Sunday, November 21, 2010

Marriage is Fraud

.
.   THE MASCULINE PRINCIPLE   .
NOTICE: This article has been updated and moved to The Masculine Principle. Please click here to read the new version or scroll down to continue reading in the old format.
.


***


[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?

Answer:

Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
.

I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?

Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.

Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.

When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:

Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.

The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.

In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.
.
So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.

(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).

This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.

This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.

This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”

For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”

You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.

And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
.
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.

She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.

Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.

So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.

Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.

Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.

Have a look around the room you are in.

Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.

Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).

Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.

Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.

So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?"

My answer is a resounding NO!

Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!

It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.

You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.

The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.

Yup.

But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.

The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!

MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!

MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!

DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!

.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.

Have nothing to do with them.

Do not oppress them with marriage.

Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.

Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?

Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.

Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.

Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.

And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.

Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.

You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.

You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.

Give them as few tax dollars as possible.

Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:

.
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.

DON'T MARRY!!!

It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.
.
Read more on this subject in the following online book, The Case for Father Custody -- by Daniel Amneus
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW
....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Male and Female: Equal but Different

Males and females are polar opposites. They are as up is to down as night is to day. One thing that is common to all opposites is that by the very nature of being opposite, they must be equal. If they were not equal, it would be impossible for them to be opposite. In any given year, at any spot on earth, there are an exactly equal amount of daytime hours and nighttime hours. The same is true of males and females; they are polar opposites and therefore are equal. However, we are not talking about legal equality here, but rather the essence that makes “male” and “female” has equality unique unto itself.
.

.
In terms of intelligence, men and women are equal in that the average IQ of all males is equal to the average IQ of all females. There is a difference in how these equal intelligences are arrived at however.

Female intelligence is clustered around the mean far more than male intelligence. There is far less variation in female intelligence. To put it more simply, the female population’s intelligence tends to be concentrated in greater numbers around the average IQ of 100, while the male population has a greater range on both the high and low IQ scale. A far greater percentage of female IQ’s reside between 90 to 110 than males, while conversely, males inhabit the extremes of IQ between 70 to 130 in far greater percentage than females. The more you go to the extremes, the more it becomes virtually all male, in both high and low.

When one takes all of the IQ’s of the female population into account to find an average IQ, and then takes all of the IQ’s of the male population to find their average, the collective IQ’s of the two sexes are virtually identical, even though there are vast differences in their variability.
.

.
When one looks at “happiness,” we find the same thing as we find in intelligence.

Researchers have discovered that when they ask men to rate the periods of their lives where they feel satisfied or dissatisfied, they find that men have a major “spike” of dissatisfaction commonly known as Mid-Life Crisis.

When asking the females, what they find is that women do not have a major mid life crisis like men; however, they have several “mini” mid life crises that occur at various times in their cycle of life.

When the researchers total up all of the time in a male’s life to find his “average” happiness and compare it to the female’s average happiness throughout her life, what they find is that both males and females have almost the identical average amount of happiness in their respective lives. However, the male’s midlife crisis is far more intense than anything the typical female will ever experience – but, he only goes through it once.
.
.
If we look at sin, or good and evil, what would you expect to find except again the same phenomenon?
.
When a boy is bad it is very noticeable and often in the form of an outburst or some form of physical aggression. It is very hard to miss a male’s evil because its nature is overt and it occurs as a “spike.” Male aggression is stereotypically to hit, kick, shout or destroy something. The boy may go through long periods of “nothing” followed by a spike that is hard to ignore.
.
A girl, on the other hand, uses covert aggression. More commonly this is known as “Social Aggression” or “Relational Aggression” and it is stereotypically a female form of aggression. Its nature is to use gossip or social manipulation to hurt the targeted party, and this necessarily occurs over a longer period of time and is less visible than the male’s aggression.
.
What we end up seeing is that male aggression occurs as a noticeable spike that lasts only a short time while female aggression is less intense but lasts over a longer period of time. When we average out the two forms of aggression, we again will find that both male and female are equal, but different.
.
.
The essence of “maleness” is that things occur with infrequent but large “spikes” while the essence of “femaleness” is that things occur with more frequent but less identifiable “rhythms.” When one averages them out, men and women are equal yet they have gotten to their equal averages by different means.

Now, to the point of “equal but different,” it must also be noted that male and female sex drives are equal but different in the same manner as the above examples.

Jack Kammer, in his online book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? said it best, so I will steal his example:

Male sexuality is like a pushy door to door salesman; it picks one target and gets in your face so much that you simply cannot ignore it.

Female sexuality, however, is like annoying junk mail. It is everywhere and steadily drones on and on at everybody, whether they are the intended target or not.

While males may think about the sex act itself more than women, the equal opposite is that women think about being “sexy” to the same degree.
.
.
Males and females both have equal sex drives, but they work in different ways. Even physically, men and women are equally sexual.
Men have fewer but far more intense erogenous zones, while women have erogenous zones located all over their bodies. In fact, it is fair to say that a woman’s entire body is an erogenous zone that is dispersed with lowered sexual sensitivity but over a greater area, making it equal to the man’s. This is why women are so much more into “intimacy” and the mental aspects of sex. Her entire body is involved in having sex whereas only certain, but more intense, parts of the male’s body are.

In the end of it all, men and women both have equal desires to have sex and to be sexual creatures, although they are expressed in different ways. Women have their biological clocks and get “baby rabies” that demand of them to go out and get impregnated with the same intense irrationalness that men display when they are willing to do anything to copulate with a female, including the willingness to commit treason or sell out one’s own mother.

It is horribly inaccurate for one to say that only men want sex. It is far more accurate to say that both men and women want sex equally. In fact, the only imperatives of all living things is to: 1). Survive, so that one can: 2). Reproduce. All other things are in support of these two imperatives that are universal to all living things. Males and females both have an equal desire to do this. Sex is the core of existence itself.

We may think that we humans are smarter than animals, but when it comes to sexual instinct we are animals that follow the same mating patterns as most other species in the animal kingdom.

This has become even more evident since the sexual revolution arrived and women became free from pregnancy via the pill, and free from the social stigmas associated with being a “loose” woman.
One needs only to look at studies of sexually transmitted disease by gender to see that STD’s affect a far greater percentage of the female population than the male population. There is a reason for this: 80% of the females are sleeping with 20% of the males, and those males are the alpha males in society. Humans have reverted back to the mating instincts found in most of the animal kingdom where the alpha males breed most of the females, while the beta males breed with none.
.
.
Again, you can see that male sexuality and female sexuality are “equal yet opposite.”

This “equal-opposite” aspect of sexuality is essential in understanding patriarchy and why things were set up in certain ways, which I will attempt to describe and explain in my next post.

Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
Sex, Mathematics, And Political Correctness -- by Fred Reed

 Rats (Or, He Chases Her Until She Catches Him)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

“‘Really, women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissictic.’ — it’s dominated by the yearnings of ‘self-love,’ by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still, on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. ‘When it comes to desire,’ she added, ‘women may be far less relational than men.’” -- Sex and Relationships, Bonobo Sex, and ‘Lady Boners’: Is Women’s Desire Really That Confusing? – by Vanessa Richmond
.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
From Belfort Bax's 1913 piece The Fraud of Feminism pp.25-27
.
Now let us consider the whole of the differentiations of the mental character between man and woman in the light of a further generalisation which is sufficiently obvious in itself and which has been formulated with special clearness by the late Otto Weininger in his remarkable book,"Geschlecht und Charakter" (Sex and Character). I refer to the observations contained in Section II.,Chaps. 2 and 3.
.
The point has been, of course, previously noted, and the present writer, among others, has on various occasions called special attention to it. But its formulation and elaboration by Weininger is the most complete I know. The truth in question consists in the fact, undeniable to all those not rendered impervious to facts by preconceived dogma, that, as I have elsewhere put it, while man has a sex, woman is a sex. Let us hear Weininger on this point. "Woman is only sexual, man is also sexual. Alike in time and space this difference may be traced in man, parts of his body susceptible to sexual excitement are small in number and strictly localised. In woman sexuality is diffused over the whole body, every contact on whatever part excites her sexually."
.
Weininger points out that while the sexual element in man, owing to the physio-logical character of the sexual organs, may be at times more violent than that in woman, yet that it is spasmodic and occurs in crises separated by intervals of quiescence. In woman, on the otherhand, while less spasmodic, it is continuous. The sexual instinct with man being, as he styles it, "anappendix" and no more, he can raise himself mentally entirely outside of it. "He is conscious of it as of something which he possesses but which is not inseparate from the rest of his nature. He can view it objectively. With woman this is not the case; the sex element is part of her whole nature. Hence, it is not as with man, clearly recognisable in local manifestations, but subtly affects the whole life of the organism. For this reason the man is conscious of the sexual element within him as such, whereas the woman is unconscious of it as such. It is not for nothing that in common parlance woman is spoken of as 'the sex.' In this sexual differentiation of the whole life-nature of woman from man, deducible as it is from physiological andanatomical distinctions, lies the ground of those differentiations of function which culminate in the fact that while mankind in its intellectual moral and technical development is represented in the main by Man, Woman has continued to find her chief function in the direct procreation of the race." 
.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"The central organizing principle of primate social life is competition between females and especially female lineages... Females should be, if anything, more competitive than males, not less, although the manner in which females compete may be less direct, less boisterous, and hence, more difficult to measure" -- The Woman That Never Evolved -- by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Study debunks stereotype that men think about sex all day long

[T]he research discredits the persistent stereotype that men think about sex every seven seconds, which would amount to more than 8,000 thoughts about sex in 16 waking hours. In the study, the median number of young men’s thought about sex stood at almost 19 times per day. Young women in the study reported a median of nearly 10 thoughts about sex per day.

As a group, the men also thought about food almost 18 times per day and sleep almost 11 times per day, compared to women’s median number of thoughts about eating and sleep, at nearly 15 times and about 8 1/2 times, respectively. – Medical Xpress

(*** Please note, even though I posted this to show how stupid this meme has become, one still has to realize the way feminist researchers came to this "once every X seconds" BS is by taking the amount of hours one spends in a day thinking about such things, then dividing it by the amount of seconds in a day, and coming up with every seven or fifteen, or whatever seconds, to make it seem like men are stunted rapists thinking about sex constantly. What they are really saying is that men thought about sex for 15 minutes, multiplied by X per day (maybe three times, or six times a day), which is not surprising, and then divided the total amount of those times into how many seconds are in each day. It is totally bogus propaganda which was used to fuel the rape industry. So men think about sex for 10 minutes at a time, 8 times a day, while women think about sex 7 times a day for 5 minutes. Does that really make men into walking hardons that are looking for easy rape victims?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From Otto Weininger's Sex and Character, Male and Female Sexuality

"Contrary to the general opinion, there is no difference in the total sexual impulses of the sexes. However, if we examine the matter in respect to the two component forces into which Albert Moll analysed the impulse, we shall find that a difference does exist. These forces may be termed the "liberating" and the "uniting" impulses. The first appears in the form of the discomfort caused by the accumulation of ripe sexual cells; the second is the desire of the ripe individual for sexual completion. Both impulses are possessed by the male; in the female only the latter is present. The anatomy and the physiological processes of the sexes bear out the distinction.

In this connection it may be noted that only the most male youths are addicted to masturbation, and although it is often disputed, I believe that similar vices occur only among the maler of women, and are absent from the female nature.

I must now discuss the "uniting" impulse of women, for that plays the chief, if not the sole part in her sexuality. But it must not be supposed that this is greater in one sex than the other. Any such idea comes from a confusion between the desire for a thing and the stimulus towards the active part in securing what is desired. Throughout the animal and plant kingdom, the male reproductive cells are the motile, active agents, which move through space to seek out the passive female cells, and this physiological difference is sometimes confused with the actual wish for, or stimulus to, sexual union. And to add to the confusion, it happens, in the animal kingdom particularly, that the male, in addition to the directly sexual stimulus, has the instinct to pursue and bodily capture the female, whilst the latter has only the passive part to be taken possession of. These differences of habit must not be mistaken for real differences of desire.

It can be shown, moreover, that woman is sexually much more excitable (not more sensitive) physiologically than man.

The condition of sexual excitement is the supreme moment of a woman's life. The woman is devoted wholly to sexual matters, that is to say, to the spheres of begetting and of reproduction. Her relations to her husband and children complete her life, whereas the male is something more than sexual. In this respect, rather than in the relative strength of the sexual impulses, there is a real difference between the sexes. It is important to distinguish between the intensity with which sexual matters are pursued and the proportion of the total activities of life that are devoted to them and to their accessory cares. The greater absorption of the human female by the sphere of sexual activities is the most significant difference between the sexes.

The female, moreover, is completely occupied and content with sexual matters, whilst men are interested in much else, in war and sport, in social affairs and feasting, in philosophy and science, in business and politics, in religion and art. I do not mean to imply that this difference has always existed, as I do not think that important. As in the case of the Jewish question, it may be said that the Jews have their present character because it has been forced upon them, and that at one time they were different. It is now impossible to prove this, and we may leave it to those who believe in the modification by the environment to accept it. The historical evidence is equivocal on the point. In the question of women, we have to take people as they exist today. If, however, we happen to come on attributes that could not possibly have been grafted on them from without, we may believe that such have always been with them. Of contemporary women at least one thing is certain. Apart from an exception to be noted in chap. xii, it is certain that when the female occupies herself with matters outside the interests of sex, it is for the man that she loves or by whom she wishes to be loved. She takes no real interest in things themselves. It may happen that a real female learns Latin; if so, it is for some such purpose as to help her son who is at school. Desire for a subject and ability for it, interest in it, and the facility for acquiring it, are usually proportional. He who has slight muscles has no desire to wield an axe; those without the faculty for mathematics do not desire to study that subject. Talent seems to be rare and feeble in the real female (although possibly it is merely that the dominant sexuality prevents its development), with the result that woman has no power of forming the combinations which, although they do not actually make the individuality, certainly shape it.

