Happy New Year

I Guess it's a Privilege

... to suddenly find myself obliged to address so very many trolls.  I mean do that sincerely because I appreciate the 8,000 pageviews generated through Reddit this past week or so, but some of you folks don't seem to grasp the overall tone of this blog.  The intentionally provocative style of my Anonymous Letter post is NOT representative of my usual writing.

I welcome dissent here because I enjoy intellectually honest debate.  I also learn from it.  There is however, nothing intellectually honest, or remotely edifying, in playground-style insults (which are not as witty as you think they are) and in cryptic fringe-based rabble rousing.  Y'all can just cut that shit out right now because I will delete it without a second thought.  Feel free to publish it in your own space, but not here.

"Enough." Amen.

Demand a Plan

H/T Navy One

Most Interesting....

Confirmed: Feinsteins gun-control legislation will ban most guns

If Congress want to do away with the Bill of Rights, I think Congress will not like the results.

Fun Fact

Google "encouraging girls in school"  110,000,000 pages

Google "encouraging boys in school"  14,000,000 pages

Book research is depressing.  Ugh.

If You Give a Damn About Your Right to Bear Arms...

...Buy a book of stamps, fire up your email, hit Facebook, spam the crap out of Skype, and I want to see smoke coming out of your phone.

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2012/12/sauce-for-goose.html

"The Journal- News, a Gannett publication, has published the full name and address of every licensed pistol permit holder in three New York counties. "

This is Bullshit.

A Rare Photo

...of me ungroomed:

Pink Bunny Suits!!!

This is part of why I call my husband WolfAlpha - he's not the perfect specimen of anything, but he has some of everything.  He's the whole package.  There's quite a bit of caveman in him, as he works his tail off to meet our needs and plenty of our wants, but he doesn't make himself a slave to my whims.  However he's the most thoughtful gift-giver I know.  It was all his idea to buy matching Pajamarama Hoodie-Footies for the dog and for me. I do love that man - he makes me laugh, and then some...

Grrrl Power, The Early Years

Grrrl Power is easy to spot once one knows what to look for.  It's everywhere; we're surrounded by it whether we see it or not.  Women's Power is a bit harder to define in modern terms, because it has become quite rare.  Even those of use who have it or strive for it, don't usually know quite what it is.  Over the next few weeks I'm going to take a shot at defining and illustrating both.

Grrrl Power can be loosely defined as any power, advantage, or increase in status that a female gains, without earning it, and/or by taking it away from boys.  It is not always pure evil.  All girls and women have some Grrl Power, just as all boys and men have some of the male equivalent.  One doesn't have to be a thief to make the most of an easy opportunity that happens to be lying around unused.  In it's modern incarnation though, Grrrl Power has evolved from ordinary opportunism, to parasitism and predation.  That is the Grrl Power I'm discussing here.

Grrrl Power starts out innocently enough, as little more than the dawning of understanding that girls and boys are different.  Very young individual girls who are spoiled by their parents are no better or worse than very young individual spoiled boys.  The difference usually develops when children join with other children, outside of the family, in a social environment.  The difference is in how "spoiled" behavior is rewarded or punished.  Grrrl Power is the advantage that a preschool girl gains when she learns that her teacher can be flattered.  Boys learn this too, and "charming" boys also have an advantage, but only over other boys, rarely over girls and never over "charming" girls.  If a male "teacher's pet" is in conflict with a female "teacher's pet," the girl will win.  Every time.  She is always perceived as the victim, even if the boy is so sweet that his offense can be presumed accidental.  She will be comforted and he will, in the best of circumstances, be admonished to be more gentle with the girls.  More often he will be blamed and reprimanded.  Most little boys who upset little girls are shamed and/or otherwise punished.  Boys learn early that every interaction with girls is fraught with danger.  In past generations this wasn't so much of a problem because boys and girls were encouraged to play separately, and usually did so.  Boys could say "No Girls Allowed," and girls could say, "No Boys Allowed."  We now call that discrimination and exclusion, and it's no longer permitted.  Inclusion is a nice ideal, and it can work if both boys and girls are willing to accept their differences.  However, here's where it becomes a problem.

Boys must respect and accommodate girls whose aptitudes are different from their own, but girls are never required to acknowledge boys' differing aptitudes.  A double standard.  There is no other way to describe it.

Girls are allowed to make their own rules of play, and boys are not.  If a boy wants to play house with the girls, he may do so, but he is expected to play according to the girls' rules.  Imagine the uproar that would ensue in a daycare facility if a boy and girl were playing house, and the boy said, "Are you ever going to hang up that phone and start dinner?"  or (heh heh) "Go make me a sammich."  Let's see...Time Out, Lecture, Note to Parents, "Discussion" with parents, Close Monitoring for future offenses....

On the other hand, if a girl wants to play tag with the boys, this same standard doesn't apply; not only will she be allowed to play with them, she will be allowed to make the rules by default.  She will not be required to play by any of the "boys' rules" that make her feel inadequate.  And she won't even need to be pushy or assertive about it, as the teachers will make it happen on her behalf.  Once she realizes that as one of the slowest runners she'll be tagged "it" more often, she will never be required to suck it up and "lose" gracefully, or to leave the game when it's no longer fun for her.  All she has to do is complain to the teacher that "it's not faaaair," and the boys will be expected to curtail their fun in order to accommodate her feelings.  Run slower.  Give her a head start.  No tag backs.  The girl gets to "win" through the application of arbitrary rules, and she gets to feel good about herself.  Those arbitrary rules are always nothing more than a means of handicapping the better competitors, most of whom are boys.

Additionally, when something unpleasant happens anyway, girls automatically get more sympathy and support.  When a boy trips and falls, he might hear, "You OK, Buddy?" but he will almost always hear, "You need to learn to slow down and be more careful."  When a girl trips and falls, she might hear, "Careful Honey!  Those rocks can be dangerous!"  She will almost always hear, "Oh you poor thing!" and be overwhelmed with hugs and sympathy, and escorted off the playground with a great deal of fuss.

