FL9Udkk7

1	I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of “Womens’ Rights”, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were women to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen, and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.
2	– Queen Empress Victoria I, the most powerful woman in history.
3
4	5th century BC: Roman civilization is a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death).
5	1st century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non-slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths, and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate republicanism, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children’s rights, and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.
6	1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax,” to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers. Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.
7	3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place. Roman population declines due to below replacement level birth rates. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the newborn “catholic” religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political, and military instability–there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.
8
9~:~
10
11	In 1899, a woman walked into saloons with rocks and hatchets, destroying property and terrorizing people. Carrie Nation led a female, misandry-driven prohibition movement that eventually pushed through the most authoritarian Amendment in the history of the US Constitution.
12	In 1899, a man walked into a saloon, destroying property and terrorizing people, and he was shot dead. Nobody cared who he was or why he was doing what he did.
13	Women have always been privileged, coddled, handled with kid gloves, and insulated from adult consequences. You don’t realize this historical reality because you’re still privileged, coddled, handled with kid gloves, and insulated from adult consequences. Wake up. Wise up. Grow up.
14
15~:~
16
17	Here’s the process:
18	•	Force women into degrees they don’t want using affirmative action.
19	•	Force companies to hire the additional women, who have poor scores due to the mismatch effect and their comparative lack of motivation.
20	•	Force healthcare companies to pay for the psychiatric diseases of these women as they go through life constantly being patronized and coddled.
21	•	Force companies not to offshore to India to escape the ridiculous cycle of defeated idealism.
22	•	Nudge women away from childbirth and into the workforce to pay for the declining economy as a result of the previous steps.
23	•	Encourage immigration and push for illegal immigrants to be given citizenship in order to make up the deficit of births.
24	•	Force different cultural groups not to fight in order to keep illegal immigrants in the country. 
25	•	Force population to give up guns in order to cut down intercultural violence due to close proximity.
26	•	Declare that, as women have greater mental illness levels, lower pay, lower graduation rates, lower levels of trust in the workforce, and declining happiness, more government control is needed to equalize the situation.
27	•	Declare that institutionalized racism is driving apart cultural groups and that more government funding and greater diversity are needed to stop racial violence.
28	This is literally, word for word, what is happening. 
29
30~:~
31
32	Women get the vote: Immediately dissolve male headship of families, which merely gave men a place in society, and if done well, a position of respect and authority.
33	Women get the pill: Immediately dissolve marriage and monogamy, reducing all men to ‘alphas’ they chase and ‘betas’ they ignore or for which they have total contempt.
34	Women decide to enter the universities: Immediately turn higher education into high school 2.0. Everything becomes about socializing. Introverts no longer have a place to enjoy themselves and perhaps climb the ladder and contribute to society.
35	Women decide to enter the workforce: Willingly push most men out of the entry-level positions so that men can barely get their foot in the door. Offices become drama-filled social hierarchies where catty women chase the odd ‘alpha’ from management and treat with contempt the few males who manage to endure the new atmosphere. Women then complain that all of the above have hurt them because they can’t find men willing to marry them at 40 years old when they finally climb off the cock carousel.
36
37~:~
38
39	Feminism is a social cancer. Males and females were clearly meant to coexist and live together, enjoying the variety made from our inherent differences. Feminism incites conflict by forcing androgyny–the idea that the genders are identical–under the guise of equality. This causes natural conflict as it implies that men and women should have the exact same standards and expectations, despite it being completely illogical to apply identical concepts to two fundamentally different beings. We were meant to complement, not copy each other.
40	Feminism is championed by the same mental defectives that push tranny and gay nonsense as if it was all intrinsically connected. The modern woman, raised on the notion that she is a divine figure purely because of her sex–an uncontrollable birthright–and not her virtues–a conscious application of personal morality–is a selfish, spoiled, borderline retarded brat that blames men for all her woes and plods through life in the most irresponsible fashion possible.
41	Do you remember growing up on traditional films, convinced that wholesome women–beautiful not only of face but also of heart–were who you would meet when you became a man? Do you remember dreaming of the joy of married life? I do. But it’s only a memory.
42
43~:~
44
45	Feminism is not ‘childish’ or ‘something that happens only on Twitter.’ Feminism is everything from affirmative action to higher taxes, from ruined childhoods to jailed innocent men. Feminists influence everything from newspapers to transnational governing bodies. Boys and men are under constant attack, from nursery teachers to supreme court judges. The suggestion to ignore feminists or fight them honorably was maybe valid 150 years ago when feminism was in its infancy, but not today.
46	Concepts like honor apply only to honorable opponents. The femimafia is not honorable; they use lies and blackmail to achieve their goals. If feminism was about having better arguments, they would have lost a long time ago. Finally, an exterminator does not argue with termites. Not only is arguing with termites useless, it lowers the exterminator to the level of termites. The honorable exterminator exterminates honorably.
47
48~:~
49
50	Men can impregnate hundreds of women very quickly and are viable almost until death. Women are only viable for a few decades and can only handle producing one kid at a time. This makes women a valued resource that must be protected, while men are much more disposable. Simply: If your tribe loses 70 of its 100 men, you can still breed just as quickly, no problem. If it loses 70 out of its 100 women, it’s in big trouble. This ties in with women staying home where it’s safe and raising children, while men do the dangerous work of hunting and fighting rival tribes. This does not mean the men are pawns of the women or vice versa. Rather, they are both different pieces in the continuation of the species.
51	Today, however, we have eliminated almost all of the dangers in our western societies. Women can go almost anywhere a man can and be safe, and so they do. This upsets the balance of the parental roles that we’ve evolved over millennia. Now both–or either–of the parents can play the role of the “hunter-warrior.” Women are free to pursue the same things that men have traditionally done. The only problem with this is you have women, who have evolved as “mother-caregivers” taking on roles of “hunter-warriors” for which they are not mentally and emotionally equipped, and men run into the same problem when taking on the “mother-caregiver” role.
52	Men and women are most fulfilled in their traditional roles. Without these clearly defined roles and responsibilities, men and women don’t have structure in their lives and become selfish and individualistic. Feminism, I think, is just a manifestation of this selfish individualism. Women are having to “harden up” to compensate for the lack of real men in society and men are “softening” in much the same way.  So we no longer have hard, determined, forceful nation-building men at one end of the spectrum and kind, nurturing, family-oriented, mothering women at the other.  Both sexes have had to move closer to the center line, and it’s making us miserable. And not a simple rainy day miserable. Miserable in that nagging way in the back of your mind that says, “This isn’t what I’m supposed to be.”
53
54~:~
55
56	Women entering male spaces has pathologized them by bringing sexual selection into a space previously free from that stress. ‘Sexual selection’ before the ‘60s mostly kept out of mainstream society. A woman and a man who would marry usually first met through family, not in ‘public space’ setting where both sexes had free range. In any situation where sex outside marriage isn’t considered shameful and where men and women congregate together, you’re going to have this ‘alpha/beta’ dichotomy emerge. It’s supremely dehumanizing.
57	This is why introvert males are no longer taking part in society–they’re dropping out at every point–from high school to college to the workplace–each has become more and more a coed space. These introvert males no longer have anywhere to be themselves–to be productive–without having their sexual status constantly rubbed in their faces. Because of all this, the ‘alpha/beta’ dichotomy is constantly on the minds of young men, and many men have developed pathologies and and sexual pathologies. As a result, you have an increase in faggotry, in transexuals, in ‘sissys’, cuckolds, etc. The only way this is going to be turned back is by the reestablishment of sexual monogamy and sex segregation (primarily through pushing women back into home).
58
59~:~
60
61	It all boils down to the feminist position that women are inferior and men are superior. While this is the exact opposite of what they claim to believe, it’s exactly what they actually think. “If I’m drunk and a man’s drunk, he needs to be of stronger constitution, better judgement, and stronger resolve than me, or he’s a rapist.” “If a man and I both consent to sex and I get pregnant, he is more capable than I am so he needs to pay for whatever choices I make regarding the fetus/baby.” “I want to live in a world where I can wear whatever I want and go wherever I want and nothing bad will ever happen to me. Men, make it happen for me.”
62	Because rather than being responsible for being careful where they go, with whom they associate, taking measures to assure their ability to defend themselves, or simply acknowledging that, yes, criminals are going to commit crime, they instead elect to throw a tantrum and just demand men create the world in which they want to live, since they admit they can’t do it themselves.
63
64~:~
65
66	Feminists say that intoxication voids consent, so if a woman who has had a few drinks consents to sex with you, you’re a rapist if you proceed. Problem is, drunk men and drunk women have sex all the time. If a drunk man and a drunk woman both consent to have sex with each other and (of course) have sex with each other, who is the rapist? If feminism dictates that the man is the rapist, then that indicates two things:
67	1. Feminism is fundamentally anti-men, as they demonstrate that even when a man and a woman do the exact same thing, only the man is wrong.
68	2. Feminism inadvertently implies that men are superior and woman are inferior, as they demonstrate that even when a man and a woman are equally drunk, the man is the only one aware of his own actions (and should thus bear the consequences) and the woman is the one who has no clue what she’s doing (and is thus helpless in the matter).
69	If feminism dictates that they have both raped each other, then both of them should be sent to prison and theoretically serve equal sentences… which is borderline insanity.
70
71~:~
72
73	Women,
74	I want you all to understand and remember the following. Almost every single brick in every single building you have ever occupied was put there by a man. Almost every inch of road you ever traveled on was put there by a man. Almost every watt of electricity you have ever used was carried by a system, almost every inch of which, was put there by a man. Almost every bullet fired (or suffered) to protect your safety and freedom was fired (or suffered) by a man. The list goes on, and the point is that almost all of the most fundamental things you depend on was put there by a man.
75	Careful; I am not some kind of misogynist, and most men aren’t either. So stop acting like we are. There is, however, a natural order to things. Men end up doing the vast majority of these shiny difficult things because they must be done. Usually women are nowhere to be found when it’s time to pour 3 miles of fresh asphalt. But men do it because it must be done. I don’t blame women for this–asphalt is nasty, terrible stuff. Of course paving roads is just one of many examples, but the point here is to recognize that you owe men a debt of gratitude and recognition for certain things. You don’t need to bow to us or anything; just recognize that we take care of a lot of the worst of this world for you, in general. That’s all. Not a big deal.