Corresponding to true women, there are extremely female men who are to be found always in the apartments of the women, and who are interested in nothing but love and sexual matters. Such men, however, are not the Don Juans.

The female principle is, then, nothing more than sexuality; the male principle is sexual and something more. This difference is notable in the different way in which men and women enter the period of puberty. In the case of the male the onset of puberty is a crisis; he feels that something new and strange has come into his being, that something has been added to his powers and feelings independently of his will. The physiological stimulus to sexual activity appears to come from outside his being, to be independent of his will, and many men remember the disturbing event throughout their after lives. The woman, on the other hand, not only is not disturbed by the onset of puberty, but feels that her importance has been increased by it. The male, as a youth, has no longing for the onset of sexual maturity; the female, from the time when she is still quite a young girl, looks forward to that time as one from which everything is to be expected. Man's arrival at maturity is frequently accompanied by feelings of repulsion and disgust; the young female watches the development of her body at the approach of puberty with excitement and impatient delight. It seems as if the onset of puberty were a side path in the normal development of man, whereas in the case of woman it is the direct conclusion. There are few boys approaching puberty to whom the idea that they would marry (in the general sense, not a particular girl) would not appear ridiculous, whilst the smallest girl is almost invariably excited and interested in the question of her future marriage. For such reasons a woman assigns positive value only to her period of maturity in her own case and that of other women; in childhood, as in old age, she has no real relation to the world. The thought of her childhood is for her, later on, only the remembrance of her stupidity; she faces the approach of old age with dislike and abhorrence. The only real memories of her childhood are connected with sex, and these fade away in the intensely greater significance of her maturity. The passage of a woman from virginity is the great dividing point of her life, whilst the corresponding event in the case of a male has very little relation to the course of his life.

Woman is only sexual, man is partly sexual, and this difference reveals itself in various ways. The parts of the male body by stimulation of which sexuality is excited are limited in area, and are strongly localised, whilst in the case of the woman, they are diffused over her whole body, so that stimulation may take place almost from any part. When in the second chapter of Part I., I explained that sexuality is distributed over the whole body of both sexes, I did not mean that, therefore, the sense organs, through which the definite impulses are stimulated, were equally distributed. There are, certainly, areas of greater excitability, even in the case of the woman, but there is not, as in the man, a sharp division between the sexual areas and the body generally.

The morphological isolation of the sexual area from the rest of the body in the case of man, may be taken as symbolical of the relation of sex to his whole nature. Just as there is a contrast between the sexual and the sexless parts of a man's body, so there is a time-change in his sexuality. The female is always sexual, the male is sexual only intermittently. The sexual instinct is always active in woman (as to the apparent exceptions to this sexuality of women, I shall have to speak later on), whilst in man it is at rest from time to time. And thus it happens that the sexual impulse of the male is eruptive in character and so appears stronger. The real difference between the sexes is that in the male the desire is periodical, in the female continuous.

This exclusive and persisting sexuality of the female has important physical and psychical consequences. As the sexuality of the male is an adjunct to his life, it is possible for him to keep it in the physiological background, and out of his consciousness. And so a man can lay aside his sexuality and not have to reckon with it. A woman has not her sexuality limited to periods of time, nor to localised organs. And so it happens that a man can know about his sexuality, whilst a woman is unconscious of it and can in all good faith deny it, because she is nothing but sexuality, because she is sexuality itself.

It is impossible for women, because they are only sexual to recognise their sexuality, because recognition of anything requires duality. With man it is not only that he is not merely sexual, but anatomically and physiologically he can "detach" himself from it. That is why he has the power to enter into whatever sexual relations he desires; if he likes he can limit or increase such relations; he can refuse or assent to them. He can play the part of a Don Juan or a monk. He can assume which he will. To put it bluntly, man possesses sexual organs; her sexual organs possess woman.

We may, therefore, deduce from the previous arguments that man has the power of consciousness of his sexuality and so can act against it, whilst the woman appears to be without this power. This implies, moreover, that there is greater differentiation in man, as in him the sexual and the unsexual parts of his nature are sharply separated. The possibility or impossibility of being aware of a particular definite object is, however, hardly a part of the customary meaning of the word consciousness, which is generally used as implying that if a being is conscious he can be conscious of any object. This brings me to consider the nature of the female consciousness."

Sex Sells...

The following quote comes from Legends of the Fall, the movie which cemented Brad Pitt’s status as a sex symbol throughout our culture. Pitt’s character, Tristan Ludlow, had long flowing hair and looked wild. He was the untamed one in the family, so tough that nothing could hurt him; he and the grizzly once shared blood and now they were one spirit.

A woman would likely be wise to stay away from such a man, this character with a raw animal streak running through his soul… but yet, there is a soft side to him, a sliver of emotion that he hides, and reveals only to the women he loves.

Yes, the quintessential love interest…

The setting of the scene from which this quote comes is one in which Tristan (Pitt) is sitting outside talking with his younger brother Samuel (Henry Thomas), who is home from college with his fiancĂ©e Susannah (Julia Ormond). Samuel, a virgin, shyly inquires of his more experienced brother about the ways of sex and how to make sure he is “good at it,” because Susannah has said she does not want to wait for marriage…
.

Tristan: Samuel, God bless you. You are good at everything you do. I’m sure it’ll be the same with fucking.
Samuel: Tristan, really. We’re talking about my future wife.
Tristan: Oh, you’re not going to fuck her?
Samuel: No! I’m planning to “be” with her.
Tristan: I recommend fucking.
Samuel: You’re impossible!
Tristan: You brought it up!


My goodness, Tristan!

How could you talk about a woman in such a disrespectful way?

That is not how Nice Guys™ talk about women! Nice Guys™ know that women are delicate creatures whose sexuality must be respected. For her to lower herself to a man’s level and have sex with him indicates that a Nice Guy™ must worship her body, mind and spirit as the precious jewels which they so obviously are…

And how come women still find your character so sexy, Tristan? How can you suggest taking that nubile young woman and fucking her rather than “being” with her?

I wonder how many women in the theatre smirked when they heard that line… "I'd recommend fucking."?

What’s up with that?

And to the readers of this fine blog who thought those lines were humor directed at the males in the audience, I encourage you to unplug from the fematrix and realign your mind with notion that the above scene, including the raw language, was in the movie solely for the women, with the intention of creating a character which females desire.