Even at this age, children of both sexes generally prefer it this way.  Most boys would be embarrassed by a flutter of cooing and clucking.  For boys, falling down and getting back up is usually a bit of a badge of honor.  It enables them to say, "It's no big deal; I'm strong."  The teachers expect it and the other children respect it.  Little girls however, even in the age of feminism, don't get much attention for sucking it up.  Not from teachers or from other girls anyway.  And at the pre-school age, respect from boys is rarely expressed as effusively as respect from teachers and other girls, and it doesn't take girls long to develop a taste for vocal positive attention.

By kindergarten, most boys are already in the habit of considering the likely consequences of their words and actions.  Plenty of boys go on to indulge their "inappropriate"* impulses anyway, but when they do, they know there will be a price to pay.  Most girls are oblivious to consequences, in part due to their brains' slower development of the ability to process logic, and in part because they have relatively little experience of consequences.  For the most part, nobody is teaching them that anything they do is wrong.

*"Inappropriate"  -  a relative term, far too often assigned arbitrarily, not logically.

Class and No Class

I'd like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the sort of people I usually encounter in my little corner of cyberspace.  Like most bloggers, I have dealt with the occasional troll, of one stripe or another - that's life on the net.  However when I became involved in politics, I knew I'd be useless if I didn't roll with the punches, and I don't want to be useless.  This week though, my blog hit Reddit.   Both Men's Rights and Feminist pages linked my Anonymous Letter, and I can now note from personal experience, a couple of interesting phenomena.  One is that the overwhelming majority of younger females, at least those prone to voicing their opinions, speak without thinking.  Until and unless they calm down and think, most of their "opinions" are little more than shrieking nonsensical gibberish.  Every logical fallacy in the book, half-formed ideas bouncing around like pinballs,  it's quite amazing to witness.  A few young males have the same problem, but relative to females, very few.  (And this is the sex we are trained to fear????  Pft!)

The other phenomenon I noticed is that the teenage and twentysomething denizens of Reddit have far too much time on their hands, and very thin skins.  They appear to have the luxury of making a hobby of being deeply offended by things they can't be bothered to understand.  I had to put some posts in comment moderation, having been bombarded by verbal feces, flung by monkeys who unfortunately are not caged, in the form of comments that any intelligent six year old would be ashamed to utter.

This little adventure in the PC land of PC Redittors on PC "Winter Break," has been a startling reminder of how Totally Rockin' Cool my regular readers are - those who tend to agree with me and those who don't.  And contrary to what the screechers will claim on Reddit (the same screechers who had me banned within hours) no, I do not "censor" dissenting voices.  I do, however, delete nasty, ignorant comments from nasty, ignorant sub-humans.

That was the "No Class" part of this post; what follows is a bit of the "Class" part:
I have a "dissenter" here who happens to boost my faith in the young people who are our future.  Jessica is a twenty year old college student who considers herself an "egalitarian" feminist.  I, of course, think that "egalitarian feminism" is an oxymoron, because I remember a world that was not completely dominated by feminist myths, and I understand the anti-male bias in the powerful political leaders of the feminist movement.  She has been raised by feminism, yet she is capable of serious thought.  For the past several weeks, Jessica and I have been engaged in a long, drawn out discussion, and although we disagree on many points, I give her mad props for her intelligence, her patience, and her thoughtfulness.  The concepts I try to explain are utterly foreign to her, and still she considers them; she tries to see if they can fit into a worldview with which they are simply not compatible.  She doesn't accept my ideas blindly, indeed she challenges them, and  rather thoughtfully at that.  She is also far more patient and civil than many people twice her age.  She has remained calm and open when I have *gasp* lost my patience and resorted to dismissive sarcasm.  In a world where maturity is optional for just about everybody, this young lady already has it in spades.  I am deeply impressed.

I Caught a Man Being a Hero Today

His six year old daughter wanted a toy, and he said, "No Sweetie, not today."  Just as her adorable little face began to pucker up, he said with gentle, affectionate humor, "Don't waste your tears Sweetie.  My answer is 'no.'"

That man gave his daughter a precious gift today.  He reminded her that she has a father who's quiet unassuming strength cannot be toppled by the wiles of a child.

What a beautiful sight.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"David (Boobzie) Futrelle:
lonshangui, could you email me to provide evidence for what you’re saying .....? I don’t want stuff like that going up in the comments that I don’t know for sure is true."

Drive-By Trolls and Agent Provocateurs

Just a quick note.  I deleted my "Um, Ick" post; the whackjob subject of it doesn't need any more hits from this site.  Being a Some Men's Rights Activist, he is a disgrace to the MRM.  He's a bigot, he's malicious, and he's stupid. 

He is not welcome in my life or in the MRM.

Ain't It the Truth!

The Onion, via Adaptive Curmudgeon

heh heh

I Know These People...

In fact, I live with them!

edited: Welcome HUS readers.  Speaking of Girl Game, this is the wrong post.  Try this one

Why Is The Spearhead One of the Leading Men's Sites?

Because of articles like this:

Mr. Price gets it, and expresses it eloquently

" But (Morris Dees) is a strong, resourceful, unintimidated man, and that’s what counts.

For women, however, it’s a different ball game. Women’s power rests largely on the public perception of femininity as inherently good. This perception is instinctive for men, who are programmed to see all sorts of goodness in women from birth. It’s an enormous source of power, but it isn’t guaranteed, hence women’s constant insecurity over what people think of them. For the most part, it is quite literally based upon the male concept of beauty. Men see beautiful women and this activates the “good” response in their brains. Men then immediately fall all over themselves to serve the woman in order to obtain some of this goodness.

But a couple changes have come about. The “women good” perception can be severely damaged by certain things. First, men do not feel good when the woman they desire is screwing other men. It’s very distressing to them on an instinctive level, and today women are very promiscuous. Secondly, when women start acting like men (e.g. compete with them in careers), it also significantly erodes their appeal. Combine promiscuity with competition in the workplace, and women have really shot themselves in the foot. It’s like a reverse makeover where they come out looking uglier than when they went in. To men, feminists have begun to epitomize all the worst things about contemporary females, and young women are starting to catch on and run very quickly away from the feminist label."

"It's an enormous source of power..."