76
77~:~
78
79	Gender roles, while often thought of as societal constructs, are biological pre-dispositions. The majority of men (approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in object-oriented tasks. The majority of women (again, approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in people-oriented tasks. Society didn’t create gender roles–society merely grew accustomed to them. That’s what society does–it grows accustomed to the way things are and holds it in place. Biological predisposition is what set the trend, and society grew accustomed to those predispositions. Society is not active, it is passive.
80	Like shoving a stick through a bucket of molasses, it doesn’t actually push back or move the stick around itself–it simply holds onto wherever the stick is, or has been moved to. Individuals cause change, society keeps it there and keeps change as a slow progression. Ask yourself why, in Norway, for example, 85% of Nurses are female, and 85% of engineers are male, regardless of how hard the education system has tried to reverse the roles. The answer is quite innocent. It comes in the form of the most common response from school children, “That sounds boring.”
81	Most men don’t want to be nurses, because it would bore them. Most women don’t want to be engineers, because it would bore them. Out of free will–a free choice to decide what we want for ourselves–we reenforce gender roles. To create a perfect 50/50 split in all fields of study would require the elimination of free choice, to force women into engineering, and men into nursing, because the quota demands it. And as for feminists… which fields are they studying? Sociology, Women’s Studies, etc. And what are those? People-oriented tasks. Yep, you read that right. Out of free will, feminists have chosen gender roles.
82
83~:~
84
85	The following scene has a pair of young lovers unable to make their tryst as a succession of ever older and more hideous women attempting to and eventually succeeding in dragging the man off to make love to them first, as laid down by the new laws. 
86	– Assemblywomen, a play by Aristophanes, 391 BC
87
88	This is literally one of the “check your privilege” stories about men getting screwed over by the coming feminist society. And it was written over 2000 years ago. Turns out there’s nothing new under the sun: the ancients had to deal with this garbage! What’s scary about it is that people have always had this desire. It isn’t some new degeneration of society since the 19th century. It’s like a great creeping force of history that has always been held at bay until now. The only difference is that the society of which they have always dreamed only became possible when technology and production advanced enough to let them get away with it without it all instantly collapsing.
89	As medical and production technology wipes out the need for family values, hard work, and individual achievement, how far will we see this nonsense be taken? Communism isn’t enough, is it? It can’t just be people getting their bread. It has to be maximum equality in everything because the personal is the political and my feelings trump your rights. It’s too late to stop this age-old dream becoming a reality. We have the technology to let mental defectives exist in a delusional dreamworld, and soon we’ll have the technology to let them inflict that dreamworld on reality, and immanentize the eschaton.
90	The best thing about communism and feminism is that they don’t work. A tyranny which is unstable and incompetent at least gives hope, and that’s why they’ve never quite been able to do it. But if we automate society enough, the human element of incentives is removed, and we’ll find ourselves in a world at the whim of those in control of politics. We’ll be in the far worse world where communism works. We’ll be under the boot that can keep stomping on our faces forever.
91	People think communism was invented in the 19th century, but that’s only because the century after is the only point where production had advanced enough to get it off the ground. It still failed, because even if communism could be enacted, it could never actually survive human nature, and the controllers could never coordinate their subjects with their meager abilities. That may be set to change, and we’ll have gone from the 2500 year dream of communism to the failed experiments of the 20th century and finally to a robotized and automated equality surpassing all communism, and all at the service of those controlling the politics of the day: today’s social justice warriors and feminists. Kill me. Just kill me. I’ve had enough. I didn’t need this revelation. Let me wake up. Please.
92
93~:~
94
95	There is no privilege to being born one sex or another. They each have their benefits and drawbacks. That’s the point–we’re supposed to support one another. You’re just angry because men have largely turned into slothful, apathetic, depressed piles of lament. But you’ve never stopped to ask why. You just get angry and make it worse for all of us. You take their self-loathing and you amplify it as if that’s going to solve anything. Ever thought that maybe they’re human beings, like you, and want to be treated with love and respect, like you? Ever thought that maybe they don’t even know why they can’t live up to their own standards? Ever thought they might be confused, too?
96	No, you haven’t. You’re too busy trying to blame other people rather than fix your own problems. You’d rather preach “equality” while focusing on particular groups of individuals. How does favoring one group over another promote equality?! What in the name of fuck is wrong with you people?! There is no privilege. Stop blaming others for their success because you aren’t. Feminism, and all its various associations, have made it crystal clear that they don’t care about equality. They care about beating down those who are successful. They don’t want to raise the standard for the “oppressed”; they want to lower the standard for the “entitled”. They want everyone to be stuck at the bottom, miserable and unhappy.
97
98~:~
99
100	If it makes anyone feel better, I buy small companies, then I fire ALL the women slowly over 6 months, starting with the head of HR. I re-hire a tiny handful of really sexy young things for secretarial work and to please clients, but if they misstep in the slightest I fire them, too. Here’s how my hiring process goes:
101	1. Anyone stupid enough to attend some SJW, liberal college gets their resume thrown in the trash.
102	2. I don’t hire women. My companies are literally 20-40% more productive being male-only environments.
103	3. I don’t hire blacks. I used to, but Ferguson made me rage. Now they can stay poor.
104	4. I hire mostly straight white males, asians, and a tiny handful of Mexicans just to make sure my company doesn’t look like a brigade in the Waffen SS.
105	Two other points, I pay cash to a close friend who is a private investigator who works on corporate legal cases. We do unauthorized background checks on all the prospective employees. If there is any hint at liberalism or SJW marxist bullshit, we don’t hire them. Absolutely no faggots, “gender-neutral”, “bi”, etc. get hired. Finally, I have some really strict policies that I make sure don’t get followed, but then I quietly have the IT department track what people are doing. If I find a liberal has infiltrated my company, I always have cause to fire them. You have no idea how much of an advantage this gives me against competitors who are pissing away 40% of their time and resources dealing with feminist bullshit, monkeyshines, and the general laziness of the Gen Y liberal leftist employee.
106
107~:~
108
109	Women are treated better in the legal system. Men are significantly more likely to be victim to violent crime–including rape. Domestic violence is committed equally; men are more likely to be arrested. Depictions of violence against men are humorous, against women are vilified. It is legal to circumcise males against their will and illegal to illegalize it. Women cannot be circumcised. Men pay higher premiums for auto, life and disability insurance, though discrimination according to race or other legitimate criteria is prohibited.
110	Male workplace deaths are 20x higher and comprise 95% of all workplace deaths. Male suicide is 3x female and 80% of youths. Men are incarcerated 20x more. Men falsely accused of rape have their names published. Their accuser is protected and usually not charged. Men have no reproductive rights. Men have few parental rights. A woman can name ANY man as the father. He receives a letter informing him of this. If he does not prove otherwise in 30 days, he is liable for support.
111	A boy victim to statutory rape must pay child support to his rapist. A man who is raped while unconscious must pay child support to his rapist. A man who fathers a child and wants custody can have his child adopted (kidnapped) against his will.
112	Men have a 10x higher risk of homelessness. Government spending is 8-50x greater to women than men. Female-owned businesses get government support. Male businesses do not. Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations, such as the army, police and fire service. Requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay. In some countries, men have to pay more income tax than their female counterparts. E.g., in India, the income tax exemption limit for men is Rs 150,000 and Rs 180,000 for women. Some airlines ban men from sitting next to children. Men are illegally convicted of rape on university campuses if the board finds the chance of rape is greater than 50%. Male prison sentences are longer.
113	Selective Service.
114
115http://www.terry.uga.edu/%7Emustard/sentencing.pdf 
116http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm 
117http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf 
118http://www.boysproject.net/statistics.html 
119http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/duke-lacrosse-players-suit-over-false-rape-claim-may-proceed-judge-says.html 
120http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2011/09/09/again-utah-forces-adoption-on-fit-fathers-child/ 
121http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7957982/British-Airways-changes-discriminatory-seating-policy-for-men 
122http://www.wdaz.com/event/article/id/6963 
123http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/statistics/trends01.html 
124http://www.societaldistress.org/files/HO-HAR2009.pdf 
125http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/ 
126http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7x78v/what_do_modern_men_want_in_women/c07omtc 
127http://www.reddit.com/r/OneY/comments/i2i06/crosspost_from_requality_i_just_did_a_little/c20d8q8 
128http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm 
129http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default 
130http://reason.com/archives/2004/07/01/confessions-of-a-woman-owned-b 
131http://falserapearchives.blogspot.ca/2011/09/writings-demonstrating-error-and.html 
132
133~:~
134
135	•	Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?
136	•	Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?
137	•	Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?
138	•	Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?
139	•	Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?
140	•	If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about 80% of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?
141	•	Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?
142	•	Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman–won’t the man be in more pain?
143	•	Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped?
144	•	Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat him but a criminal if he defends himself?
145	•	Why does women’s health get more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?
146	•	Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?
147	•	Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?
148	•	If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar (they don’t, by the way), why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?
149	•	How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?
150	•	Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?
151	•	Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?
152	•	If women in the military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?
153	•	Why are we so concerned about girls underperforming boys in math and science but not concerned about boys underperforming girls in everything else?
154	•	Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?
155	•	Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?
156	•	Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?
157	•	Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?
158	•	Why do female tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five–isn’t that equal pay for less work? Never mind that the worlds’ best female players cannot beat male players ranked below 200 in the world.
159	•	Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?
160	•	Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?
161	•	Why are there thousands of “father’s rights” groups but no “mother’s rights” groups?
162	•	Why do we have so many father’s groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?
163	•	Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?
164	•	If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?
165	•	Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about 80% of divorces?
166	•	Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?
167	•	Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?
168	•	Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?
169	•	Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered bums?
170	•	Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?
171	•	Why do we have to say “chairperson. and “congressperson” but it’s okay to say “garbage man” and ‘bad guy’?
172	•	Why do we always hear the phrase ‘innocent women and children’ but never hear about ‘innocent men’ or ‘men and children?’
173	•	Why do news headlines use the terms “student”, “spouse”, or “parent” when a girl, woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy”, “husband”, or “father” when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?
174	•	Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?
175	•	Why does the term ‘angry mother’ sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term ‘angry father’ sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?
176	•	Why is it that when men are more successful than women it’s because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it’s because men are lazy?