Society would have us believe that it is the men in society that are sex obsessed. Men are the ones who cannot control themselves. But remember, in my last piece we discussed that men and women are polar opposites who are necessarily equal but different, and thus women’s sex drives are also equal to men’s, but different.
.
.
While men may think about the act of sex on a frequent basis, women equally think about being sexy to a similar degree. They actively put on make-up, do their hair, wear push up bras and revealing clothes, and they are continually concerned if their jeans make their ass look big (no, your big ass makes your ass look big). The obvious motive of “looking sexy” is to attract sexual attention. What did you think it was for?

Women’s natural sexual desire, however, is to have sex with a male who is dominant over them. They don’t want to sleep with a Nice Guy™ who respects them; there is no excitement in that. They want a man who takes control of them and fucks them. “Making love” is for suckers. Wimps “make love” and talk about “being” with the glorious creature known as woman. Women would rather be dominated and get fucked.

We men rarely talk about sex, however. Men behave completely opposite of women, who talk amongst themselves about the most intimate details of the sex act, from their partner’s physical attributes and performance to the daily ins and outs of their relationships. Men, on the other hand, rarely discuss the actual details of sex nor do men relate the turgid tale of the “mating dance” which got them into their sorry predicament with a woman in the first place.

But women never shy away from talking about sex. Men fail themselves miserably by allowing feminists to dominate all talk about sexual relations between humans.

Feminists, in their attempt to destroy civilization, have tried to take this natural sexual phenomenon of women being attracted to domination and twisted it into something which it is not. They have insinuated there is something evil about the natural sexual interactions between man and woman.

One wonders how many of my good readers have ever picked up a romance novel. Not many, I would guess, as this genre of literature is aimed solely at a female audience. Romance novels are to women what Penthouse magazine is to men: Pornography intent on titillating the natural sexuality that exists within.

And who is the stereotypical masculine love object in the romance novels that women read? Well, here’s a clue… he is not a Nice Guy™!
.
.
No indeed! There is usually a Nice Guy™ somewhere in the story line – he is the one who gets replaced by the dominant rogue who at first infuriates the main character with his callousness, while at the same time intriguing her.

The plot builds as does the sexual tension between the main character and the antagonist. He is a brute, an animal… uncontrollable. She is a lady and does not consort with the likes of him – and yet, something about his demeanor makes this man linger in her mind even when she is not in his presence… and that makes her angry at him. She becomes determined not to give in to the advances of this knave. She is a princess, after all.

The Harlequin climax arrives in a scene where the woman finds herself alone with this bull of a man. There is passion, electricity… he makes his move… she resists and pushes him away, but he is not willing to back down so easily. This beast’s sexual desire for our fair maiden roars as if it were an uncontrollable inferno. He grabs her roughly in his arms. She feels his raw strength as he pulls her into his muscular chest and lowers his mouth over hers.

“No,” she mumbles half-heartedly, “I mustn’t!”

Our rogue listens not, and continues ravaging our heroine with his lips when she feels his strong hand cup her breast, causing her nipple to harden beneath her thin blouse…

She can resist no more; her own animal desires begin to overcome her rationality. She gives in and lets this beast take her. Her clothing comes of quickly and roughly amidst the passionate kisses… she is no longer in control, the universe has overwhelmed her… she feels his hardness enter her, penetrating both her body and soul as their passion develops into a surreal experience that transcends life itself…

Yes, this is women's porn!
.
.
And in women’s porn, she gets dominated. In fact, by all legal standards of the modern day, women’s porn involves being sexually assaulted and then raped by a man who ends up completely owning her entire existence.

And women buy these books and read them for a sexual thrill – men don’t write this shit, nor do they buy it or read it.

This is the essence of female sexual seduction: He makes his move… she resists… he doesn’t take no for an answer… she resists some more… his animal desire for her prevents him from stopping… she says no again, but this time only half heartedly… he continues, and she finally gives in and submits, so overwhelmed is she with desire that things are completely out of her control.

She gets dominated by a man who is superior to her.

And notice that the dominate man is not “with” her.

Nope.

He fucks her.

Perhaps this is why the sexual fantasizing of being “forced” to have sex is so popular with women. Being “forced” to have sex is essentially rape, and yet numerous women actually masturbate to the fantasy of this crime.

Have you ever masturbated to the thought of your car getting stolen?

The eroticism of being dominated and “forced” is that it allows the submissive to do things they would not normally do – to come out of their shell, as it were. She may deny that she is the type of girl who will willingly do certain kinky things, but if she is being dominated and is told to do them then she can partake in these deep desires without having to blame herself for it – she was “forced” to do it, after all. (This is the essence of most BDSM, btw).

Another favourite fantasy among women is getting a good spanking from her man.
.
.
Yes, the amount of ladies that are turned on by the thought of being put over a man’s knee and having her bare bottom smacked is truly amazing. And… how dominant of the man and submissive of her.

All Pick Up Artists (PUA’s) know that women desire to be dominated – this is the PUA’s entire game. The techniques may vary, but essentially all successful PUA’s spend their time around a woman establishing dominance over her.

The PUA does not monkey around with “respecting” her and glorifying her with trite comments of her being a “strong woman.” That’s what Nice Guy’s™ do. The PUA lets a woman know pretty quickly that he wants sex from her. He is a lover, not a friend. He finds something to tease her about, putting her down in a fun way, to establish dominance. When they walk off the dance floor, he puts his hand on the small of her back so he can gently direct where she walks - taking control of her. He basically spends his entire “game” displaying that he is superior to her – be it physically, emotionally, cerebrally or whatever else. The PUA knows that if she views him as superior to her, he can have her panties around her ankles in no time.
.
.
In fact, the act of sex itself can be viewed as the ultimate act of dominance and submission between a man and a woman.

Think about it. What could be more submissive than to be a woman whose body is penetrated and humped madly until she is left full of a man’s semen, essentially leaving her “bred.”

The sex act itself is domination and submission, and while a man may find it erotic to look down and see the submissive woman he is screwing, the equal opposite is that she finds it erotic to look up at the dominant man who is screwing her. Notice that in the act of sex it is usually considered to be the man that is “doing” her, rather than the other way around.

This is the essence of hypergamy. Hypergamy is basically a desire for dominance from one’s mate.

Women are definitely hypergamous.

Don’t believe me?

Have a look at the next 10 couples you meet.

Who is taller, the male or the female? You will notice that females nearly universally date men that are taller than them. A 5’ 10” woman will be dating a 6’1” male. A 5’ 6” woman will date a 5’ 8” male. But it is pretty rare to find the 5’ 10” woman dating the 5’ 8” male.
.
.
Who makes more money, the male or the female? You will find nearly universally that the man makes more money than the female. Male lawyers date female secretaries. Male doctors date female nurses. Male factory workers date waitresses. This is nearly universal. What is hard to find is the female doctor dating the male nurse, or the female CEO dating the struggling male poet.
.
.
Who is more intelligent, the male or the female? It is pretty common even for females to admit that they must date men who are smarter than themselves.