In fact it is women's primary source of power.  Without it, women have a huge (possibly overwhelming) obstacle to overcome. Women must compete with men.  If men stop consenting to handicap themselves in competition with women, because the rewards for doing so are becoming increasingly unappealing, women will have to work much harder to earn their status and resources.  Most will fall short.  Most already do; without social pressure and government mandates demanding and requiring male consent, most women would be exhausted and relatively poor (and/or utterly dependent on consenting friends and extended family) especially women with children.

Men and women are designed to be allies, not enemies.  The natural male/female alliance is the foundation of our civilization.  Men want to be our allies, but we make it increasingly difficult for them, as we have removed or greatly diminished most of the incentives for men to do so.  It is only their overwhelming desire to be our allies, that has blinded them to the reality of those diminished incentives.

Men are waking up and realizing that the emperor is stark naked.  Bravo.  I hope I live to see a world where once again, women thrive under our own steam, instead of on borrowed power.  Grrrl Power is an illusion.  Women's power, the natural power with which we are born, is a sight to behold.  Grrrl Power repels men; women's power attracts men.  Indeed it is the inborn desire to ally themselves* with women's power, that drives men to every sort of greatness.    


*I don't mean "ride the coattails of."  I mean "engage in mutually beneficial exchange with."

Well, Would You Look at That!

Huh! Activism works!  Who knew?

This is HUGE!
I raise a glass of my favorite wine to the very likely end of Mary Kellett's career/reign of terror.


We named one, more to follow
A particularly nasty young feminist in Toronto has spent the last 72 hours vacillating between bragging about her new found fame, and frantically attempting to scrub her history off of the internet.  Sorry Cupcake, you own your shit, and you will own it for the rest of your life.
       (and then there's Boobzie's version of events.)
       Boobzie, being a world class newshound, reports the "news" almost before it happens.
Just for the hell of it, get drunk and browse the comments section of Boobzie's site.  What passes for "discussion" there is a joke of epic proportions.

Even more awesome, mainstream news outlets are reporting on both cases!

I Laughed at My Husband's Nuts...

Add caption

...and he really didn't mind.

Wow, No Wonder Feminists are So Angry

I was given the link to the following post, and I figured it would make me mad.  It did, briefly, and then it made me sad.  When you view the world with unnatural and impossible expectations,  You are bound to be absolutely miserable for the rest of your life:

misandry isn’t real, dudez

I’m a guy, and I need feminism. Not “men’s rights.” Feminism. Here is why.

Everything that MRAs talk about that men can’t do or are socially punished for arise directly and immediately from misogyny. Not “misandry.” Misogyny.

Whether I am expressing my emotions, playing with children, baking, having sex wherein I am penetrated in any way, wearing the wrong color, talking the wrong way, moving the wrong way, being sexually harassed/assaulted, or paying too little attention to looking like I’m not paying attention to how I look, when society punishes me or derides me or marginalizes me for these things, it is happening because they are things women, not men, are expected to do, and our society at large fucking hates women.

Has that sunk in yet?

Men, can you even think of a single goddamn way you have ever been mocked that wasn’t related to something that a misogynist society sees as feminizing? Even when large men are mocked for their bodies, they are referred to as having “man-boobs,” for fucks sake.

How do you expect to improve those things with “men’s rights?” What right are you fighting for? I can tell you what I think you’re fighting for. I think you’re fighting for the right to contain and control misogyny, and direct it back at women, where you think it belongs. You want to maintain your privilege but erase its consequences, and that’s why your movement is farcical; it’s a big fucking feedback loop. How do you expect men to be free from the peripheral effects of misogyny when you refuse to even fucking believe it’s real?

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

This poor kid.

Dear Queer As In,

I'd like you to consider something, two things actually.  First, the behaviors you described for which you are ridiculed, are not generally "hated" behaviors.  Not in women anyway, because they are predominantly feminine behaviors.  Most people DO dislike feminine behaviors when those behaviors are exhibited by men.  And let me assure you, it is WOMEN who dislike feminine men, far more than men do.  Granted, men are more likely to be straightforward and vocal about their dislike, and while women may speak of it only in code words and euphemisms, women's emotions are more deeply triggered by the phenomenon.  I'll explain why soon.  

It's is obvious that you are a feminist, because you have accepted wholeheartedly one of the primary tenets upon which feminism depends: that there are no inborn sex-specific behavioral traits.  It has been proven over and over again that this is simply NOT TRUE.  While there are exceptions and variations, those exceptions and variations do not define the NORM, which is this:  There are sex-specific hormones and hormone combinations, and there are sex-specific differences in brain structure and body structure - beyond reproductive organs.  That means there must inevitably be sex-specific urges to behave in certain ways.  Some behaviors are naturally predominantly masculine and some are naturally predominantly feminine.  Feminism needs to deny (or at least downplay) this irrefutable truth, in order to tell both men and women that it is perfectly normal for women to act masculine and for men to act feminine.

Not surprisingly, our "lizard brains," the home of our instincts, reject this even as our conscious brains insist upon it.  Here is the result:

Normal heterosexual males are attracted to women with feminine behavioral traits, yet they are repelled by other males with feminine traits, because their lizard brains know that the behavior is attached to the wrong bodies. Normal hetero men are not sexually attracted to masculine traits, even when attached to feminine bodies.  Women don't seem to get this; they think there's "something wrong" with every man they meet who is not interested in their more masculine traits.  "Men are 'intimidated' by 'strong, powerful, independent, successful' women."  No.  They are not intimidated, they just aren't interested.  If they want to spend time with masculine people, they'll hang out with males.  Men want to mate with feminine women.  Shocking, I know.

The other side of the same coin is the foundation of misandry:  Women are taught from childhood that masculinity is bad; it's vulgar, it lights its fart and belches the alphabet.  It starts wars and kills people.  It rapes and beats women.  It makes millions of dollars and oppresses the poor.  Yet normal heterosexual women are sexually attracted to males who are masculine.  How miserable must these women be to need to be constantly on guard against their very own instincts, lest they actually find themselves liking (or God forbid, loving) that which society has deemed "bad."  And then it gets worse.  The men that women want to like and respect, because they display "feminine" behaviors, are repellent to women's lizard brains.  Women don't want to mate with those men.  They call them "creepy," or they friend-zone them.  No sex with feminine men (until the biological clock can no longer be ignored.  They may not be sexy, but being so "sensitive and kind," they'll probably make decent daddies, so sex with them can be tolerated.  If they make enough money.)  The reason this is integral to misandry, is that men can't win.  Women want to despise masculine men, and women can't help despising feminine men.  Of course, women can't win either, because now there's no such thing as "good" male mates for women.  How can feminists not be angry at the world?  For them, it sucks rocks!