177	•	Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?
178	•	Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?
179	•	Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape the man’s name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?
180	•	Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?
181	•	Why is it that we’ve had 40 years and billions of dollars going into women’s rights and men’s responsibilities, but it’s taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it’s time to consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities?
182	•	If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don’t we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?
183	•	For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe that now it’s time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don’t they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?
184	•	Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?
185	•	If you put a woman on a pedestal and try to protect her from the rat race, you’re a male chauvinist pig. If you stay at home and do the housework, you’re a pansy.
186	•	If you work too hard, there never is time for her. If you don’t work enough, you’re a good for nothing bum.
187	•	If she has a boring repetitive job with low pay, it’s exploitation. If you have a boring repetitive job with low pay, you should get off your rear and find something better.
188	•	If you get a promotion ahead of her, it’s favoritism. If she gets a promotion ahead of you, it’s equal opportunity.
189	•	If you mention how nice she looks, it’s sexual harassment. If you keep quiet, it’s male indifference.
190	•	If you cry, you’re a wimp. If you don’t, you’re insensitive.
191	•	If you make a decision without consulting her, you’re a chauvinist. If she makes a decision without consulting you, she’s a liberated woman.
192	•	If you ask her to do something she doesn’t enjoy, that’s domination. If she asks you, it’s a favor.
193	•	If you appreciate the female form and frilly underwear, you are a pervert. If you don’t, you’re gay.
194	•	If you like a woman to shave her legs and keep in shape, you’re sexist. If you don’t you’re unromantic.
195	•	If you try to keep yourself in shape, you’re vain. If you don’t, you’re a slob.
196	•	If you buy her flowers, you’re after something. If you don’t, you’re not thoughtful.
197	•	If you’re proud of your achievements, you’re full of yourself. If you’re not, you have no ambition. 
198	•	If she has a headache, she’s tired. If you have a headache, you’re gay.
199	•	If you want it too often, you’re oversexed. If you don’t, you’re gay.
200
201~:~
202
203	The hilarious irony is that feminists are now becoming chauvinist and demanding double standards rather than equality while their hypocritical ideology comes back to bite them in the ass.
204	1. they want equality and independence but still demand that men pay for everything. In fact, the whole idea of men paying for everything 60 years ago was because women would repay the men in other ways (not sex), such as cooking a nice big meal in thanks for all those free dinners and drinks, as well as doing other things for him. Since ‘equality’, doing all that for men is sexist and stone-age. Funny how only the woman’s part was deemed bad and had to be removed, huh?
205	2. Strippers and hookers use sex to empower themselves, but getting off on it makes men pigs. Feminists are shocked at slut-culture and scream that more feminism is needed to fix it. What they don’t realize is that feminism caused it: women being sexually liberated meant screwing guys and being promiscuous to the point where they are viewed as sex objects.
206	3. Typical female interests are now elevated as ‘enlightened’ or ‘right’ and typical male interests that females don’t understand are ‘sexist,’ ‘barbaric,’ or ’immature’ and used to describe the ‘typical male.’
207	4. Work is a fun pastime that you can choose to do until you get bored and expect a man to be there to fund your early retirement (read: sit at home watching TV). Women expect to have fun and screw around while making careers the most important thing, but then become bitter, used up, middle-aged businesswomen desperate for a man to fulfill her biological clock only to discover men don’t want them anymore. They then, of course, blame men for not wanting them and berate them because they suddenly don’t conform to their spinster whims. Work is choice for women and an obligation for men.
208	5. In relationships, women are bipolar; they want the traditional male to make them feel safe, secure, and provide, but at their discretion they snap at men for doing just that when they feel like being ‘strong and independent.’ They want men to do all the dirty work and manual labor and other traditional male roles, but god help the poor bastard that asks, “What’s for dinner, love?” because asking women to do anything is sexist and slavery.
209	6. Men are still blamed for everything and women possess no accountability. In a Time magazine study, 40% of married women admitted to cheating on their spouse, but 80% felt it was justified. That’s right, it’s the man’s fault when they sleep around on them, but it would never be allowed as an excuse the other way around.
210	7. Women want to turn men into women, and some metrosexuals are the result, but then they whine ‘where have all the real men gone’ when they don’t feel like changing a flat tire in the rain.
211	8. There’s a double standard with the justice system: Women pedophiles and child molesters are glorified and given slaps on the wrist, but when men are involved with similar consenting situations with minors, they’re labeled guilty at even an accusation, and people would gleefully crucify them. Those same people jerk off to teachers sleeping with 12 year old boys. Women can also falsely accuse men of rape or child abuse and not face any penalties.
212	9. Men are supposed to work to keep a woman happy in a relationship, putting her feelings first, sacrifice and go out of their way. The idea of women doing all that for a man is considered sexist and ‘patriarchal slavery.’
213	There’s nothing that women offer men anymore to even make men want to marry them in the first place. It’s all about what the woman gets out of it and how her needs are met. They have no desire to learn domestic arts and are proud of it, and the prospect of eventual divorce means a man loses his money and kids and makes men reject the idea of marriage even more, yet women still don’t get it and write countless articles on how ‘immature man-boys’ don’t want to commit to their middle-aged self, berating men for enjoying hobbies and freedom just as the women did before they felt entitled to a good man when they get the ‘baby rabies.’
214	10. Women who don’t want to hear the truth respond to this kind of discussion with “can’t get laid” or “small penis” remarks.
215
216~:~
217
218	Here’s my story. I was 27, had some money, made myself physically fit, and decided to give dating another try after the disaster that was my school years. But all the women “my age” are absolute garbage for every reason you can imagine a 24-32 year old woman had run her life into the ground. It was pretty hopeless–women either just wanted me because I’m a checkbook and a penis and they’re out of options or because they have adorable modern “strong, independent woman” opinions that are complete deal breakers.
219	I floated around for about a year, feeling pretty lonely and stupid that I had given life another try and this is all I’d been rewarded with. I was sitting around after gym one day dealing with the testosterone-spiked, lonely, sad, mad, no girlfriend feelings. I pondered suicide, ponder moving to another country… All the women my age and older are used goods or still single for that or other good reasons. If only I could have not been a piece of shit at 16-20… So I was sitting there, thinking, and finally fixated on the point. “My age and older.” Hmm. Well… I have money, I’m attractive. Short of a little middle school-tier rejection by girls who have no idea what a real man is supposed to be, what, exactly is preventing me from enrolling in the 16-22 dating pool at 28?
220	As luck would have it, I needed to get next week’s food from the local market and there was a QTP2T of young but indeterminate age who worked the express lane (seriously, she could have been 15, could have been 22; she had a face that made it hard to tell) who I loosely knew because I don’t buy much at the chain markets so that was always my lane. As she was ringing up my stuff, I asked how her dating is going and she let out a big sigh. “I’m getting fed up, actually,” she says.
221	“Oh, really?” I say, with slight bemusement. “Why?”
222	“Guys my age are stupid nobodies, and look at my job; no older guy is gonna want me.”
223	I blue screened temporarily at this point. Had to be shaken out of it. “Your… career?” I asked. “What does that have to do with anything?!”
224	“Oh, everybody knows older successful guys want an established woman who has a career and stuff,” she said.
225	“Uh, I make enough money for the both of us. You could stay at home and raise the children, even, if you wanted. Why on Earth would I care as long as you were a good person and we liked each other?”
226	“Well, I mean, I just heard all the ladies say that… I can’t say a date a lot of older guys, y’know.”
227	I dropped the topic, but by the time I got to the parking lot, I realized exactly what the fuck has been happening. Older women and feminists are telling younger women to stay away because “old men don”t want them unless they’re some co-equal murphy brown power executive” while simultaneously  telling men their age that younger women don’t want them and will think they’re creepy pedophile crib-robbers for talking to them if there’s an age gap greater than 3 years.
228	It was clear to me now. So I immediately threw away any notion of dating a woman over 24 and completely shifted my dating focus. The entire world is new again; women I am interested in are interested in me, and there is a chance for these dates to become successful marriages built on mutual attraction without a leeching partner.  A lot of these women either haven’t been through feminism 101 (college) or are starting it and are questioning it, but I’m there just in the nick of time to rebalance them, where without me they’d question but ultimately accept the groupthink–as all women do, devoid of authority. Never mind the fact that I can actually find virgins in this group.
229	This was a redpill right up there with the jews, guys. You have old women and feminists pulling a divide and conquer strategy equally as destructive as judaism. But now that I see it, I can sidestep it completely and preempt the perpetuation of this cycle in, at least, mine and at least one woman’s life. I haven’t found quite the one yet, but I’m so much closer to the mark and all my dates are so much more productive. If nothing else, I’m a prominent feature in a few young women’s lives and a point of stability that they will remember and seek out in other men. You’re welcome for that, by the way. Now go do it for others. I’m free from the last layer of mental chains that held me down. I’m finally free.
230
231~:~
232
233	Every single stage of feminism has been bad. Every single idea that it pushes is bad. Every single goal it has is bad. Thanks mostly to second wave feminism, which covered an enormously broad range of topics, it is beyond the scope of even this post to address all of it. But I can address the two main points of it, and I will.
234	Women Should Have The Right To Vote! No, they should not. I can give you three very good reasons women should not have the right to vote. First, it allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women, pitting husband and wife against one another. They can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to men or women exclusively, pitting half of the nation against the other half while giving them an out on addressing the real issues. It gives politicians in Washington the power to get between a husband and a wife emotionally and intellectually, which is outrageous and should not be allowed.
235	Second, it is the most destructive thing to the family. Before feminism, only men had the right to vote and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was, as a trend, one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare minimum of what they can get away with. When over 95% of American voters were men casting votes for their families, politicians had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conducive to family values. But when all adults have a vote, politicians no longer have to care about family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual friendly, instead of being family friendly. We can see the transformation this has on political rhetoric in action by simply looking at how talking points were changed. “Homosexual marriage is bad for the family” stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual-friendly “rebuttal”: What people do with their own bodies–or what they do behind closed doors–is no business of yours. The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote.