Why do women nearly universally list confidence as a sexually attractive trait in a male? Because confident males are dominant males, that’s why. Confidence is derived from the power one possesses.

Females are naturally attracted to males that are dominant over them.

Feminists are furious at this natural phenomenon in much the same way they are furious that women are the natural bearers of children. From their anger against heterosexuality, they have attacked both men and women by trying to criminalize human sexual behaviour.

Feminists tell women that the kind of sex they naturally desire, the kind women themselves read and fantasize about it in Harlequin romance novels, is in fact rape:

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike… [T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” – Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” – Susan Griffith, Rape: The All-American Crime

Without the typically virulent feminist anger, the following concept could easily be described in an erotic way, suitable for a romance novel:

“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex, therefore, does so against her own will. , ‘even if she does not feel forced.’” – Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

Even the dominating act of a man filling a woman with his semen, the very act that causes life itself, is sought to be criminalized and degraded by feminists:

“Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence and the spray of semen…” – Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing By Radical Women of Color

How odd then that most women seem to downright prefer to have bareback sex. Why, it is as if they actually enjoy getting this terrifying semen inside their bodies!

Yes indeed. And when a woman actually has good, enjoyable sex – the kind that grips her body with a shuddering orgasm - this is apparently a bad thing according to feminists as well:

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” – Sheila Jeffrys

Perhaps she is eroticizing her own “oppression” because it is what naturally gets her rocks off. Why is it chic and cool to keep a vibrator in the nightstand, but “oppressive” and degrading to orgasm from the natural act of sex?

Men did not plant this idea in women’s head that they must be submissive. In fact, since most men are beta-male Nice Guys™ who talk and act respectfully to women while never getting laid by them, it is pretty obvious that it is not men who are responsible for this phenomenon of domination-submission that causes women to get turned on. Most Nice Guys™ believe the exact opposite – that if he glorifies and praises her, she will like him more. Wrong!

No, men did not “force” women into submission – women naturally desire men who are better than them. They want men who are taller than them, who are smarter than them, who are richer than them. Women sexually desire men who are more powerful than them – and this power naturally exudes from a man who possesses it in the form of confidence.

Yes, hypergamy.

This does not mean that all men make more money than women, nor that all men are smarter or more powerful than women… it just means that a woman does not find men who have failed to surpass her own power to be sexually attractive to her. A 5’10” woman is obviously taller than a 5’8” man, but the odds are that she is not sleeping with short stuff. She is most likely sleeping with the 6’1” man that lives next door to him while the short man is likely dating a woman even shorter than himself.

Dominance has an equal opposite: Submission.

In my next post, I will attempt to explain how hypergamy existed in the past, and how it has been manipulated in the present as a weapon against men, women and civilization.

Previous Index Next 
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is almost a tertiary sexual character of the male, and certainly it acts on the female as such, that she expects from him the interpretation and illumination of her thoughts. It is from this reason that so many girls say that they could only marry, or, at least, only love a man who was cleverer than themselves; that they would be repelled by a man who said that all they thought was right, and did not know better than they did. In short, the woman makes it a criterion of manliness that the man should be superior to herself mentally, that she should be influenced and dominated by the man; and this in itself is enough to ridicule all ideas of sexual equality." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Characteristics

Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers

In my last post, we discussed the phenomenon of women possessing equal sex drives to men, yet different by virtue of being hypergamous.

The essence of hypergamy is that women are attracted to males who are dominant over them. Dominant males are Alpha males.
.
.
But what is it really that “makes” an Alpha male?

Is one “naturally” an Alpha male or does the Alpha male come into existence because of the sum of certain Alpha qualities that he possesses?

I believe the answer is obvious. It is the nature of certain qualities, or features that are Alpha related, which together add up to create an Alpha male. Not all males who are strong and muscular are Alpha males just because of that one feature they possess. In fact, some body builders are the wimpiest mangina Beta males I have ever met. They couldn’t get a woman naked if their life depended on it.

All males possess both Alpha and Beta qualities. The more Alpha qualities, the more overall Alpha-like that male becomes. The less Alpha qualities, the more Beta-like he becomes.

Often when it is discussed why males of the past were placed in positions of headship in the family and society, we declare that it’s because of men’s linear thinking ability. That his natural appeal to reason and rationality makes him better suited for these positions as opposed to women, whose multi-tasking brains are based more on emotion than cold, hard logic.

I don’t disagree with that assumption. However, I would like to propose that there could also be a further motive for such a divide in gender roles.

Perhaps society was also structured in such a way to create more “Alpha qualities” amongst the greater population of males, thus making a greater range of the male population sexually attractive to the females.

With mainly men in the workplace earning money instead of women, a broader spectrum of the male population would appeal to females because of the Alpha quality of money/resources they would possess.

With mainly men in positions of power in society (government etc.), more men would appeal to women’s sexual desires because of the power they possessed.

Who was it that said “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”?

Why, it was Henry Kissinger.

Now I’m not sure, but somehow I don’t think that Kissinger is particularly the type of man that could be considered classically handsome.

And yet, he managed to nail uber-fembot, Gloria Steinem.

.
Poor little Ms. Steinem, despite all that pink slipper stomping, she was still a slave to her biology. Ain’t Mother Nature a bitch?

You see, there is not much genetic diversity in the natural herd-like system which works with women only humping the 20% of males that are Alphas. There is plenty of diversity from the male side of the equation, but little diversity from the female’s side.

.
It seems that women’s sexual nature has compensated for this by use of Rotating Polyandry, whereby women skip from Alpha male to Alpha male, ensuring that their lifetime supply of 400 eggs get fertilized not by just one male but several, in a rotating mating cycle.

Rotating Polyandry is an interesting concept whereby the whole notion of “love” is based on a mating cycle of a few years – enough for a woman to be protected and provided for during the time when she is absolutely the most vulnerable. This period would be when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then nurses and cares for the child until it is no longer solely dependent on her for survival. (I.e. The child can walk, talk, and feed itself). This should all take around 4 years or so from start to finish.* (See study at the bottom of this article).

Then she moves on to the next male and repeats the process. (Sound familiar?) By going to the next male, she would ensure some genetic diversity amongst her offspring and thereby, increase her chances of passing on her genes throughout the ages.

In fact, the whole way that love works seems to support this theory. Love to men is based on what he gives. Love to women is based on what she gets. Plus, it has been noted many times that women don’t really love men. Only gay men love men. Rather, women love being loved. And since, to a woman, being loved means that she “gets,” it is fair to say that women actually love money and the trinkets that being in love gets them.

Women’s love is parasitic.

Men’s love is the host.