The second thing I want you to consider is that while misogyny exists, it only exists in a tiny minority of men.  Most men love women.  They love women who act like women. They love femininity.  It is feminists, who are predominantly female, that despise femininity.  Perhaps you've noticed how feminists deride women who want to be happily married to masculine men, and who want nothing more than to raise children.  Society does not hate women.  Feminism hates women. The worst misogynists in Western Culture are feminist women.

How might the men's rights movement fix this?  It's simple.  But certainly not easy.  Guaranteeing men the same rights that women have, will make it a little less easy for women to openly practice misandry.  Men will be permitted to act like men, women will be permitted to act like women.  As we were designed.

Herding Hamsters

More fodder for the book and the blog.  The Letter has garnered almost 12,000 pageviews, and the comments are a goldmine of research topics.  Furthermore, they are helping me organize and prioritize my thoughts.  At first I was a little worried that some of the "objections" to my themes would actually be legitimate and logical.  I should have known better; if A Voice for Men, with thousands of readers, can't get a feminist to engage in reasoned debate (Challenge Unanswered) why would I?

Anyhamsterfest, here's another epic logical fail of a comment from the cushy land of make-believe, and my response to it:

Miss Kae OzNovember 30, 2012 1:52 AM

"DO NOT, under any circumstances, repress your sexuality. Your foremothers fought hard for your right to be promiscuous with no consequences; don’t you dare let their efforts go to waste. And since you’re not looking for a husband, there’s no need to sleep with only “good” men, is there? ‘Cuz badboyz are hawt! And nice guys are boring. Additionally, you have plenty of time to ride the best cocks you can find;"
Agreed! Oh wait. You meant this as a bad thing. Oh well, toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe.
But if I am having all this sex, how am I also going to bed alone with my vibrator? And why is it it is the long term married women I know whose only sex is the vibrator and feel painfully alone and not the single women I know?

"Men are dropping out, Ladies. "
YOUR version of men, and it is about friggin time. We have been working over a century to get out from underneath the Neanderthal mentality and them finally dropping out will make it much easier for us all to finally try to achieve the ideal of being treated as human instead of a monogamous whore/hand maid bought and paid for by the man having the career we wish we had. Thank you for finally stopping pushing us back down on and stepping out of the way to make room for us at eye level with those not born and bred to have a limited view of our societal value.

The one thing that we do agree on is how the Patriarchy has been negative for men. The gender role ideals it perpetuates limits mens potential and gifts as much as womens. I do not agree that it has better for woman. Selling your independence for financial security is just a form of slavery. I would rather be a free pauper than a slave with a gilded cage. It is bad for both men and women. Men and women are so much more than the gender roles created in the days of Leave it to Beaver that try to pretend they have always been. We should not be born into boxes based on our genitals. We should each be able to explore individual potential.

p.s.
I have a hard time believing this is written by a female. The voice sounds distinctly male, especially when talking about sex. Just the tone.

*****

My response:    

You didn't read much of this page, did you?  Or are your reading comprehension skills really that poor?

So are you a Shero or a Booblet?  Tell me, if feminism is so pro-male, why is its root spelled f-e-m?  Oooh!  Oooh! I know!  Because it likes only feminine men?

I'm not going to be dragged into a middle-school (read: "girly") debate of inconsequential minutiae, but I will address a bit of the myth upon which your assumptions are based.

First off, read this:

http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com/2012/08/womens-equality-day.html

Now, if feminism isn't anti-male, why are the results of MAINSTREAM feminism so repressive (dare I say "oppressive?") of men?

"But if I am having all this sex, how am I also going to bed alone with my vibrator?"

...again, reading comprehension?

You'll be able to have all the sex you want while you're young and supple, but along about 30-ish, when you're ready to "settle down,"  you will NOT be impressed by the caliber of men who are still interested in you used-up pussy.  Sex first, vibrator later.  M'kay?  Oh, and your female friend in a sexless marriage?  Either she's abnormal or he's abnormal.  Note the prefix "ab."  Outliers do not represent the norm.  I understand this is hard for indoctrinated femmies to understand, because your entire ideology is based upon the preferences of a minority of women, but try to stretch your atrophied brain.  Plus, I know, math is hard.

"We have been working over a century to get out from underneath the Neanderthal mentality"

Be careful what you wish for, dearie.  That neanderthal mentality is why you don't live in a grass hut, and aren't likely to die young.  I know you think masculine men are a pain in the ass, but masculine men pay most of your bills, one way or another, unless you are a VERY unusual woman.  If you have a high-paying private sector job, there is probably at least a half dozen men better qualified than you, who were denied that job so that it could be given to a woman, regardless of merit.  Unless of course you work in the sort of field that doesn't attract many men.  Then again, most of those fields are NOT well paid, but a few are.  And most of the female-centric fields that ARE highly paid, are almost entirely dependent upon either the income of the clientele's husbands, or upon the income of a clientele whose jobs are dependent on affirmative action or direct taxpayer funding.  Big fish, small pond.  The pond would dry up without "neanderthals."

It is that "neanderthal mentality" which keeps you safe when you leave home (built by men.)  That's right.  The majority of law enforcement officers (who often commit violence against men at your command) are men who chose their field because of their strong protective instincts. 

It is that "neanderthal mentality" which motivated men to build the cars/trains/buses you use to navigate the streets in relative safety, so you don't have to be exposed to the weather and to human predators on your way to work. 

It is that "neanderthal mentality" which built the government that collects the taxes and provides public sector jobs where women don't have to compete with men for employment.