236	Third, related to the second, conservatives and liberals have a very fundamental split on how they view the world. The atom is defined as the smallest possible unit of an element that still retains all of the traits of that element. Same with molecules of a given substance. So a water molecule is the smallest possible amount of water that still behaves chemically and physically like water. If you break it down any further, it stops being water. One of the most fundamental splits between conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints is their view on the molecule of society. The liberal views the individual as the smallest possible unit of society. Thus, all of their policies and issues stem from this fountainhead. To the liberal, it makes perfect sense that all rights, freedoms, powers should belong to every single individual. Even their more radical stance–the communist reconfiguration of wealth and social structure–is nothing more than a relatively basic and logical extrapolation on this theory of the primacy of the individual. Communism takes “all Individuals should have the same powers, freedoms, and rights” and extrapolates this into “all individuals being totally equal in all things is the only true form of fairness and justice, because any difference between individuals must be injustice.” Thus, we have the creation of things like social justice and cultural marxism, and we come to understand why communism, in spite of being referred to as a “radical” politic, is in actuality only a single step away from what we consider basic modern talking points for liberals. This is, by the way, how you can tell, rhetorically, that all neoconservatives are just liberals who wear red ties, and it is also how we can accurately identify libertarianism as being inherently and fundamentally left-wing. Both neocons and libertarians accept and agree with the core liberal framing that the Individual is prime.
237	The conservative, however, disagrees. To the conservative, the molecule of society–the smallest possible unit of civilization that still retains all of the qualities and traits of civilization–is the family, not the individual. A family is a group of people who share blood ties, live in the same space, speak the same language, have the same culture, and share the same experiences. To the conservative, a family is a microcosm of the nation itself, because it shares all the same traits that a nation does (and even the same general definition), but if you were to break the family apart into individuals, they no longer exhibit the traits of a nation, because they are alone. This is the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals over the identity of a nation, and it is why liberals have lost the argument. An individual is a lump of experiences and traits without context or frame. To base a nation off of individuals is to base a nation off of nothing, because individuals have next to nothing in common with one another. This is the reason liberalism, having fully incubated into its final rhetorical form, is agitating for the dissolving of all borders and the inclusion into every nation anyone who wishes to be a part of it. To a non-liberal, this is complete madness, but to a liberal, it is “logic” totally in line with their core assumption that individualism is prime.
238	Conservatives, by contrast, have an infinitely more authentic depiction of a nation. A nation is blood, soil, and the shared culture and experiences of the people who live in it. A family is also shared blood, shared soil, and the joint culture and experiences of the people who are a part of it. Conservatives define a nation not by the individuals who make it up, but rather by the bonds that hold those individuals together. A group of individuals is a family–the smallest unit of a civilization that still retains all of the traits and qualities of civilizations. A group of families is a neighborhood or locale; a group of neighborhoods or locales is a district; a group of districts is a state; and you can either stop there with the nation-state or take it one step further with a group of states creating a greater superstate.
239	This is a very long explanation for a very short statement, but it was needed to appropriately justify it: the third reason women should not vote is because, simply, it distributes the vote to individuals over families, which creates a system that will always sacrifice the family and always destroy family values in the name of pushing individual values. In pure cause-and-effect, a system in which only women could vote and all women were married would be better than a system in which men and women can both vote. The vote must go to the family–it is absolutely paramount–and prior to feminism, it did. Women’s voting rights destroys that.
240	Women Should Have The Right to Work! No, they should not. Fortunately, unlike the previous point, this one requires far less baggage to successfully unpack. I will make six points here, though strictly speaking, the first one alone would be enough to justify saying no. First, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while retaining the number of available job positions. This means, at a bare minimum, all wages are halved and it will be at least twice as hard for anyone looking for a job to actually secure one. What bringing women into the job market did was functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out a number of foreigners equal to the total number of American citizens, and then bringing all of those foreigners in to America all at once. If somebody today proposed importing 300 million immigrants within one year–which is the modern day equivalent of what feminism did to America in the early 20th century–they would be lynched, and rightfully so. I could leave this point here, and it would be enough. The math is cold, harsh, and brutal, and so simple that even a political pundit could not deny it, which is precisely the reason no one has ever actually formally examined the damage women entering the workplace did to first world nations, economically. Because it was catastrophic, and that doesn’t fit the narrative that giving women rights = goodthink. No one in the mainstream media or mainstream political discourse wants to think about how much damage feminism caused economically. Because we’re not supposed to think about that. But I won’t leave it here, because there are five more good reasons women should not be in the workplace. They are all interrelated, but they are separate reasons on their own.
241	Second, it destroys the husband’s ability to support his family. Once upon a time, the income of a single man working full time was enough to pay all the bills, put food on the table, own and gas up two cars, pay for the needs of 2.5 children, keep a woman who is a housewife comfortable and well-adorned, keep a house in working order, pay his taxes, and still have enough recreational spending money to splurge on holidays and vacations, as well as having a little bit extra to put away into savings for the kids and for your own retirement. Today, this reality of yesteryear is like a vision of wealth untold from Aladdin’s Cave of Wonders. Why? Because women entering the workplace pushed salaries and wages down to the very rock bottom. Double the number of people seeking jobs means the market dictates that labor is only worth half of what it used to be. Libertarians see no problem with this, but as we have already previously established, they are all delusional leftists.
242	Third, it enslaved women to the workplace. Cutting the wages of all working men in half meant that women had no choice but to enter the workplace in order to make enough money to fund their family. One of the primary reasons feminists agitated for the right to work any job they desired was they felt they did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. If that was truly their complaint, then they have failed spectacularly, because they have achieved the exact opposite of that. Instead of gaining the freedom to choose, they now have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not. The housewife of yesteryear may not have had every business world door open to her that a man would have, but she, at least, had more freedom and choice than the woman of today, for she had the luxury of choosing to not work if she so pleased, and could sit pretty in the comfort that her husband’s salary would take care of her and the family of which she was a part. Those days are gone. That freedom is gone. In exchange for 2% of women getting to wear pantsuits and play at being power executives, 80% of women must work as waitresses and grocery baggers against their will. Funny how much this freedom smells like slavery, isn’t it?
243	Fourth, it emptied out the home. Forcing women to go to work alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn’t take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of by his own mother. Forcing women to work to sustain their family means that they will no longer be able to give their children the care that they need and deserve, which damages children mentally, emotionally, and socially at the time when they are most vulnerable. This is not fair to the children, and will (has) produce(d) a generation that is in some ways emotionally and socially stunted as a result.
244	Fifth, it undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child and increases the dependence on state and federal programs to take care of and instruct the same. Once upon a time, a child could be sent off to school, but a woman who wanted to be more hands-on could opt to not do this, and instead teach their child reading, writing, and arithmetic at home herself. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschool and rely upon public and private institutions to teach their children. Not only is this always a risk, because you do not control what is taught, but in the case of public schooling in particular it opens your child up to being influenced by whatever politics are at play on a state and local level, dictating what may and may not be taught. The outsourcing of education to strangers is inferior to the more holistic approach of home education, as all testing and aptitude rankings have shown. Head for head, children that are homeschooled systematically outperform publicly educated children in all areas, and match neck and neck with the highest achieving of the private school students. They are also happier and more content on average, and are more emotionally and mentally balanced. But with women in the workplace, this superior method of education is limited to only the already wealthy, the uniquely fortunate, or the tiny few families that contain someone with a high-flying enough job to take up the slack for their spouse not working and bringing home a paycheck.
245	Sixth, it encourages women to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury only slightly less costly and less unattainable than a high-class yacht. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. “I’ll have a family, but later, when I’ve saved up enough money.” “I’ll have kids, but later; right now I need to secure a future for them.” “I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better; right now I can just party and enjoy myself. After all, it’s not like I could have one now anyway, even if I wanted to.” But the cold reality of nature is that, while men continuously produce healthy sperm until the day they die, women have a finite number of eggs. The longer she goes without having children, the greater the likelihood that there will be complications or congenital birth defects. The possibility of a child being born with issues such as autism, general learning disabilities, and Down Syndrome increases markedly the older the mother is, and the age of the mother has also been linked to problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and even sudden infant death syndrome. Studies have shown that the peak years of fertility for having healthy children begin around the ages of 19 and 20 and persists for the next six or seven years. Beyond the age of 28, a woman’s fertility begins to drop, and the possibility of health issues with her children begins to increase with each passing year. Eventually, she will enter a twilight of fertility in her late thirties, and not long after her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile. The harsh fact of life is that not only do women have a finite number of eggs, but those eggs can and will go bad. The longer a woman puts off having a family, the less likely it is that she will ever have healthy children or a stable long term relationship with a man.
246	The odds are, in fact, even worse than they seem at first, because women do not live in a vacuum. They must contend with men, and those men who wish to be husbands are compelled by their own instincts to naturally seek out as young a woman as possible with whom to settle down to ensure the health of his children. So as a woman becomes older, even if she maintains her physical beauty, the odds of her landing a true, genuine husband decrease. All this, taken together, creates a cascade effect in which the implementation of feminist policies undermines the economic structure of a nation, helps destroy its moral fiber by replacing family values with individual values, robs women of their freedom and ability to self-determine, greatly incentivizes the responsible men and women whom society depends upon away from having families, and ultimately plunges the birth-over-death ratio below replacement level even as individualist advocation drags political policy into the mud, where it can only be recovered by importing non-natives to the country, completely and utterly destroying what was left thereof.
247	And this is just from discussing the two key touchstones of feminism: the “right” to vote and the “right” to work. I could sit here for weeks and unpack the problems caused by the advocacy for social justice, the peddling of alternative “gender identity,” and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal, all of which are major platforms of third, fourth, and fifth wave feminism. Instead, I choose to focus narrowly and deeply on these two core principles of the first and second wave, primarily because many women (and men) will waffle when confronted with anti-feminist sentiment and state something to the effect of, “Well, I agree that all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original feminists–they were all right! What they wanted was completely reasonable, and I agree with them.” You are WRONG. The beginning of feminism is the most important part of feminism because everything that follows depends upon the basic assumptions made therein. Prove those assumptions wrong–refute them–and you pull the bottom out from under the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable-sounding of the lot, and the most likely for your average citizen to support, even if they are a conservative. Which makes it all the more important that they be thoroughly and utterly debunked.
