How things work.

One of Cane Caldo’s readers suggested that feminists are likely to complain that he hasn’t made his case regarding the term bastard with sufficient detail.  Cane responded:

I can live with that and refuse to explain things to Feminists anyways. Explaining the realities of civilization to Feminists is like explaining the internal combustion engine to Feminists: You will talk about the need for a proper mixture of fuel, air, and spark and they will come back with a demand for a bigger pink key because everyone knows its keys that make cars go.

They don’t lack explanations. That’s not their problem.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cane Caldo, Feminists, Illegitimacy, Men's Sphere Humor. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to How things work.

  1. okrahead says:

    Our society once believed in “self evident truths.” Now, if you assert a human being with male genitalia and xy chromosomes is male and that a human being with xx chromosomes and female genitalia is female, you are a thought criminal. Attempting to explain the “realities of civilization” or anything else to such people via logical, rational argument is simply throwing pearls before swine and dogs.

  2. Pingback: How things work. | @the_arv

  3. Gunner Q says:

    “They don’t lack explanations. That’s not their problem.”

    Boom, drop the mic. Well played, CC.

  4. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘They don’t lack explanations. That’s not their problem.’

    Couldn’t of said it better myself.

    Ever try explaining anything to a feminist that isn’t in agreement with her worldview….don’t try it. You’d have a better chance converting a brick wall to your point of view.

  5. Don says:

    It’s chilling how close current society is approaching Orwell’s dystopia from “1984”.
    Leftist’s tactics are remarkably similar to thought control exerted by Newspeak: all potentially subversive thoughts are labeled “thought crime” and cannot even be uttered.
    Political Correct speak anyone?

  6. dragnet says:

    “They don’t lack explanations. That’s not their problem.”

    Nailed it.

  7. @Don:

    I realized, not really that long ago, that we actually do live in a dystopian future, per about 1960 thought. I expected the food to be worse.

  8. Anon says:

    Explaining the realities of civilization to Feminists is like explaining the internal combustion engine to Feminists: You will talk about the need for a proper mixture of fuel, air, and spark and they will come back with a demand for a bigger pink key because everyone knows its keys that make cars go.

    Many thanks to Cane for joining the meme that the FI is directly opposed to the principles of civilization. Remember, ‘feminists’ are just the more vocal proponents of the FI. Most women are passive promoters of it to various degrees.

    Highly related :

    Feminists demand that only scientific research that furthers feminism be funded.

    There is no aspect of human identity more precisely opposed to civilizational progress than the FI.

  9. Anon says:

    I realized, not really that long ago, that we actually do live in a dystopian future, per about 1960 thought. I expected the food to be worse.

    It is extremely fixable in theory. All we have to do is cut government spending by 25%, preferably 50%. All sorts of ‘feminists’, sinecured leftists, and other perversions (government grants for police departments for meeting arrest quotas under VAWA, jail for non-payment of CS, etc.) would vanish.

    Tons of fat SJWs will have to live in poverty, and a lot of famous political commentators will lose their lucrative gigs, but the other 80% of the population will see life improve greatly.

    This is the ‘Moonshot’ or ‘Manhattan Project’ of our times. The inability of America to manage this downsizing of fiscal outflows puts into question whether American Exceptionalism is still a thing, and whether it really existed for more than a short while at all.

  10. Don says:

    Well, given the gargantuan American debt, ever increasing (larger than ANY other country), don’t expect taxes to be cut anytime soon. Next to that, taxes give power to the government. Which government wants to give itself LESS power?

    http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock?page=3
    “First, when debt rises faster than economic output (as it has been doing in recent years), higher government debt implies more state interference in the economy and higher taxes in the future.”

  11. Jed Mask says:

    Smh lol… Can’t argue wit “ignant”.

  12. Frank K says:

    While the fix on paper is simple and sensible, the problem is that voters, especially future voters, won’t have it. If we make the mistake of giving “Dreamers” amnesty and a path to citizenship, we can kiss any hope of righting the ship goodbye, as we will reach a demographic tipping point that will be fueled by chain immigration, guaranteeing future elections for the left.

    One only need look at Houston, where allegedly conservative Hispanic voters helped elect a leftist lesbian as mayor, all in exchange for promises of more free stuff to feed their hunger for gib me dats,

  13. JustRae says:

    For an individual to be able to learn anything, they must first want to learn. Even if gaining new knowledge hurts their feelings or makes them uncomfortable.

  14. Pingback: How things work. | Reaction Times

  15. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    * They don’t lack explanations. That’s not their problem.

    * Attempting to explain the “realities of civilization” or anything else to such people via logical, rational argument is simply throwing pearls before swine and dogs.

    I saw an online post from a woman who called her cat “my son.” She added: “Don’t argue with me. He’s my son.”

    Apparently, people had argued otherwise. She made it clear that she would not tolerate opposing views. Her cat was her son. Don’t even try to deny it.

  16. earlthomas786 says:

    Apparently, people had argued otherwise. She made it clear that she would not tolerate opposing views. Her cat was her son. Don’t even try to deny it.

    Why would she? Obviously a male cat impregnated her and she birthed it after it lived in her womb for 9 months. Then there was that time of nursing…which became painful once her sons sharp fangs started coming in.

  17. Well, the complete inability of feminists to LEARN is the reason they came up with the term “mansplaining”. After 50 years of women who don’t know shit being in charge of education from K-10 years of college, women don’t know shit, it takes men to teach them. But since women are incapable of understanding the basics, when you try with them to understand stuff, they drift, their brains die out, they explain it by saying the problem is YOU and your mansplaining.

    Deadly serious this, if you’ve married an idiot like this.

  18. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Trannies and feminists have long been at odds. This author (a female to male tranny) tries to bridge the gap: http://bostonreview.net/gender-sexuality/jack-halberstam-towards-trans-feminism

    Lots of hilarious craziness in this article.

    Though these past two decades have given us better terms for who we are, they have done less than one might hope to heal the vexed relationship between feminism and trans* activism and theory. Indeed, last year’s Women’s March on Washington was plagued by accusations of trans*phobia. In response to these concerns, some event organizers for this year’s anniversary marches, taking place this weekend in multiple U.S. cities, are encouraging participants to forgo the pink “Pussy Hats” that came to symbolize last year’s march, acknowledging that the emphasis on “pussy” — despite its ironic and playful inflection — excluded trans*women who may not have conventionally female genitalia.

