting them. It is that mindset that forces men to pay their ex-wives to support children conceived in adultery because preventing potential privation is more important than justice…

    No, not at all, and I don’t support either of these things. Criminal negligence is a different concept from harm someone “might” do. Its definition (in most jurisdictions) involves a failure to perceive a risk due to a gross deviation from an ordinary standard of care. I think I know where you’re trying to go with this, but it isn’t necessary to completely blow up our penal code to get there.

    In short, there is a difference between proactively punishing people for harm they might do versus punishing people for foreseeable harm of their actions.

    Your bartender example is nonsensical as well..

    Look, if you dislike the concepts of criminal negligence or recklessness than so be it, but these have been part of our penal code for a long, long, time, way before the advent of feminism. According to you, it’s OK to drive a car at 40 mph through a crowd of people in a park as long as no one gets hurt? But I guess if someone gets killed it’s murder? Or what? Sensibly the penal system calls the former reckless endangering and the latter reckless homicide.

    Like feminists, you are demanding criminal sanctions against people even if they pose no threat to anyone at all for mere possession of something you/they don’t like – for you it’s drugs, for feminists it’s a penis…

    And by this logic, I suppose you are OK with your neighbor having 40 tons of TNT in his basement, as well as some weapons-grade uranium as well as few vials of cyanide, and maybe a few containers of smallpox virus and Ebola virus. I mean, after all, he poses no threat to anyone by mere possession, right?

    But sensibly the government criminalizes possession of certain things either because in the ordinary course of affairs one’s only motive for possession is to do harm (weapons-grade uranium), or because possession of such things is very dangerous in and of itself (what if the Ebola virus gets spilled in the sink, or an electrical appliance shorts out in the basement, causing a spark for the TNT).

    And so no, the government will rightly continue to prosecute distribution of narcotics, when there is foreseeable harm; it is either beginning or feeding an addiction which results in many addicts committing even what you would deem “violent” criminal acts in order to enable it. (BTW one thing we didn’t talk about yet is that for radical feminists property crimes are “non-violent” which is another instance of feelgood BS.)

  95. BrainyOne says:

    @AServant:

    In confirmation of your first point, I happened to watch an episode of Dr. Phil recently…

    Anecdote != data.

    The establishment and mainstream of our society is becoming incapable of seeing women as fallible in anyway.

    That isn’t true. I think it’s important to avoid gross simplifications and overgeneralizations. Yes society sees women as morally superior to men, but that is not the same thing is infallibility.

  96. Lyn87 says:

    BO,

    Now you’re just grasping. Given your history of not being swayed by facts and logic, I’m going to let this drop.

  97. JDG says:

    Yes society sees women as morally superior to men, but that is not the same thing is infallibility.

    It’s pretty darn close, and sometimes the results of applying the “morally superior” paradigm are the same as if the women were considered infallible. When you look at some of the misandric laws being passed, one has to assume that law makers believe that women can do no wrong for it to make any sense.

  98. BrainyOne says:

    @Lyn:

    This is nuts. I think you honestly believe you are being led by facts and logic, but you aren’t.

    First, the court cases you cited don’t say what you claim they do. I know, because I looked them up. And thinking that it should be legal to carry a firearm aboard an airplane is just nuts, the Second Amendment notwithstanding.

    Second, equating misandric laws (which I detest as much as you) with laws against controlled substances is just nuts. These laws predated feminism by a long time. Claiming that these laws “stem from the same source” as laws “against having a penis” is nuts.

    Criminal law has proven to be the branch of the law most resistant to radical feminist “reform”. There are reasons for this, and among the most prominent is the Constitution. It is no disservice to men’s rights to admit this.

  99. BrainyOne says:

    @JDG:

    It’s pretty darn close, and sometimes the results of applying the “morally superior” paradigm are the same as if the women were considered infallible. When you look at some of the misandric laws being passed, one has to assume that law makers believe that women can do no wrong for it to make any sense.

    You need to distinguish between the law itself and its application. There are no laws in the U.S. which are explicitly misandric. All laws are gender neutral. In theory women should get the same criminal penalty for the same crime as men, and in theory women should not be favored in custody cases. The “pussy pass” only comes into play due to the biases of prosecutors and judges.

    Yet, sometimes, women get life sentences or even the death penalty, and fathers win custody of children. There are limits as to how far the “morally superior” attitude can go, and it does not go as far as infallibility.

  100. JDG says:

    There are no laws in the U.S. which are explicitly misandric.

    They may not be explicitly misandric, but they are intentionally written to give women power / leverage over men. The intentions of many are devious and misandric, and the others go along to get along. These types of laws are worse than worthless as they do more harm than good (if any good at all).

    I lived in CA when the DV mandatory arrest law went into affect. The number of arrested men went up somewhere around 40% while the number of arrested women went up 436 %. The very next year they modified things to make sure that fewer women and more men were arrested. What does it matter if a law is explicitly misandric or not when they intentionally make qualifications that usually only a man can meet?

  101. JDG,

    I lived in CA when the DV mandatory arrest law went into affect. The number of arrested men went up somewhere around 40% while the number of arrested women went up 436 %. The very next year they modified things to make sure that fewer women and more men were arrested.

    What exactly, PRECISELY was the change to Domestic Violence law that made sure fewer women were arrested?

  102. JDG says:

    What exactly, PRECISELY was the change to Domestic Violence law that made sure fewer women were arrested?

    You’ll have to do your own home work for details. Basically they changed the physical requirements for the perp to be considered a perp. The attributes required to be a threat were amazingly found to exist mostly in males. Odd coincidence that /not. As I remember it, that following year the number of females arrested went down to an “acceptable” level.

  103. JDG says:

    Where I work they look for in potential threats in men, not women. If some one is injured, men / fathers are suspected. Why? because women can do no wrong, and if the impossible happens and one of them does you can bet it’s a man’s fault.

  104. JDG says:

    JDG says:
    November 12, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    Should read:

    Where I work they look for potential threats in men, not women. If some one is injured, men / fathers are suspected. Why? because women can do no wrong. And if the impossible happens and one of them does, you can bet it’s a man’s fault.

  105. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/11/19 | Free Northerner

  106. Pingback: The “Rape” of Bathseba | Forgotten Paths

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