248	The harsh truth is this: countless conservative women bemoan the loss of the family and family values and those with the agency to be politically active debate and scheme about how to get it back, about how to stick it to those darn liberals and their shameless hussy advocates. Little do they know that it is the policies that they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed. It is the solemn duty of every conservative woman to oppose feminism on every level and to do so vocally, publicly, and intelligently. Anti-feminist women can damage and undermine the philosophy in ways that no male attacker, however articulate and well-versed, ever could, because for liberals “MUH FEELS” trump fact. In this, they have something we do not, a strength we cannot muster. They have a duty to use it, just as they have a duty to create and rear children and to stand by their beloved. This is a war for everything we hold dear. Our future, our husbands, our wives, our lives, and our culture. The children we hold in our arms. You can hold nothing back. Because I promise you: your enemies won’t.
249
250~:~
251
252SO YOU’RE FOR GENDER EQUALITY? 
253	Unfortunately, gender equality is not what you think it is but what the highest politicians and judges think it is. They define it as “equality of outcome” and “equality of income”; i.e. women’s quotas, affirmative action, high taxes to redistribute wealth from men to women, harsh alimony laws focusing on women’s issues while neglecting mens’, and so on.
254
255SO YOU’RE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS?
256	The term “equal rights” has also been redefined by politicians and now includes “the right to be represented.” Just like parents have the duty to make sure their baby is not underfed, men have the “duty” to make sure that women are not underrepresented. Therefore, any area with less than 50% women automatically infringes on the inborn rights of women. ”Equal rights” is another term for women’s quotas and affirmative action.
257
258SO YOU’RE FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES?
259	Equal opportunity has also been redefined. Previously it meant “Everyone starts at the same starting point and earns his way up to the top.” Now it means that women are given the opportunity to start at a high position and then earn their right to may there by doing a satisfactory job. Equal opportunities is now, too, another word for women’s quotas, affirmative action, and so on.
260
261SO YOU’RE FOR EQUAL PAY? AND YOU THINK THE GENDER PAY GAP IS A MYTH?
262	The gender pay gap exists. It is not caused by discrimination by men, but by women’s own choices, limitations, and pregnancies. When politicians vow to close the gender pay gap, they don’t mean to fight discrimination (since there isn’t any to fight), but to enforce women’s quotas (only for the highest paying jobs, of course, since that closes the pay gap best), to lower qualification standards (to qualify more women for well-paying jobs like doctors and professors), to make kindergarten mandatory (so mothers have no chance to stay home), to expand government (so women have always a guaranteed place to find work), and so on. “Closing the gender pay gap” is another term for women’s quotas, socialism, and expansion of government.
263
264	I am not making this up. When you read high-level political texts (EU parliament international treaties, UN declarations, etc.) this is exactly what they mean when they write “equal” or “equality.” They mean “enforced equality of outcome” and “enforced equality of income.” Just to give you one example of many: When the EU parliament (representing 28 countries) voted to enforce women’s quotas in the European Union (passing with a ⅔ majority), they justified it by using terms like “equality”, “equal opportunities”, “equal rights”, “equal participation”, “equal academic and professional rights for men and women”, “eliminate inequalities”, “elimination of the gender pay gap”, “shared responsibilities”, the fight against the “democracy deficit”, “equal treatment”, and a lot of other terms following feminist redefinitions you thought only existed in crazy feminist blogs. 
265	This is a real-world example of what “equality” means. This is how far feminism has infiltrated world politics. “Equality” is feminist newspeak for “misandry.” “Equal rights” is feminist newspeak for “less rights for men.” If you are upholding principles like “men and women are equal,” you are part of the problem.
266
267~:~
268
269	I am also a woman and I will explain to you why we should not vote. If you truly are a conservative, you will agree with me by the time you finish reading. It all comes down to what you consider to be the smallest social unit in your nation. In our degenerate society where family has no value, the smallest social unit is the individual, so it makes sense that 1 individual = 1 vote. Men and women should both be able to vote.
270	But if you have a conservative idea of society, you understand that the smallest social unit is the family. There should be 1 vote per family, not 1 vote per person. Why? Because it fosters family unity. The state and politics cannot divide the bond between the spouses. When you give each spouse a vote, you allow the government to get in between then. For example, a candidate can promise welfare to women only in exchange for their votes, and another candidate can promise men the opposite, creating a sex war and driving a wedge in your house. With 1 vote per family, the candidate must appeal to the family and the concept thereof, not just one member.
271	And why should men represent their family politically and not women? Why give men the family vote instead of giving it to women? Because men fight wars and women don’t (or didn’t use to; shouldn’t, is the operative term), they have more at stake politically than women. Since men are the breadwinners (or should be; sole is the operative term), they also understood the economy better. Wives would represent the family in matters of faith, education of the children, and overall health. And if you think for a second that men would not consult their wives on the matter of the vote–would not talk to their soulmates about which candidates are best for him, her, and the family as a whole–then you’re nothing more than a stupid bitch who has been brainwashed by feminism. This is the reason many women opposed the suffragettes and the equal rights movement–because they valued their place within their families more than individualism.
272
273~:~
274
275	The hard sciences rely heavily on problem solving and logic skills that the male brain has been evolutionarily designed to do. What a lot of people miss is that even slight differences that confer an advantage will lead to massive gender/race imbalances as the extremes of human ability. Take running. The fastest male sprinter does the 100m in 9.58 seconds. The fastest female sprinter does it in 10.49 seconds. Tiny difference, right? Less than one second, representing about 10%. But that 10% means that 100% of the people who have broken the 10 second barrier are male. According to feminists, this is an example of “the patriarchy”, because if there’s only a 10% difference, surely 90% of the top runners should be female. But they don’t understand numbers. Likewise, even if men are just barely better than women at math, etc. at the upper levels of ability (STEM careers), men will be overrepresented. And what do we see? At extreme levels (Nobel Prize/fields medal winners), women are practically nonexistent. 
276	
277~:~
278
279	The deficit of male students in gender studies courses can easily be attributed to the blatant and rampant misandry institutionalized in gender studies departments at universities across the nation as a result of matriarchal thinking that oppresses and devalues men. The only possible explanation for the staggering gap between male and female representation in an educational field is the pervasive stigma the matriarchy attaches to men who identify with their gender and try to express their views on discussions of gender.
280	The last quote, in particular, illustrates how little males are valued in the gender studies department. How can you talk about masculinity without any male voices in the conversation? Who are women to talk about men’s issues as if they have a clue what the male experience is like and the issues with which we struggle?
281	I believe the best way to combat and end the biased, unjust practices of the gender studies departments is to mandate that at least 40% of students in all gender studies classrooms must be male. This will help elevate men past the glass ceiling of available seating and help women realize their own privileged place within the social dynamic of a gender studies classroom. Gender studies courses will benefit from a more diverse, inclusive set of opinions and viewpoints that will ultimately better the society as a whole.
282
283~:~
284
285	Where is the proof that men and women are equal? Have you ever noticed that advocates of “gender equality” change their definition of “equality” mid-sentence? They start with “equality” in the sense of “We all are children of God,” “We are all members of the human race,” “Every human is valuable,” or similar religious or philosophical platitude which which everyone can more or less agree. Then they change the definition to imply “Women and men are equal scientists, equal music producers, equal computer game designers, etc.” and similar statements, which are completely unproven. Then they conclude that women are oppressed because there are fewer women than men in science, music production, or game design, despite women being “equally talented and competent.” In other words, they suddenly switch from harmless philosophical mumbo-jumbo to a justification for their demands that the government intervene to guarantee equality of outcome, and why taxes should be raised, anti-sexism commissioners installed, and white heterosexual men harassed.
286	Dear feminists, as long as you stay on the philosophical plane, I don’t care because I don’t pay. But as soon as you restrict my rights (e.g. freedom of speech) or demand higher taxes to pay for your utopian fantasies, I demand proof. I demand proof that women indeed have the same intellectual capacity, the same interests, and the same energy to accomplish everything men accomplish. I demand proof that women, without the help of men, have the same ROI. Yes, feminists, you have the burden of proof that women and men are equal.
287
288~:~
289
290	The modern women can no longer cook, they no longer want children, and they are no longer warm, tidy, and loving creatures who think spending time with their family is a good thing. They are probably too “independent” and “strong” to even have a family of their own. The only thing modern women have to offer men today is sex. So, instead of being loving housewives who cook and raise children, they are reduced to being sexual objects only–and they are so messed up emotionally and intellectually that they often spend most of the money they make on their jobs on plastic surgery, cosmetics, and tons of clothes they think will make them look good in a desperate attempt to stay or become more attractive. Well, they have no other qualities attractive to men, so what else can we expect? This is the fruit of feminism. The fruit of “women’s liberation.”
291	– Varg Vikernes
292
293	This is one of the most simplest and effective things to comprehend. The best part is that it uses the same evolutionary argument that a lot of feminists love to use whenever they want to hate religion, yet it is so obviously true that it often leaves them dumbfounded. We can agree that 99%(+) of all living things have a biological imperative to produce and look after offspring. Humans that lack this desire are–from a Darwinian point of view–essentially flawed and naturally will be eliminated from the gene pool, barring anomalous circumstance.
294	A human’s life and capacity for generating resources is limited. Humans, like all mammals, are most concerned with ensuring the best possible scenario for their genetic offspring. Lions will kill all existing cubs in a pride when they take over, and all cubs born for a certain period of time. All men, therefore, have biologically evolved a fear that their resources–which are limited–will be used to support the genetics of other men. One could even argue that this is our most powerful fear. 	Women, by definition, know when their genes have been passed on. Men don’t. Men have evolved to avoid slutty women because SLUTS LITERALLY POSE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO MEN. Saying men shouldn’t shame whorish women is like saying, “ignore hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary programming because we invented DNA testing 60 years ago.” The argument can be summarized thus: “If 1 man sleeps with 10 women and they all get pregnant, everyone wins. If 1 woman sleeps with 10 men and gets pregnant, only 1 man wins.” You could also go further and say that essentially there exists an evolutionary “sexual arms race” between men and women: As women become sluttier to try and siphon resources from more men, men likewise evolve to be more alert to slutty women to avoid them being cuckolded.
295
296~:~
297
298	In no civilization has promiscuity ever been encouraged, even in ones where the market conditions caused it to be ever-present. This is because the foundation of society in any species is sex. Even before gathering food, sex is the first and last goal of any species in the fight to survive. From an anthropological perspective, the human body, when compared with that of both apes and chimps, has the physical traits of both polygamous and monogamous species; this is why the two most common forms of society are monogamy and polygamy. Any exceptions are such insignificantly tiny in population that they aren’t worth mentioning.