  19. BDash: Go find the Washington Post article on that guy. The feminist bending in the article written by the feminist typist is hideous. Then, read the comments. Man, that’s some psycho shit. It’s like Ashley Judd and her nasty woman speech channeled into every commenter’s mind. Of course, I added MY delicate thought in several replies.

    And now? I’m banned from commenting at WashPost, a paper I’ve been reading since my ability to read the funnies going clear back to 1960 when it actually WAS a paper and not the liberal billboard it became a very few years later. Women don’t want mansplaining, they only want their rage. But then, Washington women suck and not in good ways.

  20. SkylerWurden says:

    @bdash77

    That is awesome. Even if he doesn’t win, at least he’ll do his part in shifting the Overton window a few centimeters back in the right direction.

    As far as explaining things to feminists… It’s a rigged game. In most cases she’s just feeding her entitlement complex; she demands sources for everything (and then either flat ignores or immediately dismisses them after you track them down) but never reciprocates with her own sources. She constantly shifts the debate by appealing to the tiny minority of women who have actually been victimized and ignores or minimizes the millions of ways men are victimized, imputing on herself the victimhood of every single raped woman and on you the stain of every single rapist. She demands the highest order of manners and calm, dispassion on your end, but has no problem smearing you with every possible invective. She tells obviously false stories and then demands you treat them as Gospel truth or else you literally take the place of the alleged attacker in her mind. She gathers an army of white knights and fellow women against you, all the while complaining that she is the one being bullied.

    It’s just validation for the feminist. The actual facts are totally irrelevant, so much so that she will openly display confusion when you insist upon drawing conclusions from them. I can’t tell you how many feminists have complained to me that women have it harder, and when I bring up suicide rates, incarceration rates, workplace death rates, violent crime victim rates, don’t conveniently ignore prison rape (which when added in means men even get raped more), homeless rates, etc. The response is always:

    “I’m not talking about that stuff. My math teacher said I was failing math because I’m a woman. (Or some other bullshit, but hilariously trivial complaint).”

    And then when you point out how trivial that is, every single time they will now suddenly have been the victim of rape. And how dare you call that trivial!?!

    You’re not arguing with a woman when you argue with a feminist. You are arguing with Satan himself. She’s just a willing megaphone.

  21. Latecomer. I try to figure out the hierarchy of liberal causes and who is on top-to-bottom, but it seems to be flexible to the situation. When the crazy queer Muslim shot up the queer Orlando nightclub, the liberal press covered up for Muslims, calling the Muslim a self-hating homosexual. Muslim had nothing to do with any of it, in spite of the fact that we now know he was with ISIS for a bit, throwing homos off of rooftops in Mosul and Baghdad. Upon his return, he did his homo deed, going in and scoping the place out first. So, the Muslims had privilege over queers, even in murder.

    There are lots of examples, but I’ll leave you with THIS to ponder: Trannie men, appropriating Feminist privilege to the point that Feminists now have to tolerate MEN, with or without a penis, declaring their feminine side with all candor and the feminist women can then ponder their daughters showering with MEN, with or without a penis who claim now to be women. If they complain, the women are invited to leave, the tranny wins. That runs Feminism, Inc. down the old Scrotum Pole of liberal privilege down to number Three. Biological Men, with or without a penis, claiming to be women, stealing feminist privilege. Funny thing is, trannies were transvestites relegated to mommy’s underwear drawer. Homosexuals were mocked by the old Feminists. Now why the Hell are feminists giving up their hard-won Matriarchy to queers that say they’re women?

    It was a cute joke they pushed to batter White men some more, but between the women’s groups fighting among themselves, the violent Muslim and Hispanic Patriarchy being imported, not to mention the violence, rapes and degradation women are subject to by Black men these days, I’d say they better get back on the horse and start naming names, races and places and get their privilege back. They are flat out of White men to blame. Top it off, the White Feminists at the top have a whole NEW worry, Women Of Color. Everyone is wise now. The White feminists are the only ones that made out the past twenty or thirty years. It wasn’t only White men that were screwed.

    And now? We’ll see how strong the White Feminists are and how they make out with the new violent Patriarchies being imported. I’ll take the Muslims, giving 7 points.

  22. Skyler, I found the way to handle the “Sources, please?” commenter. You tell them, “You, sweetheart are contradicting MY contention. Name YOUR sources, or go back to your bon-bons”. That really pisses them off because 9 out of 10 of them are fat, and so they must wonder, “How does he know I’m fat?”. Feminists are easy to mock and fluster. Their moods outruns their meds at the slightest opposition. They’re weak, fat, ugly. They are, every one of them, the girls and women no one invited to the prom or asked asked to marry. How they got power is beyond me. And it’s cost us our civilization. When I mention to them the rise of Feminism, Inc. coincides perfectly with the decline of our country, they sign off because, well, it’s true. Corelation or causation consideration does it, they disappear. On top of all else, they’re stupid. Mostly, their moods overpower the extreme quantities of the M&Ms of the depressed they gobble up faster than their steady diet of twenty cocks a month. I could go on and on about the ugly, nasty feminist fatties of Washington DC.

    And the outright beauty of their reaction to the Trumpening.

  23. I wish there was a way to like and to reply in kind to different commentators here. Lots of good stuff, nonetheless, just a terrible interface. I know there are reasons, but like a feminist I just…get the vapors!

  24. Oscar says:

    OT: Men need to stop being masculine, apparently.

  25. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    But Oscar, war (and action, and sci-fi) movies prove that women are way more kick-ass than men.

    The kick-ass warrior babe at 2:56 is especially amazingly super-awesome. She kills a man much taller and stronger than her, without weapons. Just her bad-ass fighting skills.

  26. Spike says:

    Russia under Stalin had it’s own language, it’s own maintenance of the individual in a constant state of dread and fear.
    Do you notice how feminists always say, “We demand that there SHOULD be…..” and then laws so sweeping, so comprehensive, that it is impossible not to break them? Once, of course, that law is broken, as it inevitably will be, the full weight of the system is brought in to crush the individual.

    I don’t get two things about it:
    -What is in it for the White Knight enforcers of the system? Surely they know they are going to get hit with this eventually?
    -What does it say about feminism, a movement that claims it needs so little when it says, “I don’t need a man…”, yet it demands totalitarianism enforced by the same men?