And this would make sense. If women’s love is based on this parasitic function to ensure her and the child’s survival, she would seek out the male with the most power and the most resources. Males with these qualities are Alpha males. They are the prime targets for a woman to wish to be “in love” with.

But anyway, back to the main point of why there might have been a sexual reason for placing men in a position of headship in society and the family.

These positions that men have traditionally held, those of wealth creation, of positions of power in society, that of the “head” of the family and so on, are all positions that naturally add to the Alpha qualities of males – all males.

Thus, with more males possessing Alpha qualities through their societal role of headship, there are more males for the females to be sexually attracted to.
.
.
Once this is accomplished, we achieve our genetic diversity amongst the population by bringing more of the males directly into the breeding process, rather than relying on women’s tendency for Rotating Polyandry.
.

.
What this model does is it brings more of the males in society into marriage by providing more females who are sexually interested in them, and therefore more men in society also have children that are their own and become motivated to work.

Once men have their own children, men willingly become yoked to them and will do whatever it takes to ensure their survival. This is what Daniel Amneus calls “putting sex to work” in his online book, The Case for Father Custody

With male headship in society and the family, more females are attracted to more males and therefore more males get put to work.

And, of course, due to the male’s linear thinking brain, which invented everything around you with more than two moving parts, when all of the men in society start working and inventing and so on, sooner or later you will wind up with that great thing we call civilization.
.
.
Now, let’s go back to the concept of Rotating Polyandry and the parasitic nature of women’s sexuality.

Women’s sexuality is designed to take resources from the male in order that she and her child might survive.

Men’s “Alpha qualities” are based on his power and resources.

The more that a man gives to a woman, the less he has himself. In a sense, he gives his Alpha qualities to the woman and in doing so he becomes more Beta. Slowly on, his Beta qualities will overcome his Alpha qualities and the woman will find him less desirable compared to other males out there who haven’t had the Alpha sucked out of them yet.

We see this phenomenon over and over again.

Women are complete sex fiends while dating a man, and then soon after marriage she becomes less interested in sex.

Why? Because she is now in direct possession of many of his Alpha qualities. They were transferred to her via marriage. His work (paycheck) becomes her equal possession whereas before marriage, this resource was his alone. His power to leave her is gone and therefore he has less negotiating power over her when she is being shrewish. It goes on and on.

With men in positions of headship in society and the family however, there are certain elements of his Alpha qualities that the woman cannot suck out of him. No matter what, he will still be the breadwinner, he will still be the one with power in society and he will still be the dominant figure within the home. Certain parts of a man’s Alpha qualities were protected from being gobbled up by the woman.

Therefore, he still remains more Alpha in the woman’s eyes and thus her sexual attraction for him remains greater. This would enable the relationship to endure longer than it would naturally and this is something that is needed for the full potential of the “putting sex to work” concept to be realized.

With the runaway feminism we see in the modern day, this destruction of men’s Alpha qualities is even further magnified.

A woman earning $60,000 a year does not find a man earning $50,000 a year to possess an Alpha quality because of it.

With the full force of the corrupted DV Industry behind her, the wife's manipulation of State force far exceeds any physical dominance he previously had. In fact, she is the physically dominant one within this paradigm because State force allows her to push, kick, yell, scream, threaten and intimidate with impunity. He must meekly cower and accept it or the State will come in and beat the crap out of him on her behalf. There is nothing too Alpha in regard to the man in this situation at all.

With the Divorce/Alimony/Child Custody Industry behind her, a man’s paycheck (his resource dominance) becomes hers whether she keeps him around or not. Another Alpha quality removed from men by feminism and the State.

With the television running 24/7 in most homes, even men’s intellectual dominance is under attack. Remember that most women declare they don’t find men attractive unless he is smarter than her? Well, the only males that are portrayed as intelligent on television are single men. Husbands are portrayed as dumb oafs on TV and women are constantly encouraged to scorn their husbands as too stupid to do anything right. Let’s not even get into the subject of D’Oprah Winfrey.

In fact, most of the Psychology and Therapy Industries support this “stupid husband” attack on men as well. Virtually all couples/marriage therapists attack the husband by default, declaring that the problems in the marriage are his fault because he is too stupid to know how to read his wife’s ever changing emotional state with ESP. She changes her emotional state more times than her underwear, yet men are somehow stupid for not knowing that what she wants now is entirely different than what she wanted a half hour ago.

Feminism supports all of this nonsense because they are married to Marxism, which wishes to destroy Capitalism and civilization.

They fully well know that destroying marriage will bring us back to this:
.
.
And they know that when society adheres to this sexual model, men won’t be putting “sex to work” and our civilization will return to this:
.
.
But hey, that’s all fine and good as long there is gobs of commitment free sex and women don’t have to feel "oppressed" in any way.
.
Marriage is already a natural “Beta Maker,” and presents many challenges to men and women’s sexuality.
.
Feminism took these problems and intensified them to the point of the absurd.
.
At least with savages practicing Rotating Polyandry in the past, once the woman had parasitically sucked all the Alpha qualities out of a man, the discarded male was at least free from her and could go about rebuilding his resources and his life again.
.
Not so anymore with Feminism. Nope, now after a man is discarded, the woman can keep a leech like sucker attached to him via the State, while she finds another Alpha male to turn into a mere Beta.
.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"When I started researching this book, I was prepared to rediscover the old saw that conventional femininity is nurturing and passive and that masculinity is self-serving, egotistical, and uncaring. But I did not find this. One of my findings here is that manhood ideologies always include a criterion of selfless generosity, even to the point of sacrifice. Again and again we find that 'real' men are those who give more than they take." -- David Gilmore in his 1990 book Manhood in the Making

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
Science Can't Stop Proving Me Right --Chateau Heartiste
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
* Comparative primate studies sometimes indicate that humans are designed for monogamy. Among the monogamous white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), the average body weight of an adult male is about 1,000 times the weight of the average male’s testes (Dixson, 1998). Among humans, the average man’s body weight is about 1,300 times the size of the average man’s testes (Schultz, 1938), a ratio similar to the white-handed gibbon. In contrast, the more short-term-orientated common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) possesses extremely large testes with a body-testes ratio of only 350 (Dixson & Mundy, 1994), and the polygynous gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) has small testes with a body-testes ratio of over 5,000 (Hall-Craggs, 1962). Contradictory evidence regarding mating strategies exists in comparisons of primate seminal volume, sperm structure, and sperm quality (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Dixson, 1993; Moller, 1988). Overall, Dixson (1998) concluded that human male reproductive physiology is consistent with both monogamous and polygynous mating, providing only mixed support for the view that humans are monogamous. Humans display extreme levels of altriciality compared to other primates, requiring large parental investments and possessing a relatively delayed adolescence (T.M. Mueller, 1999).
.
Mate desertion is generally associated with lower infant survival in foraging cultures (Hill & Hurtado, 1996), another indication that humans are designed for monogamy. Finally, humans possess several neurophysiological systems of attachment linked with pairbonding and monogamy across species (Fisher, 1998; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999; Young, 2003). Fisher (1992) suggests that human patterns of weaning, birth spacing, divorce, and remarriage all point to a system of serial monogamy. It takes about 4 years to wean a child in hunter-gatherer cultures, and birth spacing in a foraging environment averages about 4 years (Blurton Jones 1986). Many divorces occur between the fourth and sixth year of marriage (Fisher, 1989, 1992), and men who practice serial monogamy are more reproductively successful than men who stay married to the same woman for a lifetime. Women who mate serially do not have reproductive advantage over other women (Buckle, Gallup, & Rodd, 1996). 