299	Polygamous civilizations–where one man has five wives and four men have none–are inherently violent. Even today, though you don’t hear about it on the news, there are thousands of tribes and even more sub-tribes in sub-Saharan Africa engaged in what could be called an eternal war, as the men with no wives are instructed by the man with five to attack neighboring tribes to capture women and kill men. And vice versa.
300	Every successful civilization in history–with exception to the ruling class–has enforced monogamy. Monogamous civilizations–Rome, China, all Greek city-states, the European states from 1400-2000, Ancient Egypt, South American empires, and the Islamic Caliphates–are inherently cooperative and productive. Monogamous civilizations are cooperative and productive due to sexual communism (enforced monogamy); each man has one woman–or each woman has one man; however you wish to see it. Individuals in a society where sexual access is dictated by market forces, such as polygamy or theoretical polyamory, will inevitably become violent in the search for a mate.
301	Promiscuity has been universally reviled by monogamous civilizations because it endangers the foundation of productive and technologically advanced civilization and sex itself, inevitably leading to a degeneration in society. Check out Sex and Culture by J. D. Unwin–once widely-read, now buried for not being politically correct. Unwin studied 5,000 civilizations, from African tribes to Rome and 1930s America. His main points were that a society without monogamous relationships eventually falls into hedonism because A. there are not enough men/women to start families, which causes an apathy towards taking care of said civilization’s future due to no long-term investment (i.g. children); B. a lack of women due to polygamy causes men not to have families, which leads to men being more apathetic towards problems and leads to hedonistic lifestyles. This has the effect of having a lack of workers, soldiers, and a productive population: C. crime rates become higher in polygamist societies, crimes such as rape, theft, and murder all increase.
302
303~:~
304
305	For millennia, women have exchanged their ability to make children with men’s ability to produce large amounts of work. Women became the cattle–the broodmares of men–and in exchange men became the beasts of burden–the slaves of women fecundity and kids versus work and wealth. This means men became the owner of women’s sexuality, and women the owners of men’s wealth. A woman cheating is theft of what belongs to the husband. A man gambling or getting ruined is theft of what he owes to his wife.
306	Civilization was created by the population explosion and surplus production generated by this system. What feminists call “sex slavery” or “forced marriages”–by which they mean “a man ravaging his wife as he wants”–neglects to consider “a woman taking everything she wants from the product of work her husband has accumulated at her disposal.” What feminists want is to keep taking everything, reneging on their side of the contract. What feminists want to do is simply collapse the only thing we know has ever worked and replace it with nothing.
307
308~:~
309
310	There are painful, incurable infections which exist only because of promiscuity. Now that we know how they actually work, it would take one fucking generation of not being retarded to eradicate them entirely due to a lack of vectors. There’s the proven effect of promiscuity on divorce rates. There are several studies that prove this. There are biological imperatives hardcoded into us that are impossible to fight. You cannot force yourself not to be jealous and not to feel awkward when sharing a woman. It’s impossible. Monogamy ensures that almost everyone gets a mate, which means there’s less competition and more cooperation. If we both have a wife each, we can go on about our business and do something useful. If you have two wives and I’m bound to have none as long as you are around, I suddenly have a very good reason to stop you from being around. And if there’s no such thing as marriage, both of us have to spend every waking hour doing superficial shit to maintain our social status, or else we don’t get to reproduce. There’s simply no time left for curing diseases or going to space. And it feels really good to be in a monogamous relationship, actually. Nothing else on this planet compares; you can’t convince me otherwise.
311	All of the above means we have no logical reason to support and every reason in the world to avoid promiscuity. And you know what? People figured all of this shit out thousands of years ago, and retards today are shitting on their wisdom and everything on which our civilization was built, all because you want a new toy every month like a spoiled child.
312
313~:~
314
315	What’s curious is some women’s reasoning that a “double standard” exists because men are congratulated for being sexually promiscuous and women are given negative connotations such as “slut” or “whore.” Why some women can’t understand this very simple concept has always baffled me. Men have to compete with one another to get picked for sex. They have to display that they have the best genes or the most value. Women also have to compete, but only for the best male. They can have sex any time they choose, just not with the best choice. If they were to lower their standards, as men have to do, they would get to pick from a long line of men. “Getting laid” is not something that can happen every day for the common Joe. He has to navigate the maze of a woman, delicately, in social situations to convince her he’s the best pick. If a woman goes to a bar, club, or casual encounters looking for sex and only wants sex, she will have zero problems getting it. Therefore, over time, women themselves have established a negative connotation because they are not “beating” anyone or doing anything remotely impressive; they are simply manipulating basic human biology for sexual gratification. And thus, poof, the term “slut” manifested. I didn’t even have to go into this long-winded rant to make my point–think female prostitution. Is there a reason the porn industry is so huge, but only for the male population (other than jews)? Is there a reason female prostitution is a global epidemic, but you don’t hear problems about male prostitution? Or why a female prostitute can make quite the living while male prostitution isn’t very profitable?
316
317~:~
318
319	Culture is carried by the father. Kids look to the father to learn how to be men or what to look for in men. In the past, when the losers were killed by the winners, the winning men would take over the society and the culture would shift. Single mothering is a relatively new way to destroy a existing culture and replace it with something of your own design, and the American black society was the testbed for this. Culture loss is degenerative, and while it typically takes one generation lacking the host culture parent to irreparably destroy a culture, the single mothering approach in a well established country is different. It takes more time and more erosion of the society, because despite the culture hosts being absent from child development, what those hosts have built still exists.
320	When children grow up without a father, boys are dysfunctional–typically growing up feminine and introverted or disrespectful and violent–girls typically get fat from “girl problems” and/or get incredibly narcissistic and slutty due to having no fucking idea what to be looking for in a mate. Of course, when you introduce technology, social media, and pop icons, you can hook these identity-less children into your mold, completely demolishing anything undesired and replacing it with what you desire. Obviously the intelligent ones of the pack will resist–the ones that possess common sense and a lick of genuine intelligence will ask questions, will stand out–but this is what the public school control structures are for, to restrict and maintain, and eventually individuals will be eliminated from the group altogether by their own peers, reducing their chances of breeding and reducing the chance that common sense and competence will be genetically passed.
321
322~:~
323
324	The risk of suicide is more than twice as high among children in one parent households compared with those living with both parents. Children in single parent homes are also twice as likely to have a psychiatric disease, alcohol-related problems, and are up to four times more likely to abuse drugs. (1) The results indicate that, in general, adolescents from one parent and stepparent families reported lower self esteem, more symptoms of anxiety and loneliness, more depressed mood, more suicidal thoughts, and more suicide attempts than children from intact families. (2) Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide. (1993 study) Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent. (1993) A family structure index–a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed–is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males. (1994) Death of a parent does not correlate with teen suicide, but family instability or disruption is one of the leading causes of suicide. (1993) (3) 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census)–5 times the average. 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes–32 times the average. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes–9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report) Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. (4) The absence of a parent through death, divorce, or a time-demanding job contributes to the many forms of emotional disorder, especially the anger, rebelliousness, low self-esteem, depression, and antisocial that characterizes those adolescents who take drugs, become pregnant out of wedlock, or commit suicide. A 1987 study by Wodarski and Harris linked the increase in suicides in America to the proliferation of single-parent households. (5)
325	It’s now seen as optional to have two parents of different sexes. Just IMAGINE the suicide rates in 20 years!
326
327~:~
328
329	Allegations of family violence are the weapon of choice in divorce strategies. Lawyers and paralegals in women’s shelters call them the “silver bullet.” False abuse allegations work effectively in removing men from their families. The impact our children of the removal of fathers is horrific. The following lists some of the consequences of the removal of fathers from the lives of their children. Inter-spousal violence perpetrated by men is only a small aspect of family violence. False abuse allegations are only a small tile in the mosaic of vilifying the men in our society. They serve well in successful attempts to remove fathers from the lives of our children. Here are some statistics resulting from that which show more of the whole picture. 
330
331	•	79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
332	•	29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award.
333	•	46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support.
334	•	26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.
335	•	20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level.
336	•	61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level.
337	•	66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full time.
338	•	10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full time.
339	•	7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly.
340	•	24.5% of single custodial fathers work more that 44 hours weekly.
341	•	46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance.
342	•	20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance. (1)
343	•	40% of mothers reported they interfered with the father’s visitation to punish their ex-spouse. (2)
344	•	50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children. (3)
345	•	90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
346	•	79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
347	•	44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
348	•	37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
349	•	66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay. (4)
350	•	63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (5)
351	•	90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
352	•	85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (6)
353	•	80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (7)
354	•	71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (8)
355	•	70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes (9)
356	•	85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (10)
357	•	Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers. (11)
358
359	There are:
360	11,268,000 total custodial mothers
361	2,907,000 total custodial fathers (12)
362
363	What does this mean? Children from fatherless homes are:
364
365	•	4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
366	•	6.6 times to become teenaged mothers
367	•	24.3 times more likely to run away
368	•	15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
369	•	6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
370	•	10.8 times more likely to commit rape
371	•	6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
372	•	15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager. 
373
374	The calculation of the relative risks shown in the preceding list is based on 27% of children being in the care of single mothers. Compared to children who are in the care of two biological, married parents, children who are in the care of single mothers are: 33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention) 73 times more likely to be killed (13) 
375
376Children and Single Moms
377
378	Whether caused by violence or not, children living with single moms don’t do well in our society. It used to be the exception. Now it is becoming the rule and progressively worse. Is that not child abuse, too?
379
3801: Children from single-mother families are 2.21 times (221%) as likely to have one or more total problems than those from two-parent families, twice as likely to have an emotional disorder, etc. (The probability of this being due to chance is smaller than 1 in 1,000)
3812: Weighted projections to reflect national population of children.