  27. freebird says:

    That is funny the trannies have rank over the ci-s females.
    Considering women do not even know what a woman is,they have little business telling us what men should be!
    For example:
    On one hand we have judgy bitch and Dr.Helen saying a man is not a “real man” unless he’s been in combat to protect women.
    OTOH we have the rest of the feminists say that any sort of aggression is evil masculinity.

    What do both groups of fems have in common?
    They want to control what you are.
    What you say,do think,who you SERVE each day in the gyno-master’s gyno-sphere.

    Having men think and do for themselves simply will not be tolerated by any wymyns.

  28. freebird says:

    “What is in it for the White Knight enforcers of the system? Surely they know they are going to get hit with this eventually?”

    Power wants more power.
    The feminist war against men has always been supported as a way to implement a burgeoning
    Police State.
    There will be no end to it either,look how insanely far it’s gotten already.
    They will escalate an Orwellian Draconian Police State until civil war results.
    The thing is: The modern American has no guts for fighting,he lays down and exposes his weak underbelly for the ball cutting fem’s “justice system.”
    The Moslems will fix this,just not with any white men around,but SO BE IT if the white
    xian is SO WEAK as to allow his own genocide he deserves to killed off.

  29. Smithy! says:

    Crown Prosecution Service in England are hiding evidence in rape cases that prove the defendant innocent:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5186957/Detective-rape-case-told-CPS-drop-charges-months-ago.html

    This is the same CPS that took no action on the mass rape of White girls by immigrants.

    Something very rotten here, institutions are now under the complete control of feminists and other cultural marxists

  30. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “What is in it for the White Knight enforcers of the system? Surely they know they are going to get hit with this eventually?”

    No, they don’t know that. They really don’t. White Knights think women will regard them as heroes. That they will receive women’s gratitude and even love.

    In medieval tales, the Damsels In Distress normally loved and rewarded their White Knights.

    Speaking of knights, I recently made the mistake of watching the 2011 TV series, Camelot. I should have known it’d be way more feminist than older Arthurian films. Among other things, Camelot features a more kick-ass Guinevere:

  31. feeriker says:

    “What is in it for the White Knight enforcers of the system? Surely they know they are going to get hit with this eventually?”

    Power wants more power.

    Or so they think. In the end, the enforcers are liquidated too (as most of the Bolshevik founders of the USSR ultimately discovered under Stalin).

    A left-wing tyranny always, Always, ALWAYSultimately devours its own.

  32. earlthomas786 says:

    Or so they think. In the end, the enforcers are liquidated too (as most of the Bolshevik founders of the USSR ultimately discovered under Stalin).

    A left-wing tyranny always, Always, ALWAYSultimately devours its own.

    Those who don’t learn from history….

    In left-wing tyrannies the allies are often seen as more of the enemy than their actual enemies.

  33. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Chaos at Google. SJWs vs. conservative white men: https://www.wired.com/story/the-dirty-war-over-diversity-inside-google/

    Fired Google engineer James Damore says he was vilified and harassed for questioning what he calls the company’s liberal political orthodoxy, particularly around the merits of diversity.

    Now outspoken diversity advocates at Google say that they are being targeted by a small group of their coworkers in an effort to silence discussions about racial and gender diversity.

    Huh? SJWs complain about conservatives wanting to “silence discussions about racial and gender diversity.”? Didn’t the SJWs “silence” the discussion by firing James Damore?

    In interviews with WIRED, 15 current Google employees accuse coworkers of inciting outsiders to harass rank-and-file employees who are minority advocates, including queer and transgender employees.

    Since August, screenshots from Google’s internal discussion forums, including personal information, have been displayed on sites including Breitbart and Vox Popoli, a blog run by alt-right author Theodore Beale, who goes by the name Vox Day. Other screenshots were included in a 161-page lawsuit that Damore filed in January, alleging that Google discriminates against whites, males, and conservatives.

  34. Embracing Reality says:

    “They don’t lack explanations. That’s not their problem.”

    Right. The root problem is that feminist opinions on anything should have never been given any validity by men in the first place, especially men in leadership. Rebellious women weren’t owed explanations. Men are expected to lead but when rebellious women try to take what they want, control, it’s leaderships job to tell them no. It’s where Adam failed. We’re right back where we started.

  35. DeNihilist says:

    ROFL!!!

  36. Vice says:

    >the girls and women no one invited to the prom or asked asked to marry. How they got power is beyond me.

    That’s a trick the delegators of authority use, is to grant authority to someone who has no natural respect, because they are willing to subjugate others. Naturally strong or otherwise respectful people don’t feel compelled to subjugate others.

  37. Petersons lesser known second interview, this time with bbc 5.

    His empassioned speech about the plight of young men is both heartbreaking and blatant raw truth.

  38. Gunner Q says:

    Jim Christian @ January 27, 2018 at 9:16 pm:
    “We’ll see how strong the White Feminists are and how they make out with the new violent Patriarchies being imported. I’ll take the Muslims, giving 7 points.”

    Those are matriarchies, not patriarchies. Violent, feral men are the natural leaders of a matriarchy. Patriarchies are led by self-restrained men who cooperate with and respect each other… a rare occurrence in human history.

  39. Bee says:

    @Gunner Q,

    “Those are matriarchies, not patriarchies. Violent, feral men are the natural leaders of a matriarchy.”

    Excellent insight, COTW!

  40. feministhater says:

    Jordan Peterson raised to national hero.

    The problem of Jordan Peterson is he believes men and women to be equal, not just before the law but in every aspect. Yes he knows they are different as sexes but fails to call women to submit. The idea of a ‘power sharing’ between the sexes was bereft of all reason when it first was thought. There cannot be any sharing because women will never take their share of responsibility. They can’t, physically they just can’t. Men have to be curtailed and women promoted to achieve this ‘sharing’ and when you curtail men enough and promote women to unearned heights, as modern Western Civilisation has done, men simply stop caring about sacrificing for their countries or their women. Peterson misses this. It’s the most fundamental human trait. You work hard for that which is yours, you don’t for something that isn’t.

    God says that women are to submit, that their husbands are to be their leaders and that women are to serve them. Without this… men will not sacrifice as Peterson wants them to.

  41. feeriker says:

    Now outspoken diversity advocates at Google say that they are being targeted by a small group of their coworkers in an effort to silence discussions about racial and gender diversity.

    Quick show of hands: who here knows or has ever heard of a conservative (small “c”) who gives a shit about, much less wants to waste time and breath talking about “racial and gender diversity,” or who cares enough that anyone else wants to talk about it to waste precious life-minutes trying to stop them?

