U Not Gonna Like This

Some time ago a female writer by the name of Devvy Kidd who ask why aren't men protecting women any more. Again being a copy and paste guy I'm going to repost the entire repsonse from MaryMark.

Here is Ms. Kidd's Article:







Now HERE's MarkyMark's repsonse:

Ma'am,

I was reading the comments to a Men's blog I read, and one of the posters alluded to your article. While I don't agree with his assessment that you & other conservative women hate men with as much fury as the feminists, I can see why he'd think that. While you lambasted us men (much of it justified), it seemed to me that you gave American women a free pass; it seemed to me that THEIR role in our societal decline and onset of tyranny was glossed over. Say what you want, but it looked to me as if you were absolving our women of the blame that is rightfully theirs.

Question #1 is this: why are our women WORTH protecting, hmmm? I can't think of a reason, not when they're skanks & whores. Whoa, that's a serious charge! Yes, it is; I'll also back it up. Did you know that over 1/4 of women aged 14-59 are infected with HPV (Human Pappiloma Virus), which causes genital warts, cervical cancer, nice little problems like that? Did you also know that, among women ages 20-24, 44.8% (almost half!) of them are infected with HPV? BTW, these figures are from the CDC; no one made them up. A large percentage of our women are also carrying, HSV-1, HSV-2, and Hep-C. These aren't like the STDs of old (The Clap, Syphilis, Chlamydia, etc.), which are curable; no, these are SERIOUS STDs that one carries for life. How did our women get infected with such serious diseases? Why are they infected in such great numbers? I'll tell you why: they live a wicked, debauched, and promiscuous lifestyle-end of story.

That may be true, but there are men sleeping with them, you say. That's ok; I'm ready to counter your argument, Ma'am. Yes, men are sleeping with women (it takes two to tango), but it's only a small percentage of men. Because of social proofing, women will only chase after & sleep with men whom their girlfriends think are cool; IOW, if a man is seen desirable by women, the more women there are who will want him. I've seen this in action myself. I remember going out to a restaurant with a colleague, who's involved with his church's widow/widower ministry. Because I'd been with a group of women, hot babes who normally wouldn't give this 45 year old Jersey boy the time of day were giving me The Eye. The attention wasn't directed at me because I'm hunk material anymore, either; I'm far from it these days! Hot babes were checking me out because other women wanted me; in turn, that made them want me. I ignored these women; I don't need them or the BS they'll surely bring into my life.


These men, the men that all the women chase, tend to be the players, bad boys, thugs, jerks, etc.; good guys like me are deemed too boring, too nice, etc. The fact that we are good husband material means nothing, nor does the fact that we have good jobs, are self sufficient, etc. I and most guys I know are NOT sleeping around at all; hell, we're lucky if we can get the time of day from women, let alone spend any time with them; forget about sleeping with them! Yet these same women will chase after the biggest jerks around. Just look at Heather Locklear & Pam Anderson; they BOTH just had to have Tommy Lee, one of the biggest degenerates to ever live. These are beautiful women who could have had ANY MAN ON THE PLANET, yet they choose Tommy Lee! Furthermore, Pam Anderson married Tommy after Heather Locklear did; one would have thought she would have learned from Heather's example, i.e. her mistake, but I guess not. Carmen Elektra took up with a couple of bad boys too; Dennis 'The Worm' Rodman came first, followed by Dave Navarro, a musician with another big rock band. Here's yet another woman who could have any man she wants, yet she took up with TWO BAD BOYS in a row! I could go on, but I don't want to hit you with overkill; I've made my point. The fact of the matter is this: multiply this by the decisions millions of individual women make, and you have a lot of good, decent men left on the sidelines, while they chase the same, small group of men that women deem desirable-until the women's looks fade, and they need a sucker, er husband, to support her & her bastard children. Yea, just what I always wanted-to be someone's consolation prize! No matter how you slice it, bad boys, jerks, thugs, or players are what women want; those are the guys almost all of our women sleep with, and from whom they catch the 'wonderful' diseases they are carrying.