3823: Data for items so annotated apply for 6- to 11-year-olds only. All other data in the table apply to 4 to11-year-olds. (14)
383
384Women prefer men who are already in relationships
385	Noting that single women often complain “all the good men are taken,” the psychologists wondered if “this perception is really based on the fact that taken men are perceived as good.” To the men in the experiment, and to the women who were already in relationships, it didn’t make a significant difference whether their match was single or attached. But single women showed a distinct preference for mate poaching. When the man was described as unattached, 59 percent of the single women were interested in pursuing him. When that same man was described as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent were interested. The researchers write: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/do-single-women-seek-attached-men/  
386	Women often cite a man’s incapability to commit. Yet 75% percent of Divorces are initiated by women. http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/10/dr-anthony-synnott-concordia-university.html  
387
388Divorce and Fatherhood Statistics
389 
39061% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers
39125% of all child abuse is committed by natural fathers (15)
39250% of mothers see no value in the father’s continued contact with his children. (16)
393
394References
395
3961. http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk
3972. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9104655
3983. http://www.dadi.org/suicide.htm
3994. http://www.endparentalalienation.com/End_Parental_Alienation/Statistics_on_Fatherless_Homes_files/Statistics%20On%20Fatherless%20Homes.pdf
4005. http://www.life.org.nz/suicide/suicideabout/suicideabout13/
401
402~:~
403
4041. Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy
4052. “Frequency of Visitation” by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
4063. “Surviving the Breakup” by Joan Berlin Kelly
4074. 1988 Census “Child Support and Alimony. 1989 Series” P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and “US General Accounting Office Report” GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992
4085. U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census
4096. Center for Disease Control
4107. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26
4118. National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
4129. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988
41310. Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992
41411. US News and World Report, February 27, 1995, p.39
41512. Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991
41613. “Marriage. The Safest Place for Women and Children”, by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Backgrounder .+.1535.
41714. GROWING UP IN CANADA, National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Human Resources Development Canada, Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 89-550-MPE, no.1, November 1996, p. 91) Available from StatCan. It is only available in hard copy. $25 +GS7)
41815. Current DHHS report on nationwide Child Abuse 
41916. “Surviving the Breakup” by Joan Berlin Kelly 
420
421~:~
422
423	A patriarchy is a society in which the father is the head of the family unit; if the family unit breaks down, he thus receives custody of the children. This used to be the case in the Western world, but one of the first feminist campaigns destroyed this social norm. In the early 19th century, Caroline Norton, a prominent British feminist, campaigned for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton had undergone a divorce and the custody of the children had been awarded to their father. She worked with the politicians of the time and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to give mothers rights over fathers.
424	The result was the Custody of Infants Act 1839, which established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven. In 1873, Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached 16. The doctrine spread, then, to the majority of the other nations, as England was controlling a global empire. Mothers are now considered the de facto head of the family unit. During marital breakdown, they receive custody of the children and the family home.
425	Western society is a matriarchy.
426
427~:~
428
429	“The Patriarchy” (i.e. pre-feminist society) never portrayed men as doofuses and morons constantly in need of female supervision, something which is the norm now. It never even portrayed women in any negative light, and yet post “patriarchy” men are told by nasty old feminists like Hannah Rosin that they’re failing because they are essentially inferior and that women have proven themselves superior now that they have been “freed from shackles of gender norms.” Never was there under patriarchy any widespread popular acceptance of misogyny, but post-patriarchy society is so utterly misandric that it’s hard to believe.
430	When gender norms are removed, women gain everything in terms of personal choice, but men lose their role in society. Feminists try to appeal to the battered victim in men today who have been effectively castrated by feminism and misandry, by saying, “Hey, how cool! Now you no longer have to work! You can be a househusband!” And yet all the evidence shows that women continue to desire men who are higher up on the economic scale, and that most marriages involving a bread winning wife end with the wife tossing away the husband and going it alone or marrying up.
431	The whole thing relies on men not seeing their own interests. Yes, standards of masculinity are often oppressive, but throwing out gender norms means that boys don’t attain their full potential by being challenged and encouraged. They’re instead encouraged to act passive, that women will like them just as much this way, and then these boys watch as women take advantage of all of their new options and still date the type of guy these boys were told not to become.
432
433~:~
434
435	Don’t women feel ashamed when they use the “rape culture” argument?
436	To say that rape culture exists and influences every aspect of what a woman thinks differs in no way from saying that women are too stupid to think for themselves and that their every opinion is shaped and molded by men. Fantasize about being dominated? Apparently that’s rape culture, so they only feel this way because they’re so mentally weak and vulnerable that men were able to brainwash them into feeling this way without even needing to exert any conscious effort.
437	What does that say about women? If someone could walk up to you, look at your wallet, and then you would just immediately pull it out and give him all of your currency, then it doesn’t mean that he’s a thief. It just means that you’re retarded. Many women do admit that their opinions are shaped molded by men, mostly the ones they perceive as harmful, and that’s what they call patriarchy. But they somehow argue that they should still be trusted with voting rights… 
438	I’ve brought this exact point up to women who subscribe to the extreme side of this nonsense. That this attitude pretty much says, “I’m incapable of thinking for myself and have no personal responsibilities for my actions. Everything that I do and think is that is bad is because of patriarchy, while all of the good is my own empowerment.” What’s their counterargument? Rarely they’ll actually address it with something akin to “Nuh uh!” and nothing else to support their point other than claiming that my way of thinking is patriarchy. Usually they’ll mostly ignore it and either resort to or continue personal attacks, twist my words to say that I claimed women are stupid, or just blatantly accuse me of saying something I never said.
439	Even when the argument is in writing, I’ve had a few accuse me of saying something that was never said, and all of their female friends back them, even though there is visible proof that they’re lying. I don’t even bother presenting documentation to back my point anymore, because it’s a wasted effort. The modern feminist argument has turned into the black argument. “The patriarchy (white man) is keeping me down! Everything is sexist (racist)! The patriarchy (white man) is the reason for all of my troubles, including the mean things I say and do to others of my own gender (race)! The patriarchy (white man) turns us against each other!” It’s the exact same argument.
440
441~:~
442
443	Essentially, I would say there are 2 types and 4 subtypes of power: Conventional and Unconventional, with the subgroups of Political, Economic, Educational and Social. Social is the only Unconventional.
444	Women are the majority of the electorate, and so as a group have more Political power. Women control the majority of the currency, and thus have more Economic power. Women are more likely to be teachers and course setters, and so have more Educational power. Socially, many norms–such as men giving up seats on the bus for women, or competing for women’s affections–mean that women likely have more Social power. We can quantify conventional power, and women possess more of it, but we can’t quantify unconventional power. However, conventional can influence unconventional, and so we end up with women having AT LEAST equal power, if not superior power, over men.
445	Women are the majority of the electorate, and in a democracy they can thus exercise their will. If all men vote for a male president and all women vote for a female president, there will be a female president. Further, the large amounts of Federal and State authorities for women–as well as the female oriented pressure groups flooding the system–mean that women exercise EVEN MORE political power than simply voting. For example, in the UK, there’s an insider pressure group with regular privileged access to government officials called the Fawcett Society. It’s Sectional, meaning it supports women as a group and all of their interests. There’s no such group for men. This means that women’s issues have the ear of the government and men’s do not. It’s easier to get the government to help with women’s issues as a result.
446	Next, Gynarchy by Proxy–the rule of women, without conventional power. For example, women can influence their husbands (who have power) to use that for their benefit. It’s why there are laws in place harming men and helping women, even with a majority male government. Take the lack of a Rape Shield law providing anonymity for the accused. The London Feminist Network fought this law, and without any conventional political power, they influenced politicians to vote it down. This hurts men and helps women.
447	We see, all throughout time, women who get their way without even needing to vote. In 1917, a group of men took to the Supreme Court, protesting the draft as unconstitutional. They were told that since they could vote, they could be drafted. This is law in the USA. Women on the other hand, are not drafted, but can still vote. Thus, without even needing to do anything, women gained a right without a corresponding responsibility and men did not. This, even in a time with few to no female politicians, a government decision hurt men and helped women.
448	Women control the majority of the income in the USA. They control most domestic spending, household income, GDP, etc. Women are the spenders, men are the earners, on average. Thus, advertisement companies cater to females. Without even producing half of the GDP of a country, women control it. Currency is power, and so women have more power. This one’s fairly simple. Pahl and Vogler found that most households use “pooling” for income, where there is a shared bank account and both partners withdraw from it. Women contribute less and withdraw more on average. Women control not only their currency but the currency of their men. Its why Toy Boys are so uncommon when compared to gold-digging women. Men will spend lavishly to impress and help women, and the reverse is simply not true. Social norms reinforce this situation, such as the convention of men paying the check and women eating the free meal. Or men paying the bills in their name whilst the deed of the house is in both names.
449	Women are more likely to teach. Girls do better in every level of education–for reasons unrelated to their skills–getting more degrees, better grades, etc. Syllabi are designed for girls, with an emphasis on verbal skills and the like over analytical skills. Women are also far more likely to be in decision making positions around education, boards of education, and similar.
450	Even with this, as well, there are many laws and incentives designed to help women achieve in the (few) areas they don’t. Girls Into Science and Technology and Women In Science and Education, for example. As well as the fact that Brunel University is paying female post grads £15k extra to do engineering. When women lagged behind in education, laws were made to “fix” education. Now that men do, people talk about hegemonic masculinity and the male gaze and things like that, and so they want to “fix” men. When women were disadvantaged, we “fixed” the system. Now that men are, we refuse to change it at all. Also, power over education is power over youth, and power over youth is power over all. Women influence the tender years of life, whereas men do not, and so successive generations become even more gynocentric and indoctrinated with even more pro-female, anti-male perspectives.
451	Social is the most nebulous and hardest to quantify. So here’s a simple list of some social norms which benefit women over men.
452	Men paying for women’s meals
453	Men saving women seats
454	Men laying down jackets for women to step over puddles
455	Men giving up lifeboat seats for women/women and children first in all emergencies
456	Men being drafted
457	Men being the ones to explore downstairs when you hear a suspicious voice
458	Men having the burden of starting romantic interactions and bearing potential rejection
459	Men paying alimony/child support and women not
460	Men moving out of the house they pay for when a separation/divorce happens
461	Men working extra hours so that women can stay home with the kids 
462	I’m sure you can think of many more. 
463
464~:~
465
466	If nothing threatens the survival of the individual, the individual will not act. This is a universal law that applies to all men, for even the fringe right itself is created by those who see danger on the horizon. In essence, there is no difference between any of us and our “blue pilled” compatriots. They are merely shielded by the false walls that tyrants and degenerates have erected to withhold the truth of reality and the usurping and subverting threat of danger.