    Anybody …? Anybody …?

    The little SJWs at Google are full of shit.

  42. ray says:

    feministhater —

    Like yourself, I was not impressed by young Mr. Peterson’s debate with the British fem-supremacist. He did ok, but I keep hearing about how he crushed her etc., and I didn’t see it. She maneuvered him around pretty easily. He tried to pull his Hard Face a few times, but she was not intimidated in the least. Why should she be? The guy’s a professor, not a fighter.

    I think Peterson is an equalist and I’m v suspicious of his instant and widespread popularity for his modest academic differences with long-institutionalized Western feminism.

    The whole phenomenon strikes me as a subtle way to pretend a challenge to Total Feminism, while conceding the main platforms upon which the Western gynocracies are based — Holy Equality et al. It feels like a calculated move designed to placate cuckservatives, so they can pretend opposition to what’s been destroying their own nations, while they either stood around, or participated and profited. Much like the way that cucked ‘pastors’ give the yearly anti-feminism sermon, while embracing all the socio-legal aspects of the matriarchy, including especially obedience to their wives. I’d guess that your enemies are attempting to move the goalposts again, by presenting this mild academic as some sort of answer, or champion of men. Off-gassing.

    I’m glad to see Peterson standing up, if just a little, for boys in the West, of course. But it’s way too late for polite conversation about the ongoing gender tyranny led by America and Britain. I would advise caution before jumping on his bandwagon like many ‘conservatives’. At this point, the Western male is so degraded, disenfranchised, and scapegoated from fifty years of anti-masculinity that even the mild protests of Peterson appears like some great victory. It ain’t.

    Cheers.

  43. Anon says:

    RPL,

    I saw an online post from a woman who called her cat “my son.” She added: “Don’t argue with me. He’s my son.”

    Apparently, people had argued otherwise. She made it clear that she would not tolerate opposing views. Her cat was her son. Don’t even try to deny it.

    It is sad that she will outlive her son.

  44. feeriker says:

    It is sad that she will outlive her son.

    One reason why feminists and other mentally ill left-wing nihilists prefer animals to humans is that animals are fungible in a way that humans are not and never will be. Your feline or canine “son” dies? No biggie, just go out and buy/adopt another one. You can’t do that with human children (not legally, anyway) and you also can’t give bare-minimum attention and care to human children in order to maximize your own comfort and convenience. This is why feminists substitute animals for humans in their relationships. It’s an especially toxic form of mental illness that simply amplifies the human misery that it also feeds upon.

  45. rachel says:

    Canecaldo mentioned back in December that he thought the way to impact women was to exclude them. Embracing reality and Jason discussed this also. I think they are right. I can’t speak for all women but I think an awful lot who are trying to be attractive to men would be utterly shocked to see how disgusted you are with them. If men reject women en masse, i think women will change. I don’t say this to put the responsibility on men alone, older women should speak up too but I don’t think this can be solved by the young.
    When I was a young teen I got zero attention from boys. When I was 16 I suddenly developed and got a slew of attention. I concluded that that was what men wanted. A couple of years later I was learning about Christianity and one of my new Christian friends showed me a long modest skirt that she had just bought. I was confused. I thought, doesn’t she know what men want? I was the clueless one of course, but without Christian teaching I would not have known any better. I just noted what men appeared to be responding to. I didn’t know that there was a difference between what men wanted for sex and what they wanted for marriage. It doesn’t excuse my choices but if we want societal change surely it has to come from older people not naive teenagers who become worthless before they think things through?
    Men are disgusted , I get that now. How are we to get that through to the next generation? When men play along just to get sex how is that different from white knights? Both groups encourage women in their folly. Not that that excuses women.
    Perhaps Older women have to tell younger women how to behave and older men need to show their repulsion.
    Perhaps there is hope; Pro lifers like Abby Johnson say that more millennials are pro life than previous generations because they have grown up with ultrasounds and know what abortion really is. I never thought that planned parenthood would be defunded but they overplayed their hand and showed their true heart. That surely is what feminism is doing now. It is based on lies so surely it can’t stand forever.

  46. Jack Russell says:

    mgtowhorseman says:
    January 28, 2018 at 9:31 am

    Jordan Peterson raised to national hero.

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-prime-moment-jordan-petersons-gotcha-was-heard-around-the-world#comments-area

    Rex Murphy, one of the few decent ones who used to work for the far left CBC. I listened for 5 minutes this morning to a program called “Ideas”. The mangina host was talking about a new feminist book and how women in the west were oppressed for over a millennium. If they are so oppressed move to the middle east. There is a female shortage there.

    Speaking of Ontario, the lesbian premier doubled electricity rates the last few years, added burdensome “carbon taxes” and added more regulations. Last week Campbell’s soup announced it is moving it’s operations to South Carolina from Toronto. Canada just lost 400 jobs. Ontario is turning into a rust belt thanks to Premier Wynne and the PM Justine.

  47. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    This is why feminists substitute animals for humans in their relationships. It’s an especially toxic form of mental illness that simply amplifies the human misery that it also feeds upon.

    Indeed. A pet can be neglected without penalty, and later brought our for virtue-signalling when desired.

    But pets don’t have dollar payment streams associated with them like human children do. Cuckservatives cannot whiteknight for pets, so there is no CS law for pets like there is for human children.

  48. Devon35 says:

    Most men in the US are desperate for any bit of female attention and have surrendered their self-respect and dignity (if they had any to begin with) to get it. Online dating sites are flooded with men despite the fact that 80% are ignored. Plenty of desperate suckers for the post-carousel riders but I’m not one of them.

  49. Novaseeker says:

    Peterson is making a buck while the sun is shining, really, but to be honest his interview with Channel 4, if you review it, wasn’t that impressive. Yes, the interviewer was very hostile and mischaracterized what he said repeatedly, but that’s just the game — it’s how it’s played. He was not that impressive, certainly not the way I’ve seen people swooning over that interview, and it’s because at heart he is still a “classical liberal”, which is something that is now seeing its apotheosis. He’s a bright guy, but he’s also quite dug in, and to be fair to him, he’s smart enough to make hay while the sun is shining, given his age — not a stupid thing to do. But a hero? Hardly. He’s an academic that isn’t outright hostile to sex differences between men and women, but that’s really it — he’s an egalitarian equalist in every other way, he just doesn’t think sex differences are socially constructed (because they clearly aren’t) — whoopdy-doo.