I and other guys on the Mancoat forum (where I'm a moderator) are inclined to think that 90% of women are chasing after the 10% of men deemed to be most desirable; another figure I've heard is that 80% of women are chasing 20% of the men. While our figures aren't scientific, they do confirm our experiences; they line up with what we've observed, both in our own lives and the lives of other good, decent, hard working men. One, this means a vast majority of men are not sleeping with women; a vast majority of men aren't even dating anyone. Two, this also means that a small group of men are sleeping with almost all the women; one man (in the desirable 10%-20$ of men) is having many female sexual partners. So, while you'd be right in saying that there are men sleeping with our promiscuous women, it's only a small percentage of men who are doing so.

Why else are us men walking away from women? Well, there's divorce, which is DEVASTATING to men. All 'Cupcake' has to do is file for divorce, and a man will be in the poorhouse for the rest of his life; many men are left homeless (and 95% of the homeless are men) in the aftermath of divorce. She'll keep the house, while he keeps the mortgage payment; he (Hubby) will also have to pay an obscene amount of his income in alimony and child support. From where I sit, that is NOT a fair deal. If Wifey really wants to be vicious, all she has to do is dial 911, and say that she's afraid of her husband, and three cop cars will show up at her doorstep. Hubby will be arrested (thanks to VAWA and its mandatory arrest provisions); the cops HAVE to arrest someone, and with the women=good/men=evil paradigm, it will be the husband who's arrested. The fact that he may have done nothing wrong is immaterial; she pointed the finger, so he will leave HIS house in cuffs, probably never to return. Combine that with the fact that it is the wife who files for divorce 70% of the time, it's no wonder men are walking away from women.

Our women are liars too. They commit paternity fraud, accusing innocent men of fathering their children, children who they had by ANOTHER man. Ah, but the biological father may not have a job; if he has one, it doesn't pay much. So, the woman will find a guy who pulls down a decent paycheck, and point the finger at him. The hapless man is screwed; even if DNA testing proves beyond ANY doubt that the innocent man isn't the father, the child support order will not be reversed; the poor sap will have his paychecks garnished for the next 18 years minimum.

How else do our women lie? They lie about pregnancy to trap their boyfriends into marriage. The British magazine, "That's Life", did a survey of women on how often they lie about pregnancy. An ASTOUNDING 40% said that they would lie about pregnancy and/or the use of birth control, so they could force their boyfriends into marrying them. One woman said that she saw nothing wrong with forgetting "accidentally on purpose" to use her birth control, because damn it, she was ready for marriage, and if her man wasn't, then she'd give him a "little nudge". Not only was this witch a liar; she's selfish. She didn't care whether or not her man was ready or desirous of marriage; she wanted it, and that was all that mattered. I'm sorry, but women who are liars, selfish, and believe that the end justifies the means are NOT what I'd call good women; they're certainly not worth protecting. Did the Founding Fathers put their lives on the line for skanks like that? I doubt it.

You and your sisters have literally made it a crime to be male; masculinity has been criminalized. Let's look at courtship & romance, shall we? If I talk to a woman, it's harassment, especially in the workplace. If I pursue a woman, many of the old school methods of pursuit run afoul of stalking laws. If I have consensual sex with a woman and she regrets it later for ANY reason, it's rape. If I upset a woman for any reason, she can point the finger, accuse me of something, and I'll be jailed-all without question or evidence.

Oh, and I'll hit one more point before I close. For the last 40-50 years, you and your sisters have bashed, impugned, mocked, disparaged, and hurt us men in every way imaginable. You've blamed us for everything. You've used the gov't to take away our jobs, even if you weren't qualified for them. You've made it a crime to be a man. You and your sisters have acted like skanks and whores. Are you all WORTH protecting? Are you all worth marrying? Are you even worth any interaction? The answer for me is no.