Use your imagination.  Or better yet, hire a (male, armed) bodyguard and travel to a third world country where women AND MEN are not protected by government, from either the harsh realities of nature, or from human predators.  Try to visualize a world where YOU, and maybe a band of your pals, are responsible for every single aspect of your survival.  (And keep in mind that your "enemies" have plenty of pals as well.)  You might survive, but you would likely not prosper.  without the protection of those "neanderthals," people who are smarter, stronger, more ambitious, and more organized than you, would be helping themselves to your survival resources - so THEY could survive.

Feminism wants you to think that it's some sort of humanist ideal, but it simply could not exist if those "neanderthals" did not permit it.  Feminism is a social construct; it is a fantasy.  It's a totally cool swing set and fort in one's parents' securely fenced back yard.  It's a playhouse with a plastic tea set in the playroom.  Not one single aspect of feminism could exist without the protection of those who have the "neanderthal mentality." 

Are men perfect?  No.  Is it always fun to be supportive of the men who keep you warm and well-fed.  Hell no!  It's a fucking chore!  That's right, it's WORK, and it doesn't always feeeeeel rewarding.  (That's the true nature of work and you'd know that if you didn't live under the cozy protection of "neanderthals.")  Work is what gets you from one end of life to the other, and some days, work sucks.  The difference between men and women in modern society, is that women actually have the choice to avoid the most unpleasant types of work,

and men don't.

Men suck it up and do their share because nobody is going to do it for them.  Then they suck it up further and do most women's share - either because the government will jail them if the don't (and pay for it with their own tax dollars) or because they want a family and they understand that that (often sucky, unrewarding) WORK is required to support a family.

Miss Kae, I would guess that you are an urban or suburban teen or twentysomething who has never been responsible for much of anything (except maybe studying hard to succeed in the schools built and paid for by "neanderthals," and perhaps missing a few parties to work at a relatively easy job.)  Sadly, it's also possible that you are a chronologically mature woman who has the mentality of a suburban teen.  You see, there are plenty such women in existence because they have been sheltered from responsibility by "neanderthals."

"I have a hard time believing this is written by a female. The voice sounds distinctly male..."

Thank you.

Peter Makes Me Smile Again

Peter, at Bayou Renaissance Man, has posted another adorable video:
Popcorn Kittens

sheroescentral

First of all, Bluurrrgghh!  It's 3:15 a.m. and I prefer to be heading for bed at this hour, but I just crawled out of it to work the day shift - yuck!  Plus it's spay day for Pooka; might as well get it over with.  She's fitting in well with us and the cats, and turning out to be a wonderful little dog!

Yesterday, Matt Forney linked my Anonymous Letter post, causing its hits to top 10,000, and the number of  sites linking it jumped from 9 to 25.  Thanks, Matt!  (To those of you who dislike Matt, watch that young man closely.  He's brash and he gets really obnoxious, but he's smart, he's courageous, and he's taking risks and educating himself.  I predict a bright future for him.)

AnyholycrapI'vegoneviral, I had an interesting conversation with rather insightful woman in the comments section, and then I noticed an odd little gem in my traffic stats:
Hmmm. Teh Grrlz are watching...
This is the brilliance thus far from the ladies who call themselves "Sheroes:"

" 

I defriended someone who I had a huge crush on in high school. I used to respect him a lot and still thought well of him even though we've drifted over the last several years. He's gone all annoying white male libertarian in the last few years* and is now apparently a men's rights activist as well because he linked to this article:http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com/2012/09/anonymous-letter.html?spref=fb And to that Fox article about the war on men that's been going around with comments about how right on they are. Here's a sample from the first piece: "They have the same job titles as you and they take home the same pay, but they work longer hours and they do harder work; they know that their productivity is why employers can afford to hire you to sit at a desk and shuffle papers. They know that if two drunken people have sex and both regret it in the morning, only one of them is a “rapist.” They know that “My Body/My Choice” actually means"My Body/My Choice/Your Wallet." They know that the minute they sign a marriage license, everything they own is yours, but nothing you own is theirs (except your debts) and you can walk away with cash and prizes, at any time, for any reason. Or for no reason at all." and "This is the gift that feminism has given to you – Independence. Scary, lonely, bitter, potentially impoverished Independence. For yourselves and for any children you may have. Most of you won’t blame feminism though; you’ll blame Male Privilege (which doesn’t exist.) You’ll blame The Patriarchy (which always gave women a far better deal than it gave men.) You will stamp your feet, flip your hair, and blame anything except the single cultural force that has devoted itself to suppressing and controlling masculinity. And you’ll go home alone every night to your cats, your Facebook Friends, and your vibrator. I sure hope that’s what you want." I couldn't even bring myself to post a really annoying, trollish comment before defriending because I'm kind of sad that he's turned out to be such a douche.  Do you have your own recent stories of jerks?" "man that is a lot of stupid. I made the mistake of reading the whole article you linked to, and yeah, I don't really have any words. " "Tell me about it! I am hoping so hard it was not a woman who wrote that because good grief." "Pretty sure it was a woman! And on top of everything else (what the ####), she calls her son "kind of hot." Um, eww." "I always get this feeling of "I really shouldn't click on this link. It's just going to make me angry" I never listen." ">I couldn't even bring myself to post a really annoying, trollish >comment before defriending because I'm kind of sad that he's turned >out to be such a douche.  I think you summed up your level of disgust nicely right there. Also, that article you linked to? OMG WHAT. I JUST CAN'T EVEN. I'm sorry he turned out to be a douche. How disappointing." **************  Heads buried deep in the sand.  "Sheroes" indeed.  Pure irony.

So We "Went to See a Man About a Dog..."

We don't "replace" our pets.  That will never be possible.  However, we have room in our home, our budget and our hearts for at least one dog that nobody else wants.  We brought one home today.

Meet "Pooka," a young female beagle/dachshund mix, and our first ever "small dog."

.....and witness Scooter's world class stinkeye, when she met Pooka:

As yet, Lizzie isn't terribly pleased either, but a rather slow-moving seventeen pound pooch is hardly a threat.  I anticipate a fairly peaceful transition.

Best of all, Pooka adores WolfAlpha.

Masculine Defiance! On TV!

Well, until Toyota pulled the commercial.  Read Rollo Tomasino's take on the kerfluffle surrounding this:

November 16, 2012

Glitches in the Matrix

By Rollo Tomassi

Every so often there’s a visible glitch in the feminine Matrix. 