  50. Boxer says:

    He was not that impressive, certainly not the way I’ve seen people swooning over that interview, and it’s because at heart he is still a “classical liberal”, which is something that is now seeing its apotheosis. He’s a bright guy, but he’s also quite dug in, and to be fair to him, he’s smart enough to make hay while the sun is shining, given his age — not a stupid thing to do. But a hero? Hardly. He’s an academic that isn’t outright hostile to sex differences between men and women, but that’s really it — he’s an egalitarian equalist in every other way, he just doesn’t think sex differences are socially constructed (because they clearly aren’t) — whoopdy-doo.

    Peterson’s positions seem obvious to you because you’re a grown man with a career and goals and a developed psychic life. If you were a 19-year old whose life centred on internet pr0n, World of Warcraft and pizza-flavored microwaveable meals, his schtick is an absolute revelation.

    Peterson is taking the symbolic place that your father, uncles, and grandfathers took, when you were a kid. He’s doing it for kids who have no access to fathers or grandfathers.

    Most importantly: male-feminists and ANTIFA fags turn to their goony politics due to feelings of powerlessness. By encouraging young brothers to quit acting like losers and take some responsibility for themselves, he’s denying the feminists their next generation of footsoldiers.

    I’ve been having these same arguments on my blog for days, so I don’t expect to convince you (and I expect most of your generation will always share your sentiments, no matter what I say); but, I’m paid to rub shoulders with Millennials and Gen Z boys on a daily basis, and Peterson’s definitely filling a void.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/mgtow-v-peterson/

  51. feeriker says:

    @Rachel

    I don’t say this to put the responsibility on men alone, older women should speak up too but I don’t think this can be solved by the young.

    I agree. Alas, however, it is the preceding generations and their Godless, hedonistic negligience that got us into the socio-sexual mess we’re in today. It’s difficult to expect those responsible for creating the mess to have either the wherewithall or the desire to help clean it up or make things right.

    Perhaps Older women have to tell younger women how to behave and older men need to show their repulsion.

    Again, I absolutely agree with youin theory. However, the ugly reality is that “older women” are part of the problem. I’ve stated many times before on this blog that in the church today, there are almost NO older women in the Titus 2 mold who are either spiritually mature enough to set an example for young women or who have any interest in doing so. As I’ve also pointed out ad nauseum, most of today’s “older women” came of age when Second Wave Feminism (2WF) was in its ascendance during the late 1960s/early 1970s and drank very deeply of it, to the point where it permeates their entire being. All they would do if they assumed a mentoring role over today’s young women would be to teach them how to be even more contentious, rebellious, obnoxious and unpleasant than they already are.

    This not to say that there are NO “Titus 2 women” in the Western church today. However, they are too few and too far between to have any lasting and widespread positive effect. The phrase “past the point of no return” comes sadly to mind. Also, even those few older women who are qualified (my own 84-year-old mother comes to mind as an example) are often so far removed from the problem that they can neither see it nor comprehend it (that’s Mom too).

    I wish it were not thus, but it’s the fallen world we live in.

    Perhaps there is hope; Pro lifers like Abby Johnson say that more millennials are pro life than previous generations because they have grown up with ultrasounds and know what abortion really is.

    I keep hearing this, but I’ve seen absolutely ZE-RO evidence of it. For every pro-life millennial I hear about second hand, I know or have witnessed hundreds of others with attitudes toward life —all life, unborn or otherwise– that are even more cynical, nihilistic, and toxic than those of their elders. This, sez me, in large part explains the resurgence in popularity of the occult arts and practices among millennials. Their lives have been so denuded of God that all that is godly is simply alien to them. I’d love to be proved wrong in this case with hard evidence, but that which my own eyes see and my own ears here leads me to no other conclusion.

  52. Pingback: Dalrockians v. Peterson – v5k2c2

  53. Spike says:

    feeriker:
    ”…I’ve stated many times before on this blog that in the church today, there are almost NO older women in the Titus 2 mold who are either spiritually mature enough to set an example for young women or who have any interest in doing so…”.

    I think you’ve touched on this as a recurring theme regarding parents as well: Parents don’t want to rein in their teen / young adult children’s sexual excesses because ”they don’t want to be labelled as hypocrites”*. It’s the same reason there aren’t any Titus 2 women. Older women don’t want to be labelled ”hypocrites”, because nothing is worse for a woman than righteous judgement. Those older women went through the sexual revolution, have dissed their husbands and demanded ”equal treatment and respect” from them, at marriage-detonation threatpoint.
    The real answer to this is to take the pain. Is a particular line of morality Biblical? Then enforce it. Did you not follow the biblical blueprint of morality when you were young? Yes. If so, then you must repent of your rebellion against God. This is the painful, step-by-step walk with God that NO ONE wants to do, but is the necessary obedience that God demands.

    *I have a friend who has told me in advance that he is not going to rein in his daughter’s choice of boyfriends because he doesn’t want to be labelled a hypocrite. When I told him the sexual roles of men and women are actually different and it matters for her, he still didn’t want to hear it…

  54. Lost Patrol says:

    re: Jordan Peterson

    I think Novaseeker he’s an egalitarian equalist in every other way

    and Boxer Peterson’s definitely filling a void

    are both right about him.

    The crazy thing is that in the current era, employed as a professor at a Canadian University, and publicly stating that men and women are not the same – is so outrageous that it practically makes him this guy:

  55. Frank K says:

    Last week Campbell’s soup announced it is moving it’s operations to South Carolina from Toronto. Canada just lost 400 jobs.

    Expect more of this

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    The crazy thing is that in the current era, employed as a professor at a Canadian University, and publicly stating that men and women are not the same – is so outrageous that it practically makes him this guy:

    Are you not entertained?

  57. Frank K says:

    This is why feminists substitute animals for humans in their relationships. It’s an especially toxic form of mental illness that simply amplifies the human misery that it also feeds upon.

  58. feeriker says:

    *I have a friend who has told me in advance that he is not going to rein in his daughter’s choice of boyfriends because he doesn’t want to be labelled a hypocrite. When I told him the sexual roles of men and women are actually different and it matters for her, he still didn’t want to hear it…

    That’s almost to be expected in this day and age. I can state from experience that raising a daughter in the Western world today is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Mine’s been on her own for 20 years now and yet I still remember like it was yesterday what an ugly nightmare –and ultimately futile and failed effort– it was to keep her from falling prey to the World.