Why did I say you & your sisters? Because, other than Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye, and a handful of other decent women, I haven't seen you and your sisters lift up your fingers to help us men over the last 40-50 years while Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and their ilk were running amok and wreaking their destruction. Therefore, I and my brothers are inclined to conclude that most women went along with feminism, at least tacitly; they may not have been burning their bras or carrying picket signs, a la the militants, but they were secretly cheering on the feminists, joyous over the pain being inflicted on us men. After all, we were scumbags and oppressors; we deserved it. We didn't see or hear women defending us; I didn't see any women crying out against the prevalent, incessant man bashing I've seen in offices where I've worked in the past, either. But, if I were to say one of the things that women utter thousands of times every day in offices all over America, I'd be fired...

Why did I bring that up? Because, the old school men your crying for to protect you are lacking one important thing: the old school women who'd have our backs-that's what! When we took a woman for a wife, we did so knowing that, in addition to having her back, she had ours; we knew we could count on her to be our helpmate. Yeah, we may have gone out slaying the dragon for you, but we also knew that, when we got tired, thirsty, or needed an intact & sharpened sword, you'd be there with what we needed; we knew that you'd refresh us, rearm us, and pat us on the back before we got back in the fight. You ask where are the men who are like the Founding Fathers, ready, willing, and able to lay it all on the line for their women & children? We men ask: where are the Molly Pitchers, the good, TRUSTWORTHY women, to HELP us take the fight to the enemy, hmmm? Sorry, but I don't see any...

You point the finger at men, and you say we're materialistic, selfish, etc., while giving women a free pass. Let me ask you a question: how many women have tens, if not hundreds, of pair of shoes, hmmm? How many women just HAVE to buy that $1,000 Prada bag? How many women have to buy that designer dress, Darlin'? When I worked @ Fortune 500 company years ago, I knew young woman fresh out of college; she had SIXTY PAIR OF SHOES! Women are materialistic too. Hey Kettle, meet Pot; Pot, Kettle. Which do you want to be?

As for my selfish pursuits, I'm into my motorcycles; yes, I have two, and I look forward to adding to my stable, thank you very much. Why do I prefer bikes over women? Mainly because, if I take care of my bikes, they'll take care of me; if I perform the regular maintenance they need, they won't let me down when I need them most, e.g. out in the middle of nowhere tens of miles from the nearest gas station. I can't say the same for modern, American women. Taking care of them, treating them well, etc. is no guarantee she'll stick around; soon as she gets bored, it's divorce time. If anything, the only thing I can count on from modern, American women is that they WILL let me down. Why bother?

Oh, and here's a newsflash: chivalry is dead, and you women killed it! Now that you killed it, you want it back?! Here's another newsflash: just because you have a vagina doesn't automatically entitle you to chivalrous treatment; you have to be WORTHY of chivalrous treatment if you wish to receive it. BTW, in the days of knights, chivalry wasn't extended to everybody; it was only given to the noble classes. You gals seem to forget this; it's amazing what you all forget when it's convenient to you, huh? To borrow the tag line from the old Smith Barney commercial, if you and your sisters want old fashioned treatment from men, EARN IT.

In closing, women are no longer worth protecting. Though I didn't touch on this in the message, our nation is too far gone to save anyway; the best one can do is to survive the decline as best as he can (go to http://ourcivilisation.com for more). Chivalry is dead, and you women killed it. You want to lambast men? Fine, we deserve it. But, you might want to lambast women too; they are guilty too. You want men to protect women? Then be WORTHY of protecting! You want us to treat you like ladies? Then act, dress, and talk like ladies-sheesh! Until then, don't talk to us men about our faults, not when you and your sisters have plenty of your own. To paraphrase Jesus, you make a big deal about the splinter in mens' eyes, all the while ignoring the big, honkin' 2x4 in yours (i.e. women's eyes). Thank you.


MarkyMark

Since I stumbled onto that message of her's several years ago I always though it was kinda unfair of her to blast men that way. Eventhough it's almost 6 years later I'm glad someone still was able to post the kind of response that article deserved..