467	The Internet has been the biggest gap in their walls and has allowed a decentralized congregation of traditional men to slowly seep under the radar of society. Tyrants and useful idiots frantically rush to close it, for they fear the truth. In an ominous metaphor, they’re afraid of the fire raging around their walls to rise and rain ash down on the sheltered masses. And they’re utterly terrified of men peering past their walls, seeing the raging fire that encompasses the world.
468	If there wasn’t any error nor present danger, the right may never manifest itself among the populace. The ideology of the right demands brutal rejection of all modern feminine ideas and dogma. To understand, the feminine ideology of modern times is born out of luxury and walls. It is an ideology that thrives in an abolition of danger and survival. It’s an ideology that favors future over nature and is, in essence, purely matriarchal.
469	The rise of the matriarchy began with the advent of technology usurping the common dangers and struggles acquitted with everyday life. Technology has allowed young men to resign themselves from struggle and thus become psychologically feminized. Women, since time immemorial, have been sheltered by their masculine counterparts to serve as a nurturer for the naturally weak offspring. This nurturing essence is thus evolutionary by default, and born out of nothing (born without adversity).
470	In essence, femininity is the evolutionary default persona of an environment without danger. Masculinity,  in contrast, is a personal born to combat the presence or engagement of threat and danger. However, masculinity can only be developed by the presence of adversity and struggle. It must be tested, combated, damaged, and rebuilt. The absence of such an environment–notably the unforeseen consequence of high intelligence–allowed for masculinity to remain undeveloped and thus default to femininity.
471	I argue that evidently, due to the circumstances of our birth and the logical evolutionary sense it makes, mankind, deprived of adversity and the struggle of reality, will inherently devolve into femininity. The recent advent of a sheltered environment is the catalyst for femininity and emasculation of the male populace. Masculinity is born of adversity and challenge most often prompted by the natural world. In a grand extension, most ideologies stem from the same.
472	Democracy, egalitarianism, pacifism, mass-empathy, and humanitarianism are products of a matriarchal ideology–born out of prosperity and shelter. Bastardized ideologies devoid of the universal test of adversity and spurred by the advent of technology imposing on our biology. Homosexuality, femininity, feminization, cuckoldry (biological and sexual), socialized prostitution, and narcissism are all byproducts of a decaying matriarchal society, stripped of the sheltered luxuries out of which it was born. Alternatively, this could simply be the final result of the emancipation of masculinity from the social hegemony.
473	In contrast, ideologies of masculinity–traditionalism, nationalism, natural law, and collective-populism–are the products of a strong patriarchal society engaged in the struggles of reality. These ideologies are designed to create unity among the group and strengthen the individual for the struggles of life and excellence. Masculine ideologies can only rise in times one adversity and necessity, while feminine ideologies arise from prosperity and sloth. It takes will and strength to uphold the banner of the right, but only acceptance and apathy to embrace the left. Our numbers will increase as the economic world tumbles like a modern Babylon. When their walls get weak and they crumble under the stress of truth coupled with the utter savagery of reality, the the right will rise among the adversity, and the left will crumble in its fragile femininity.
474
475~:~
476
477	Their point is that “men don’t get to decide the things for which a woman is praised; only women decide that.” This is basically saying that women get to cover up all their failures and force people to focus on only the good things about them. You don’t get to point out their flaws, ever, Because they’ve chosen to ignore them, you are obligated to pretend they don’t exist.
478	Girl twerks and is as dumb as a brick? You don’t get to point out that she’s a dumb slut, because she decides what she is. Girl is ugly as sin but is a rocket scientist? You don’t get to praise her intellect but suggest that she work out. And God help you if you suggest what a woman should be praised for, because you can never look down on them for their shortcomings.
479	That’s what modern feminism is about. Women are flawless, men are not allowed to question this. Women control the discussion, men are only to hold views and express opinions about women that women have allowed them to hold. We live in a matriarchy. Women are in a class that cannot be criticized, questioned, or attacked in any way, and anything a woman does, no matter how trivial or mundane, is praised as an accomplishment of the gods.
480
481~:~
482
483	All this rape panic never made sense to me until I recalled a singular moment from my teenage years when I was probably 14. I had just hit my first major growth spurt and was hanging out with a friend of mine–a slightly older girl–and she had, for whatever reason, snatched something from me as a joke. I innocently went to grab it back.
484	By chance this was either the very first time I’d exerted my new muscles or the first time I’d exerted them opposed to another person, so I literally did not know my own strength. I got the gadget back with breathtaking ease and, rather shocked myself, I kind of stood there for a second still gripping her wrist. I then glanced at my friend’s face, smiling and ready to give a semi-serious apology, and I saw an incredible expression there, one I don’t think I had ever seen in person before and that I can count the times I’ve seen since on my fingers. The expression was utter helplessness.
485	That’s what drives this. It’s part inferiority complex, part simple primal fear. Women know that no matter how much they earn, how equal their legal rights get, how good civilization looks for them, that their bodies have betrayed them, and half the population of Earth is capable of deciding the social contract is bullshit and doing very, very nasty things to them at a moment’s notice.
486	Mix in the ever-increasing distance between ourselves and the people with whom we must interact (and the breakdown of personal trust that creates) and you get modem feminism and its obsession with “privilege” and “empowerment”. This is the philosophical equivalent of a dog that barks a because it’s tiny and surrounded by strangers.
487
488~:~
489
490	“Privilege” means that in the culture each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don’t realize that you have them, the ways you benefit from them, or that others don’t have them and cannot benefit from them. Most feminists call traditional male entitlements “privilege”. They call traditional female entitlements “benevolent sexism” (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can’t really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations “oppression.” They call traditional male obligations “rights” (i.e, the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient–which was actually an obligation men compiled with or else–and still is) or “patriarchy hurts men, too.” What feminism has really done in the advancement of women’s interests is take men’s patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them “rights” that women can choose–or not–as they see fit. 
491	It–with the help of ‘advancements’ like the pill–has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life and provide her husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while still keeping the entitlement to his financial support.
492	As women are released from their obligations (to men and society) without giving up corresponding entitlements, things are becoming unbalanced. The system which was once equitable to both genders–which afforded entitlements to offset obligations–is gone, removing obligation from one member and placing them all on the other. A great deal of women’s traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc.), but now men have been kicked out of their own houses, figuratively and literally. Because women have so much more choice now–because they claimed things like earning income as a right rather than an obligation–and because they owe nothing to anyone other than their personal fulfillment, they’re paying the economic, social, and political cost. Well, men are paying that, but it affects women’s happiness, too.
493	Men aren’t being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore–women have broken the old social contract. When they took away men’s benefits without replacing them with others, women soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social and legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support, and protection–or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are “non-profit.” They take a huge cut before what’s left trickles back down, and the cut is taken mostly from men. They’re a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed it. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
494	That means we’re trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There’s a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not “manning up.” Men have always either provided for women and children or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They’ve always put more in than they’ve taken out–women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they’re being asked to put even more in and get even less out. Let me put it another way. Women make up about 60^ of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train them because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo; this generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in medical school are finite, because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school, due to affirmative action.
495	But what’s this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their careers at an obligation and expected to be working 50-70 hours a week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.
496	The female doctor has taken out of society more than she has put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, but also pick up the slack. We all pay–with our tax revenue and by having to wait to see a doctor–but her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer male ones will have to take on even more burden to ensure that people can get an appointment.
497	Though women have made inroads into male roles, they haven’t embraced them in any meaningful way, because–get this–it sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you’re a man or a woman, and society doesn’t enforce this role with women the way it does with men. You won’t find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won’t even accept that women have–and have always had–female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression for them.
498	There are women’s issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to them. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power–how even women won’t vote for them–and then in the next breath cast women in the role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive in their own lives–that only men can provide–all the while whining that purses are oppressive?
499
500~:~
501
502	I was talking to a girl last night who came over to study organic chemistry and we ended up with a deep discussion about our lives. We each discussed our goals and why we were in school. I explained why I wanted to drop out and stop pursuing medical school in order to help my father on the dairy farm. She ended up explaining her own true aspirations, as well. Here’s how it went.
503	“Anon, why don’t you just go to work with our father?” 
504	“I’m not sure. I guess I’ve told so many people over the course of my life that I wanted to be a doctor that I feel obligated to try and see it through.”
505	She sat quietly for a second. Then she said she didn’t want to be a doctor, either. Not truly. I was blown away, because she is the most motivated student I know and she has always talked of being one.
506	She told me that it’s the only way she can force raising a family, because she’ll need two salaries to make it work.
507	I laughed and told her how women entering the workforce cut down on salaries for everyone, so now to make a family you need to have a wife and husband working unless the husband has a great job.
508	I wondered how she’d react to that, because I didn’t really know her political views.
509	She stared at me for a second. Oh boy; here we go…
510	“I think it’s all crap, this world we live in. I just want to get married to someone and have a family. I don’t want to be forced into a career just because it’s expected of me. I want to be a mother. I want to have kids and raise them, I want to have a husband that I keep happy… but instead I have to pursue being a doctor out of fear of not having money to properly raise kids…”
511	I felt like I was going to cry. She continued.
512	“I’m okay with getting through med school, putting in all that time and energy, but if I found a husband that could provide for our family, I would quit in a heartbeat.”
513	I told her she sounds like a feminist’s nightmare. She laughed.
514	“I think feminists ruined my life. I swear, I was born in the wrong century. I wish I could have just gotten married at 19 and kept up a house. I mean, I don’t even care about voting.”
515	I laughed at her jab at women’s voting. It was so nonchalant, but it held so much meaning. She basically just threw under the bus everything feminism has believed in and fought for over the last century. I found it sad that after feminism has “liberated” women, all they created was an upset girl who can’t pursue her dream of raising a family.
516	I’ve never really a met a girl who was so dissatisfied with the way things are. She can’t be the only one, right? There must be thousands of girls who are marching through college to find a career when all they really want is to have a nice family. And we’re at this weird point where it’s shameful for a girl to want a family and a husband that will provide for her. In women’s literature, this is called “the mommy wars.”