    Your friend almost certainly has adopted the attitude he has for one or both of the following reasons:

    1. He’s emtionally, mentally, and spiritually captive go his own past, making it impossible for him to enforce standards that would spare his daughter a lot of needless pain and suffering that he went through.

    2. He lives under very real threatpoint from his daughter (AND probably her mother) who can use the State to make his life living hell if he tries to enforce discipline.

    It’s tempting to tell such a man to “nan up and fight the good fight! Your daughter’s life and future, as well as her soul, depend on it!” But then again it’s equally tempting to say “You are not walking in this man’s shoes. How dare you presume to tell him what to do when you’re not carrying his risks!”

    No easy answers to this one.

  59. freebird says:

    More reasons why the white knights/blue knights will keep doubling down.
    1.Male thirst and stupidity.Women aren’t far wrong when they say men think with the little head.
    2.The upper class-the rule makers,our “betters” have always been exempt or immune to the rules and laws they propagate.When did you last see as cop convicted of anything,much less DV?
    3.The american male has lost touch with his Christian Godly roots,the source of his spiritual strength.
    He believes the secular lie that the Old Testament is no longer The Law of this land.
    He has swallowed the undermining secular teachings of the lesbian/feminist/liberal/Marxist
    Churchians.
    Unlike the Moslem,who knows what The Law is,and knows HE IS God’s enforcement hand,he IS NOT divorced from his spiritual power.
    No quote from Luke,Mark,John or any other New Testament writer can undermine or detract from the red letter words Christ himself wrote,Because Christ IS The Word,He wrote The Word,he is the living embodiment of The Word,and when Christ said the Old Testament law is still in effect,you had damn well better believe that.

    “The new covenant” refers to opening up salvation to all (goim) by way of John 3:16
    whomsoever will.
    It does NOT create a new lawless environment where buffet style personal Jesus embraces
    man-hating lesbians have gay marriages and teaching blasphemy in the churches.

    Continue to believe the secular lies put forth by the Churchians and be forever divorced from your spiritual power allocated by God,made in HIS image,to DO his work.

  60. rachel says:

    @feeriker
    I do agree that there is a very long way to go. The women I come across from the 50s and earlier do give some sound advice but are drowned out by the world. Young women are listening to middle aged ‘older women’ with ‘ministries’ that are more like careers than ‘good works’.
    I look at society the same way you do but I think the weight of failure is beginning to show. Young mothers with jobs are struggling, are not finding careers fulfilling and are noticing their children suffer. Young people are seeing their parents struggle and divorce. Women are beginning to see the pain of men close to them – brothers, friends – people they know are good men – because divorce is just so prevalent.
    I think there is a groundswell of people who see the problems and don’t see feminism providing answers.
    I follow a couple of very traditional women’s ministries that uphold home and family. It will take time to build up a new group of Titus 2 women but hopefully we will reach a tipping point.
    I don’t have any evidence for that hope but I don’t think a system that fails to meet the real needs of either gender can stand forever.

    ‘re abortion. Abby Johnson said that they are seeing larger numbers of young people at March for life events and pro life conferences. So yes, those people are still a drop in the ocean but they are expressing different reasons for being anti abortion – apparently they don’t need convincing that life begins at conception – or at least extremely early on.

  61. rachel says:

    I just think that the people noticing problems are more ripe for conversion away from feminism not that they are changing yet.

  62. earlthomas786 says:

    I keep hearing this, but I’ve seen absolutely ZE-RO evidence of it.

    That’s because the media never shows the crowds at the March for Life in DC.

    I’ve been to a few state ones…it’s mostly younger people. Certainly more there than the boomer generation from what I could tell.

  63. Opus says:

    Did you know Her Majesty’s Britannic Government has banned Roosh from visiting these shores? – and so I expect there will be a campaign to ban Peterson, but then they were trying to ban the God-Emperor himself – although, obviously, banning an American President from visiting his Mother’s homeland is not going to happen.

    What was great about Peterson’s C4 interview – unbearable though it was to watch, and so I speak from the bits I have seen, especially the end – . was that Ms Newman in her misrepresentation of Peterson made herself look ridiculous. Peterson has his blind spots especially on MgTow’s where he is of the ‘man-up-and-marry-them-biotches’ type but we are not allowed to watch or to hear anyone articulately puncturing the equalist narrative and there are a lot of young people who have no idea that there could be any other and indeed a better way of looking at these things and thus Peterson will come as breath of rare air. The car-crash Interview was so disastrous from C4’s point of view that they, so I have heard, doubled-down by changing the narrative to a ‘don’t-hit-a-girl’ by trawling-for or inventing or encouraging people to write mean tweets. This looks like desperation. That the interview has gone viral (and overwhelmingly in Peteson’s favour) on YouTube shows that it has hit a nerve.

    We might have preferred something tougher from Peterson but I can only imagine that under the glare of the studio lights and knowing that you are going out live that this places tremendous pressure on an interviewee. Putting the world to rights idly in your local bar (or at this blog) is child’s play by comparison.

  64. feeriker says:

    We might have preferred something tougher from Peterson but I can only imagine that under the glare of the studio lights and knowing that you are going out live that this places tremendous pressure on an interviewee.

    I think that Vox Day has the right idea here: never, EVER talk to anyone from the lamestream media. They will ALWAYS distort your message and misrepresent your position.

  65. BillyS says:

    Rachel,

    People can see the problem, but the cost of changing is also great. Many of those distraught young mothers you note will fail to follow through when they realize that dying to self can really be painful.

    My exwife talked/talks a great Christian game, but finds true repentance impossible. And the church flocked behind her to get “free” more than questioning her act of divorce. Anyone can give a sob story, and that is more important at this point, unfortunately.

    The problem with ragging on Peterson is that it is unlikely to have a perfect spokesman in this environment. We have to live with what we get, not wait for the perfect. The window needs to drastically shift and that is highly unlikely to happen all at once.

  66. earlthomas786 says:

    I think that Vox Day has the right idea here: never, EVER talk to anyone from the lamestream media. They will ALWAYS distort your message and misrepresent your position.

    Although in Cathy Newman’s case it was so over the top it became a meme.

  67. ray says:

    feeriker — “Your feline or canine “son” dies? No biggie, just go out and buy/adopt another one. You can’t do that with human children (not legally, anyway) and you also can’t give bare-minimum attention and care to human children in order to maximize your own comfort and convenience.”

    Insightful.