I'm running late for work and don't have time to embed the video, so I copy/pasted the image. Go watch it at The Rational Male.

As if Yesterday Wasn't Bad Enough...

...I just learned that The Wounded Warrior Project prefers not to associate publicly with gun owners and gun-oriented organizations.   Yet it accepts sh**-tons of our money.  I just sent them this email:


Dear Sirs,
I breaks my heart to inform you that due to my discovery today, of your policies as listed in this article,
http://gunsnplanes.blogspot.com/2012/11/wounded-warrior-project-rejects-gun.html
I will be removing the WWP magnet from my car, Taking the link to WWP off of my blog, removing WWP from my $5.00/week donation list, and I will not be participating in any more WWP fundraising activities.

Until you change your policies to show respect and appreciation to the multitude of gun owners who support our wounded warriors, I will give my donations to a less hypocritical veterans' support organization.

I am sorry from the bottom of my heart, because you do great work; but it sickens me that you see my money as tainted, and  you accept it anyway.  Please discontinue all contact with me until your policy changes.

***********
If WWP does the right thing and changes its tune, I will resume my support of the organization.

Well That Was Quick

She's gone.  Splenic tumor, squishing her GI tract.  And even that didn't explain the pint of blood in her colon.  Yesterday she was a happy, bouncy dog, and today she died with her head in my lap.  No early signs, no decline, which is about as good as death gets for a dog.  And no time for me to prepare.  Which is really really hard for me, even with WolfAlpha here.

I'll spare you the rant about the protocol in that vet's office.  Suffice it to say I've never been charged so much for such poor service.  I won't be going back.

Not Again. Please.

I just took Sadie the Big Yellow Food Processor to the vet for fluids and a barium study.  Out of the blue, yesterday she started vomiting, and hasn't kept even water down.  No diarrhea, but blood in her poop this morning.  She's at least seven years  old, well past her prime.

No appetite.

Very bad, and very sudden.

I refuse to sweat the cost, although WolfAlpha finally bought a car Saturday and we still have a couple of payments on the Taurus; we'll manage, and I know enough about veterinary medicine to avoid any unnecessary charges.  I'm just not ready to  watch another one decline and die.  The day before yesterday I heard the neighbor's beagle bark and I reflexively looked around for Cal - he had his first stroke one year and a couple of weeks ago.  This just sucks.

Dog Shaming

Yesterday I liked the "Dog Shaming" site.  Today it's my favorite blog.  I don't know who submitted this, but it made my morning:

Manboobz

Manboobz

Posted Nov 11 2012

manboobz

See original post here

Perfect

John the Other (A Voice for Men) hits one out of the park, with bases loaded.  Every word, EVERY WORD, of this article, is absolutely perfect.  I'm linking it and posting the entire text.  And I must be overtired, because this eloquence makes me feel like crying. (Friggin' hormones!)


Deny it. Just try to deny it.

"If you self identify as a feminist, you’re flying under the 

banner of a totalitarian, violent, amoral murderous ideology

of sexual apartheid and hatred."

To the nice feminists

Let’s talk for a moment about nice feminists. They come in a variety of flavors, but these are the ones whose goals, although pursued under the banner of feminism, are reasonable, and indeed, virtuous. The decriminalizing and normalizing of prostitution is an example. While many people both inside and outside the men’s rights movement dislike the idea of prostitution, it wont be done away with by keeping it illegal. It is simply thus made more dangerous and harmful for everyone involved, both for the provider and the consumer. Okay, great, and there are other issues. Porn, for example, is argued for as a legitimate form of employment – for surely it is every woman’s right to get naked and be paid to have sex, should she chose to do so.
Okay, thats really the same issue, but surely from outside the camp of feminism – outside the radical camp, outlside the liberal camp, outside the I want to be paid for sex camp.
Now, from outside the camps all flying the flag of feminism – is it unkind, unfair and/or uncalled for to universally condemn the ideology as a monolith, without regard for just which of the 364 flavors we’re talking about when we use that endlessly flexible label of feminism?
No, and I’m going to explain for those who might pursue legitimately humanist goals why I will continue to talk in condemning tones about the ideology calling itself feminism, and why I don’t care what sub-species of that ideology to which you may happen to subscribe. And if what I’m about to tell you upsets you, too bad, woman or man up as the case may be.
I agree that there are self-described feminists whose goals are legitimate. I agree that de-criminalizing matters of personal choice and bodily autonomy are important and worthy goals. And to the extent that I can I will support and promote those goals, independent of whatever political label under which you or anyone else pursues them.
However, the humanist, liberal, sex positive, nice guy version of feminism you practice – and if i didn’t cover your particular flavor, go ahead and add it in — that humanist feminism is not the same ideology taught in university gender studies courses. It is not the feminism which informs the policies of United Nations aid agencies who render assistance to only women and children, and not to men. Your humanist version of feminism is not the one which specifically excludes male gang-rape victims from receiving medical aid, shelter and rehabilitation in places where male targeting gang rape are standard practices of war, such as in the Congo. That feminism is not your humanist feminism. Neither is your feminism the version of that ideology which informs a multi-billion dollar industry which produces egregiously and grotesquely misleading misinformation designed to acculturate hatred and fear in women towards men; which teaches girls to always be victims, and never be self actualized adults.
That is not your humanist feminism either. Your humanist feminism is not the ideology informing almost all domestic violence shelters, and public messaging on DV, selling a totally false story that domestic violence is just evil, violent men, beating on just sweetly innocent and decorative female victims. Your view is not one of  demonizing men in our culture so as to guarantee to enable more domestic violence because it works from a totally broken model.
Your flavor of humanist feminism is not the one informing a collection of lawyers, social workers, educators, child care specialists, psychologists and other professionals to collaborate on a blog and cheer for plans to eugenically exterminate the male half of the human race.
So yes, I understand, your feminism has admirable goals. You are a teeny, tiny, unfunded, un-organized minority. Yours is not the feminism that informs domestic policy, writes white papers for the UN or eradicates due process on college and university campuses. That’s the other feminism; that’s the big, funded, established, and politically powerful version of the ideology. That is somebody else. Right?
But when you pursue your noble goals under the banner of feminism, even when you prefix it, and say liberal feminism, or humanist feminism, or sex positive feminism, you are giving cover to those who openly call for the extermination of men.
I’ll say that again. When you pursue your noble goals under the banner of feminism, even when you prefix it, and say liberal feminism, or humanist feminism, or sex positive feminism, you are giving cover to those who openly call for the extermination of men.
And that’s why I don’t care what flavor of feminism you practice. You’re using the same brand name as murderous, eugenics enthusiast, destroy due process sexual apartheid gender ideologue elitists for whom violence isn’t just an unpleasant option. Violence, when contemplated against children, or men, especially when doled out by state functionaries is what gets them wet. That’s the big, funded, organized and politically established collective with which you identify by name.
I know, you’re a humanist. You’re not murderous. You wouldn’t dream of using violence to attain your goals. However, your chosen ignorance of or indifference toward the depraved ideologues who have appropriated the label you share neither excuses nor exonerates you.  So, fuck you anyway. If you self identify as a feminist, you’re flying under the banner of a totalitarian, violent, amoral murderous ideology of sexual apartheid and hatred.
If your goals are legitimate, pursue them. You’ll have my total support. But if you fly the flag of hatred and violence, do not expect me to pat you on the head and say that’s okay, I know you’re one of the “nice” ones. Fuck you, grow up, and stop pretending there’s no problem flying the same flag as those who use hate and fear and bald faced lies to advocate for eugenics, mass murder, elitist legislation, victim identity and the marginalization of men and boys.
I thank you for your kind attention.