Excerpt from The Handbook Of Evolutionary Psychology (2005)(pages 259-261) edited by David Buss.

NO MA'AM's Guide To Bird Watching in the Manosphere

.
This is an old version of this article, read the new version here. 
.
Many men love to stroll through the lush forests of the Manosphere, as there is much to see and behold. One can find all sorts of things, from young saplings yearning to reach the open sky, to mighty Sequoias offering a sense of security in their strength, along with respite from the outer heat within the ambience of their shade.
.
As one walks through this unique atmosphere, it is quite common to hear the chirping of several different types of birds. The birds are part of the forest and therefore I would like to provide the following Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere.
.
One might spot an Elusive Wife perched on a branch overhanging your path. You veterans know her well. She is the one who has the perfect life; her marriage is free from strife, her children are raised the perfect way, and you’ll see her in Church twice on Sunday. She will pleasure her husband anytime he desires, sex in their marriage is still burning fires. “Her home cuisine is delicious,” she insists he will say, and to top it all off, from this path she’ll never foray.
.
The Elusive Wife is most often a traditional stay-at-home mom who believes in the message of the MRM. She’s the one who never lets any man forget that "he should keep on looking because there are still good women out there!" Her song goes something like this: "Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!"
.
The Elusive Wife appears to support men's issues, but really, those more jaded and experienced within "The Movement" will recognize that the Elusive Wife is concerned about men mainly because she is scared shitless of men waking up to the scam. She wants men to return to their masculine role of pandering to women's every whim, slaving away like a mindless drone for her and her children. It is noteworthy that the Elusive Wife's husband never comes online, gushing about his wonderful life with his wonderful wife. Nope, only she speaks of how blissfully contented her husband is with her. He smartly (or cowardly) remains silent.
.
The Elusive Wife says she is interested in men's issues, but what she really wants is to ensure that men keep serving women. She does this because, deep down, she knows she would be screwed if it were any other way. She knows she is a preferred human and wants desperately to maintain that concept. She has a manipulated man-slave at her finger tips and she damn well knows what a good con-game women have been running for thousands of years.
.
Another species which may appear is from the genus Mountainous Mammarious. You can tell a Mountainous Mammarious is in your neck of the woods because of her distinctive call, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!"
.
She too fully believes in men's issues, and that's why she plunks her self-described Victoria Secret satin pantied ass (page 9, item C), right in the midst of as many men as she can find. She brightens up the whole board with her cheerful song, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!" which is interspersed amongst every comment she makes.
.
She agrees with everything and befriends all. She often provides some useful services to humanity, like informing men of what it is like to grow breasts, menstruate, or have an ovary removed. The only thing she complains about is how uncomfortable it is to always have her lacy, Victoria Secret brassiere straps (page 11, item B) cutting into her back, due to the imbalanced weight proportioned towards her front. You see, she helps men better understand things from a woman's perspective. She flits in and out of blogs and forums, always spreading her good will towards her new found friends, and of course, announcing her arrivals and departures with her cheerful song, "DEE, DEE! DEE, DEE... Dee, Dee... Deeeee, deeeee....”
.
A third species of woman is rather an interesting one which is called Meritorious Mediocrous in Latin. Meritorious Mediocrus is perceived as a great Amazon bird of prey to many of those within men’s circles. Tales of her exploits become legendary and her name is revered wherever she goes. Even in far away lands, children are regaled with stories about the brave and mighty Meritorious Mediocrus.
.
There is a natural problem built within the species Meritorious Mediocrus though, and this is why some experts wish to rename this bird as Annika Sorenstamus. You see, Meritorious Mediocrus gets an enormous amount of attention for placing 96th out of 111, simply for being a woman. No-one knows who was 97th, 95th or even 5th - but everyone knows when Meritorious Mediocrus places in the bottom 15% of the field, and she receives gratuitous adulation for her accomplishments.
.
We see this same phenomenon all throughout society. A woman accomplishes something "great" simply by becoming, say, a firefighter. In fact, a newspaper story might appear on the front page because of this particular example of a Meritorious Mediocrus, and sumptuously entertain the readers with her heroism in becoming a firefighter. A man, however, who is stronger, faster and has fifteen years experience on her, will not receive any praise for his "accomplishments" unless he charges fearlessly into a blazing orphanage and single handedly rescues a dozen toddlers. Then of course, when he is done, he sees a little girl crying that her kitten is still trapped inside. So the male firefighter again gallantly dashes into the inferno, intending to rescue the kitten, only for the entire building to collapse upon him, killing him instantly. That story will make the eighth page in the same newspaper.
.
The problem with Meritorious Mediocrus stems from her fame and influence far outstripping her insights and accomplishments. The effect of this is that the lower end of the spectrum tends to have a louder, more influential voice than the higher end of the spectrum. And somehow, there is just something not right about that. It’s like the natural hierarchy of the universe gets turned upside down.
.
The fourth type of bird one may encounter hails from the species of Achievus Consensus. This bird's entire purpose in life seems to revolve around convincing men that they will accomplish absolutely nothing unless they manage to get women onboard. (She might cite examples of how men completely failed to create a civilization because women didn't participate). As absurd as it sounds to an outsider, Achievus Consensus has some kind of magical hypnotism in her song that makes men agree that, indeed, no flock of sheep can properly succeed without a sufficient number of wolves in its midst.
.
Despite her hypnotic melody, however, when one digs deeper down it becomes apparent that while Achievus Consensus knows a few peripheral issues, when push comes to shove she knows nothing of substance. Biologists often argue whether Achievus Consensus is from the greater Cuckoo genus or if she is just a crossbreed of the Elusive Wife and the Meritorious Mediocrus.
.
There is a good case to be made for the crossbreed theory of Achievus Consensus in that she is sometimes very active like the Meritorious Mediocrus while at the same time displaying some traits of the Elusive Wife. She never lets you forget how much she is doing for your benefit while at the same time reminding you that she, and other women, are not all like that.
.
I, however, tend to agree more with the theory that Achievus Consensus is a sub-species of the Cuckoo because of her continual shaming references to what other women, not her, think about our views. The Cuckoo theory is further backed up in that the Achievus Consensus seems stuck on the belief that men somehow have to convince women to let them do want they want. Achievus Consensus talks like men are small children who need to ask Mom's permission to play outside after supper.
.
Now, although I am describing several completely different species here, one should not forget that they are still from the same overall family within the animal kingdom. This reality is starkly revealed when a man dares to challenge one of them. The flocking instinct of these creatures automatically kicks in and they all gather together, descending upon the transgressing man as if in a scene from Hitchcock's The Birds.
.
Of course, men rarely stick up for other men at the best of times, so the offending man is often left outnumbered. Even worse, some of the other men in the near vicinity were lured in by the message of the Elusive Wife, because she always sings of a dream which he once had, but never attained. Other men are still thinking about the Mountainous Mammarious' Victoria Secret satin panties, which he looked up online after she let it "slip" that they were the ones one Page 9, Item C. Several men will have enormous respect for the achievements of Meritorious Mediocrus, thinking those achievements make her above reproach, while others are still in a hypnotic trance from listening to the song of Achievus Consensus, who has been admonishing them to get women onboard so "they can accomplish something."
.
The result?
.
Well, no other man will dare speak up once he sees how all the birds attack, as if eagles plucking at Prometheus' heart, and more, how few of the other men will even try to shoo the eagles away.
.
Soon, all the men are "kept in line" and with everything they write there will be a subconscious concern that the women will be offended. In a month or two, the men are posting less and less while the women are posting more and more, until the few women begin dominating the conversations of the many men.
.
Now, a men’s forum may try to counter this by creating a "sub-forum" that only allows entrance to men, so they can speak freely without concern of offending the women... but, come on now... a few women show up on a men's forum, and that forces all of the men into a private room in the back? How often have we seen that happen in society? I am starting to find forums with too many women on them to be an excellent way to gauge what happens in the greater society when women show up. Once a forum has gotten that far, it is quite literally, for the birds. Society is no different. Have a look at our governments.
.
There are two other types of birds that may appear as well.
.
The first is the much touted Odd Duck. (She is easiest to notice by the characteristics of reading much and talking little). Similarities to her extend well out of the bird family and into other parts of the Animal Kingdom. Take piglets, for example. Every litter of piglets has a runt that is odd. However, it is the other piglets that make the runt to be odd. And so it is with the Odd Duck in the Bird Family. What makes her odd are the other ducks, and how her behaviour is different from the normal behaviour of ducks. Therefore, in no way ought she be classified as an entire species of her own. And thus, I feel justified in talking little more about Odd Ducks.
.
The final bird one will encounter is the Cawing Crow. These birds are hardly a rarity though, and you need not be within the rich splendor of the Manosphere to find them. In fact, these birds are so common that many men report sighting them in their own backyards!
.
There is no beauty in the song of the Cawing Crow. In fact, you downright hate the sound; it's just so damn irritating!
.
Everybody else hates the sound too, and that's why nobody in the Manosphere complains much when you take out that weak, old BB gun which your dad gave you for your 12th birthday and start taking potshots at it.
.
"Ping!"
.
You bounce a BB off the Cawing Crow's tail feathers and she flies away.
.
You would think that would be it, and the Cawing Crow would have learned a lesson... but, alas, what do you hear out your window again tomorrow?
.
"Caw, Caw!"
.
"Damn irritating Cawing Crow," you exclaim, grabbing your BB gun as you rush out the door in your socks.
.
"Pow!" You let off a shot and see a few black feathers erupt into the air as the Cawing Crow takes flight with a stinging in her side.
.
The next day? Sure enough, there’s the Cawing Crow again, irritating you with a song akin to nails on a chalkboard.
.
"Pow! Pow! Pow!"
.
You hit your target with all three, but this time the Cawing Crow does not fly away. She has learned that the BB's won't kill her but will just bounce off her thick feathers, even if they do sting a bit.
.
Soon it becomes almost like a game between you and the Cawing Crow, and she shows up daily knowing full well that she will be greeted by multiple potshots at her. Yet, she keeps showing up, day after day.
.
You have a BBQ one day in the backyard with several of your friends, and they have heard your amazing tale of the Cawing Crow that never goes away - so they each bring their own BB guns along to the BBQ.
.
"Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, PING!" Volleys of shots fly at the Cawing Crow, most hitting their mark, and yet, she still doesn't fly away!
.
Wtf?
.
"What's the point?" one might ask. "You are not accomplishing anything."
.
Well, there is a point. You are becoming one hell of a good shot, and the Cawing Crow has helped you to become skilled at picking off a target with that weak, old BB gun from a considerable distance.
.
Compared to the other birds, the Cawing Crow is at least serving a purpose that is valuable to the MRM. I would rather have ten Cawing Crows than one Elusive Wife, one Mountainous Mammarious, one Meritorious Mediocrus and one Achievus Consensus.
.
At least with the Cawing Crow, you both know where you stand, and after a while you have to grant the Cawing Crow a certain amount of respect, if only strictly for the amount of abuse she is willing to take while still coming back for more.
.
Hey, I never said that the Cawing Crow was the smartest bird, only that you have to respect its temerity to some degree.
.
And this, gentlemen, brings us to the end of our Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere. Be sure to keep your ears open for their songs and your eyes sharp to spot their various distinguishing traits, so that you may pass on any sightings to your fellow travelers in the Manosphere.
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Hootie the MRA Owl and the Cawing Crows
.
.