  68. ray says:

    Spike — “When I told him the sexual roles of men and women are actually different and it matters for her, he still didn’t want to hear it”

    At least he’s got a real friend. You did well.

  69. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    I’m sorry but you mgtows guys are totally uninspiring. No young man is going to resonate with the just give up and enjoy everything going to shit by the poolside mentality. You come off as weak losers and nobody wants to be like you.

  70. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    snowdensjacket0x0x0: You come off as weak losers and nobody wants to be like you.

    It doesn’t matter what any man wants. Most MGTOW men are so because of circumstances. MGTOW is not our first choice. MGTOW is merely the best available choice.

    I’ve not had much success with women in my life. And I have high standards. A bad combination. Worthy women are in low supply and high demand. Women who express interest in me (which happens after I turned 40) are disasters. So I’ve become a reluctant MGTOW.

    Am I a loser? I regret never marrying. I regret having no heirs. No legacy to carry my name. No children to care for me in my coming old age. But I’m in my mid 50s and financially set. I needn’t work. I can travel and live off my investments. Barring a national financial collapse (which can happen), I’m facing a comfortable and secure retirement.

    I’m not happy being MGTOW. I’m not happy about lacking a loving, devoted wife to grow old with. I do get lonesome. But things can be worse.

    you mgtows guys are totally uninspiring. No young man is going to resonate with the just give up and enjoy everything going to shit by the poolside mentality.

    There’s no need to “inspire” young men to become MGTOW. Many young men will end up MGTOW whether they want to or not. Life (and women) will force MGTOW upon them.

  71. earlthomas786 says:

    In my case I had what I would consider worthy women in my life…but they were always the ones to break it off because I was more marriage/commitment minded. I don’t consider myself a MGTOW because I think taking up your cross and following the Lord is what a Christian is supposed to do…but I do consider marriage not being a possibility anymore given how women’s attitudes and how are acting plus how much of a risk it is for a man.

    At the very least by not placing that much importance in women anymore and placing more on the Lord I’m finding my wantings going down.

  72. rachel says:

    @ Billy
    Sorry to hear your experiences. I don’t think things will change overnight; there certainly is a long way to go. I guess I’m simply more optimistic that it will happen in the long run. I’m just a hopeful newbie I suppose.
    I agree about Peterson – I imagine that people googling him will find other sites too. So as you say an imperfect spokesman is still helpful. Feminist sites love to sneer about the red pill and manosphere – happily throwing around search terms for folk. I bet a lot of high school lads have found red pill sites. We won’t see the effects for a few years though.

  73. BillyS says:

    Rachel,

    I would love to see a change and perhaps I can play a role in that, but I think it is farther out than most realize. Too many Christian leaders really don’t want to think about things so even the church is not dealing with the real issues involved.

    A big challenge is that standing up too much can put a big target on you and I am not currently independently wealthy, so I have to keep that in mind when I communicate too.

    More women making bad choices had to face the consequences of those choices, and current society shields them far too much. Things in the church will only change when that shielding stops. The church should lead the world in righteousness, but is far too complacent with it in this area, unfortunately.

  74. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    I am about the same age and I don’t have a heritage either, since my exwife was infertile. I don’t have a wife to grow old with either since she decided life was better without me, though with some of my goods and some short term financial support.

    Snowden’s Jacket needs to take his head out of his rear and realize that many of us didn’t choose our situations. I am where I am because society and churches reinforce the idea that women are in full control of their own destinies and should be able to bail on a commitment at a moment’s notice if they are unhappy in the least.

    Take your self-righteous preening elsewhere.

  75. Greg says:

    @Spike, freebird, & ferriker:

    I agree with your assessments of the situation; I think the feeling of being a hypocrite prevents a lot of parents from addressing serious issues with their children.

    Your comments remind me of a comment that I made recently.

    The unedited comment:

    While I agree with the overall assessment, there are men who have a degree of self-control trained into them outside of a religious context who, at the same time, are also able to decide whether to marry on rational grounds (for example, risk assessment).

    The irony, if you will, of “most men will marry [almost] regardless of the qualities of the wife” is that there is a genetic basis for self-control, and that this lack of self-control gets passed on to the children. The daughters will be like the mother, and the sons will be like the father – if promiscuity and sex-cravenness are the qualities of the wife and husband, respectively, then they will be the qualities of the children. In a religious context, parents are effectively equipping their children for failure (especially in the context of sexual morality). (Admittedly, it could also be due to parasites altering host behavior, but I think genetics plays a larger role.) The question becomes: To what extent does a man have a moral responsibility to find the best mother of his children?

    So, the men who fall into one or more of the groups below:

    Most men still get married, to whichever woman will marry them regardless of “n count”. Most men will date whichever girl will date them, over a certain threshold (which for many men, looking around in the real world, isn’t that high, folks). Most men will go along with work husbands and GNOs and wife and friends only vacations and daughters with BFs that sleepover and on and on, as long as the sex spigot stays somewhat on, and they have access to some live sex.

    … are ensuring that such behavior continues by reproducing. Can they help themselves from doing this? Yes. The belief that they can’t – that men cannot control their sex drive – probably is an extra nudge in the wrong direction. They’re told they can’t or shouldn’t. Popular beliefs are an interesting thing, particularly when viewed alongside cognitive biases. Self-defeating beliefs (e.g. “people are unable to avoid fornication”, “people are unable to avoid adultery”, “people are unable to exercise self-control”, “if people aren’t having sex, that there is something wrong with them”, “the male sex drive is unconquerable”) play a large part in the current situation, no doubt related to the cultural decline of Christianity.

    In any case, I imagine that much of the justification for female behavior comes from those aforementioned types of men, who (potentially) recognize that those things are wrong but overlook it anyway. An example are the men who ignore n-count (either not asking, which is more common, or asking and simply accepting). The justification of female behavior after the fact is rooted mainly in a justification of the man’s choice of spouse. A women with one premarital sexual partner other than her husband has a 560% greater chance of initiating a divorce than one whose only sexual partner is her husband. That was the percentage from 20 years ago (1995). The latest numbers from the CDC NSFG (2015) put that percentage increase at over 700%.