Written byJohn the Other

Election Day - Let's Get this Thing Over With!

I'm headed out to vote against every incumbent on the ballot.

No matter what the tally says, Nobody is going to win today, so I'm voting by my principles.  No compromises, no concessions.

The Smartest Woman I've Never Met

Well OK, one of the smartest women I've never met.  May I introduce you to 'JudgyBitch?'

"LET HIM PLAY VIOLENT GAMES. It’s a rare little boy who sees a stick and doesn’t turn it into a weapon.  Little boys love bows and arrows, guns, knives, shields, helmets and every other artifact of war.  And no, they don’t want to have a tea party with Pookie and CindyBear.  They want to dig a trench and send Pookie to the Medevac chopper with some serious injuries.  You’re dead, Pookie!"

Six Steps to Raising a Son in a Feminist World

 You go girl.  Seriously.  Go everywhere and tell everyone.

Glad to be a Link in this Chain

Men's writers far and wide are mourning the end of The University of Man site, and appropriately so.  I could fill a page or two with superlatives describing the wit and insight shared by the Professors.  In The U's honor, many are reposting some of their favorite UMan "lessons."  This one was presented to us by LeapofaBeta at stagedreality

Go read it and then raise your hand if you've never heard any of those lines spoken in all sincerity, by a woman who actually believed what was coming out of her mouth - and who expected everybody else to believe it as well.

Making Hay...

Or perhaps beating a dead horse.

Judging by the overwhelming response to my Anonymous Letter post, it seems I struck a nerve.  (9,000 hits!  On my blog???)  So I've decided to expand on the topic.  The post touched on several important issues, without exploring any of them in depth.  Indeed one commenter suggested that with some documentation and a change of tone, it could be rather scholarly.  I replied that it's already been done.

Then the gears started to turn.

Perhaps it needs to be done again, and in one place.  I'm going to dig up documentation for (and possibly against) every claim I made in that article, and write a series of posts and/or a book.  I would love some suggestions: Stats, studies, "education initiatives," anecdotes, individual cases, observations, and most of all, valid criticism.

If you have something to say, please leave a comment or email me at
driversuz44@gmail.com

I welcome your opinions.  (Unless you're a troll screeching, "NAWALT!")

On "Rape Culture"

(I didn't say "Rape;" I said "Rape Culture")

Courtesy of Dean Esmay at A Voice for Men, starring the inimitable Typhon Blue,


A moving, important piece on the rampant rapey culture of rapey rapiness, for the children.

deti Says:

"And women wonder why men don’t trust them."

Sunshine Mary at The Woman and the Dragon, found a  real winner on a site devoted to cheating.  This one is a Rationalization Hamster on steroids; her virtue is palpable!

"My husband is a sensitive caring man with soft features. The men who fathered my children are much better looking, more masculine, and healthier than my hubby. If you were to ever meet my husband, you would agree that he is not the ideal man to mate with, but he would be a good dad."


I cheated on my husband to secure better genes for my children

Is this "Karen" broad and outlier, an extreme?  Maybe, but I have two much more important questions:

1. Where did "Karen" ever get the idea that she is entitled to the "ideal" of one man's money and another man's sperm?

2. If her husband ever learns the truth, what are the chances he can walk away from this depraved skank and her bastard children, with his assets intact?

Explaining the "Anonymous Letter" to a Girl who *Almost* Gets it.

I received two comments on My Anonymous Letter post from a young lady named Brittany.  I think she has her head on pretty straight, but she has missed a few subtleties.  Here are her comments and my response (which was so long I had to divide it into two comments.)  She's clearly pretty bright and observant; she sees what is happening around her, but like most people, she hasn't taken that next step to seriously consider why it is happening.  At some point in previous comments I made it clear that feminism is not the sole cause of everything wrong with modern society; however, feminism aggravates nearly every other factor.  Addressing those other factors will change nothing unless we address feminism as well.

BrittanyOctober 14, 2012 7:08 AM

This post is flawed only in the essence that you're blaming the women for kicking out the men who leave because they want to. The children raised by single mothers not because mom's standards are too high but because they weren't high enough. If those single moms had perhaps picked better men... they wouldn't be alone.

So let's set a few things straight mom. I'm a college educated small business owner who is head over heels in love with my best friend and business partner. He is an honorable, respectful man, who uplifts me and is always in my corner. He is charismatic, brilliant, attractive and cares for me through all my faults. I met him because I have high standards. I met him because I am strong and powerful. I met him because I waited for someone better than the last one. My standards aren't very high either, as a woman I want to be respected, I want to be intellectually stimulated as well as physically, I will not tolerate abuse of any form and I don't care if a man is rich, he just needs ambition. Unfortunately in my age bracket (I am 24) I had to start dating a man 7 years older than myself to even find what I need in a partner. Someone who actually behaves like an adult. Now I will say since your son was in the military he's probably got a better head on his shoulders than most men who are 20 but 20 year old males are usually barely out of puberty and still trying to get laid at any and all occasion.