I chased the cawing crows away with snowballs after a while. Originally there were four cawing crows. One was on the next branch only moments before I took the picture and was cawing in his face from only about a foot away. Hootie was not intimidated and refused to budge! Yo! He did ruffle up his feathers at the crow though... I was hoping to watch him kick some crow ass, but no such luck. Crows are just as bold - and stupid - as your typical feminist.
.


Hootie must have eaten well last night, because the squirrel didn't phase him a bit. I swear, that rodent had an uncanny resemblance to that other squirrelly mangina, Joe Biden.
.


I believe Hootie is a Barred Owl.
The Barred Owl (Strix varia) is a large typical owl. It goes by many other names, including eight hooter, rain owl, wood owl, and striped owl, but is probably known best as the hoot owl.
The usual call is a series of eight accented hoots ending in oo-aw, with a downward pitch at the end. The most common mnemonic device for remembering the call is "Who cooks for you, who cooks for you all."



It's the second time I've seen Hootie sleeping in that tree. Hopefully he becomes a permanent "pet."
.
.
Can't an honest owl get a day's sleep 'round here?
.
Who? Who? Who can leave me alone?
(Hootie stayed there from sun-up to sun-down, and didn't sing for me once. The neighbours must have all thought I had gone crackers though, hearing me run around all day saying, "Who cooks for you? Who cooks for you all?" I hope he returns and sings me a song one day.)