    There is an internal conflict between the emotions and the mind, and I suspect being reminded of how they’ve made an objectively poorer choice explains why such men are often quite angry at being told (or reminded of) the risks of marrying a woman with N > 0. Incidentally, this anger also follows the pattern of gender in-group preference – men and women like women (as a group) more than men like men (as a group) or women like men (as a group). This is part of the reason why women will defend the actions of women as a group (particularly when there is a collective benefit to lowering standards) but men will generally not engage in this behavior on behalf of other men. The typical justifications (“they’ve changed”, “statistics are all lies”, “she’s not like other women”, etc), other than airs of a salvific view of (poor) male spouse-selection decisions, have disturbingly become justification for the behavior in all settings. One minor exception: Something I’ve noticed on CAF is that some fathers will attack the virginity requirement (in the abstract) because he knows his own daughter(s) is/are promiscuous. In other words, attacking the notion of temporal consequences of promiscuity because one does not wish for them to apply to their situation, or attacking said notion because they don’t want the marriageability of their daughters to be negatively effected.

    What I find interesting is that both cases are an example of trying to implement a suboptimal solution to a problem (the optimal solution was to simply observe and promote Christian morality) – it was (at some level) their poor decision-making that led them to their current state and now they feel they must argue that their state is in fact good, or even the best state. Because the arguments they are looking for do not exist in a religious context, they seek out arguments which are exclusively secular. A major problem with this, from the perspective of Christianity, is that to use those arguments is to endorse the secular viewpoint (with only the weakest of religious facades applied, as an afterthought). It does not take long to find examples, even on Christian/Catholic forums, of people relying on what are essentially secular arguments for promiscuity. This makes sense, as it becomes emotionally harder for most people to argue – with, say, scripture – against promiscuity (and the temporal consequences arising therefrom) when they and/or their spouse were/was promiscuous. (Men, in particular, must justify to themselves that the promiscuity of their wife is not as bad as it really is.) One of the profound and longstanding conclusions from psychology is that simply writing out something that you don’t agree with makes you more inclined to support it. The effects of participation preceding this process makes the decline in teaching of sexual morality to children (by parents, especially) all the more unsurprising.

    I think this particular issue is of some importance, because it’s so black-and-white – there are no justifications for fornication. It’s simply immoral in all cases. If something that is obviously immoral can be justified by men, they can justify things in areas that are not as clear-cut.

    Regarding the notion of a carrot on a stick: It is a cruelty of the modern world, for sure, that the only way to licitly engage in sexual behavior is to get married, and yet the vast majority of women are, even by the lowest of standards, unmarriageable.

  76. rachel says:

    Billy,
    Yes, that is all true I think.
    We can only play the long game.
    All the best for the future.

  77. rachel says:

    @Earl ‘I don’t consider myself MGTOW…’
    That makes sense to me. You aren’t dropping out but you are going your own way. In one sense shouldn’t all men be MGTOW? The married ones have more resources and responsibilities but they should theoretically still be charting their own course. My husband was MGTOW in all but name when we met. I was impressed that he knew who he was, where he was going and he had inner strength. I still am. He wanted a family but was following God first. He told me I would never be first in his life – unintentional dread game right there!

  78. feministhater says:

    MGTOW at its core is the ejecting of marriage and societal acceptance as a man’s reason for being.

    Earl isn’t MGTOW as he still wants to get married.

    rachel, your husband wasn’t MGTOW either, he wanted to get married, he was merely a bachelor until he found you. Don’t try and attract MGTOW to your cause. Women are to remain away from MGTOW and its core beliefs.

  79. earlthomas786 says:

    My husband was MGTOW in all but name when we met. I was impressed that he knew who he was, where he was going and he had inner strength. I still am. He wanted a family but was following God first. He told me I would never be first in his life – unintentional dread game right there!

    That’s more what I meant. You have an idea what you want out of life…but it’s more important to follow God’s will. So it’s not really going your own way…but trying to stay on the path the Lord gives.

  80. UK Fred says:

    “You will talk about the need for a proper mixture of fuel, air, and spark and they will come back with a demand for a bigger pink key because everyone knows its keys that make cars go.

    They don’t lack explanations. That’s not their problem.”

    This quotation from the OP{ sums up the problem of trying to discuss any vierwpoint other than the current “IN” view in the post modern era.

  81. rachel says:

    @ feministhater
    Fair enough.

  82. earlthomas786 says:

    He told me I would never be first in his life – unintentional dread game right there!

    From the male perspective I’d see that more as wise thinking than trying to drum up dread. A wife should never be first in a Godly man’s life…God should be.

  83. BillyS says:

    FH has one version of MGTOW, but that is not the only path. Some are simply doing what they want. My neighbor appears to be a MGTOW, though I doubt he would use that label. He is late 30s (I think), single with no girlfriend. He told me he is just doing fun things in life dealing with things as they come, during a brief recent conversation. He didn’t plan this way, it just happened.

    He is reasonably thin and attractive, but never found a connection. I expect more men are like him than those who are very hostile to women as FH is.

    I don’t hate women myself, I am just realizing I am highly unlikely to find a faithful one I am attracted to in my target age range who would also be attracted to me. I would marry again in the right circumstances, but I don’t expect that to happen.

  84. feministhater says:

    FH has one version of MGTOW, but that is not the only path. Some are simply doing what they want. My neighbor appears to be a MGTOW, though I doubt he would use that label. He is late 30s (I think), single with no girlfriend. He told me he is just doing fun things in life dealing with things as they come, during a brief recent conversation. He didn’t plan this way, it just happened.

    Oh, so now you’re all experts on MGTOW are you? MGTOW has two core attributes. No marriage and no cohabitation with women. The rest is up to the man himself.

    He is reasonably thin and attractive, but never found a connection. I expect more men are like him than those who are very hostile to women as FH is.

    And yet he got nothing. Haha! I’m not hostile to women until they enter a male space and seek to co-opt it. I could not care less what they do in feminist la la land, that shit has no meaning to me anymore. I leave women alone for the most part, I’m extremely cordial when I do have to interact but I never, ever let my guard down. The point is to seek to get away from them at the earliest convenience. If you believe you can still have a ‘real’ relationship with modern women, the kind that started and keep the #metoo campaign going, you haven’t been paying attention.

    The only backlash that will come from women over #metoo is when the punchbowl is withdrawn by men. It will be fun to watch. And I won’t even have to lift one hand in hostility. Isn’t that marvelous?!

    You’re still in blue pill land. I suggest you wake up and smell the burning roses.

  85. feministhater says:

    MGTOW has two core attributes. No marriage and no cohabitation with women. The rest is up to the man himself.

    Should also add that it also is the disregarding of social expectations but most of you know that by now.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.