Young men these days are rude, overly aggressive, and often perverse in seeking out females. Everyday I walk through my town men make disgusting comments to me about my body. When I go to the gym they follow me around. At my job I've had men attempt to pick me up while their wives were 4 feet away. This is so common that I find any man walking up to me to be threatening after living in this city for a few years. I don't go to bars because I don't want men trying to dry hump me on the dance floor. There are slim pickings when it comes to ambition these days as well. Many men in my community seemed to have finished high school and are just... done trying to be better. (I'm not talking about skilled workers, I've known some seriously talented auto repairmen who made quite a lot of money). It's not the paycheck that deters me, it's the lack of interest in doing anything other than working at Whole Foods as a cashier. I did try it though, dating people who didn't have my level of ambition and it ended because I was heading up and they were stagnant. There are plenty of men for women like me though, and just as many women who lack ambition and can work the check out line too.

It is NOT just the state of women but... you have a point in your post about some things. The brilliant wonderful man I love? While I know he cares for me and he's not leaving soon, I also know that he is hesitant to jump in when it comes to this relationship and I know it's because he had a horrible time with the last person he committed to who was the kind of woman you mentioned here, only she was nearly 40. There ARE many hateful women who are dealing with some serious internal issues and take it out on not just their men but the world. You also forget that some women are hard and unyielding because their lives have also been hard and unyielding. Their tough exteriors hide a pain built up through decades.

For the women who want to control men, instead of stand beside them as an equal? This post will do nothing but put them on defense. It's a multi-faceted problem that has nothing to do with feminism. I believe that women have the right to go after big goals and we shouldn't have to be held back because we're the fairer sex. That doesn't mean my goal is to emasculate or crush a man in my quest for power. I want my man to be JUST as powerful as I am, if not more. I want him to be just as ambitious, if not more.

...and...

BrittanyOctober 14, 2012 7:32 AM

Brittany a 2nd time.

I hope you get that I'm just saying that there are many MANY brilliant, dedicated, upright and honest women out there who are feminists and aren't trying to ruin men's lives but make sure our own lives are fulfilling and long lasting with the people we love and care for. It's a hard line to walk but it's thoroughly possible and the men who love us understand that we can be both tough and loving.

This was my response:

SuzOctober 14, 2012 9:33 AM

Brittany,
Thanks for your comment. I suspect you are a NAWALT.
Do you realize though, that your objections to my post actually substantiate it beautifully?

You said: “If those single moms had perhaps picked better men... they wouldn't be alone.” 

Who are these women who pick lousy men when good men are available? They are deluded Princess wannabes who believed that they could turn that Bad Boy into Princes. Then they blame the Bad Boys for not following the script. The family court system encourages and assists them in this endeavor. Who taught them that? Feminism. Feminism tells girls that they can “do anything,” and anyone who tells them otherwise is a misogynist. The reality is, a woman has an obligation to her offspring (and to her own future happiness) to choose her partner wisely. However thanks to feminism’s mandated redistribution of wealth, women who choose UNwisely, don’t suffer the true consequences – they and their children don’t starve. Sure, their feelings might be hurt, and they might be poorer than they had wished, and their children will have a radically increased chance of ending up mentally ill/unable to be productive/in prison, but one of the many delusions promoted by feminism, is that any old grrrl can overcome such hardships because she can do ANYTHING.

You said: “Unfortunately in my age bracket (I am 24) I had to start dating a man 7 years older than myself to even find what I need in a partner.”

NO KIDDING! Go read this post and watch this video. Pay attention to the part near the end where the class notes how their productivity/ambition decreased after just ONE DAY of “discrimination.”
http://www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/proxy-violence/  These unambitious and crude men you meet, have been discriminated against throughout their entire lives. The VERY BEST of them will overcome that handicap in their late 20’s; many will never overcome it. Let me guess. Your SO is confident in his masculinity, right? Not cocky and reckless, not rebellious and reactionary, confident. Look around you. Where are his role models? Who teaches young boys and men that masculinity and masculine leadership (trust me, the two are inseparable) is GOOD? Nobody. According to feminism, men are good for sexual recreation, sperm donation, building bridges, and dying in battle. In every other endeavor, they are expected to rein in their masculine leadership and allow the ladies to run the show. I have no idea how any of them manage to function under this handicap; their hands are tied behind their backs, yet they are pilloried for not excelling. And those who do excel, can have everything taken away in a moment, according to the whims of any woman they know.

(...continued:)
You said: “Young men these days are rude, overly aggressive, and often perverse in seeking out females.”

Yup. That’s the testosterone speaking. Feminism tries to pretend it can contradict biology, but it can’t, can it? Men will be men, and look at the mess we have made by not teaching them to channel their masculinity in a productive manner. Because remember, throughout their entire lives they have been taught that there IS NO productive use for masculinity – masculinity must be bad because masculine behaviors are punished starting in pre-school. Again, who are their role models? Thugs, Playas, and feminist approved pussy-whipped beta-providers.

You said: “There ARE many hateful women who are dealing with some serious internal issues and take it out on not just their men but the world.” 

Yes there are, and feminism encourages them to be hateful, because it lets them get away with it by shaming men into supporting them anyway. And two generations into mass fatherlessness, millions of young women AND men never learned not to be hateful. (Of course, the young men get punished for it anyway.)
The bottom line is that feminism deeply corrupts female nature. Hypergamy, which is necessary to species survival, is deeply ingrained in the human female’s psyche. In a world full of surplus resources, with laws that channel those resources toward women (and encourages them to use them for themselves, rather than for their children) hypergamy results in mass depravity on the part of women.

You said: “For the women who want to control men, instead of stand beside them as an equal? This post will do nothing but put them on defense.” 

I’m not trying to “instruct” the willfully ineducable. I’m just telling them WHY they’re miserable and alone in their ignorance. They think men are to blame; I’m telling them the truth.