U Not Gonna Like This

In another post I mentioned that feminst have noticed an increase in blogs opposed to thier ideology. Well, I went over to the front page of JJ's Garage and saw that he updated the front page with a modified and expaned version of his summary to the reaction of the femnist. I'm copying and pasting the whole damned thing and inserting a few comments in between. Please take some time and read through the entire article.

Saturday Juanary 19,2008

jjgarage.com


An article by Suzanne MacNevin is a vile rant against men who preach the best way to fight feminism is through devoting themselves to bachelorhood. This really seems to tick her off, and the more I read her argument, the more hypocrisy she displayed.


For instance, why is she so upset about men devoting themselves to the single life? After all, feminism has made it a priority to indoctrinate our young women into believing that they do not need a man to be happy in life. But now that men have taken the same vow, recognizing the same empowering elation of independence experienced by women, these same feminist suddenly become emotionally volatile. And considering how feminism has preached equality between men and women, why the anger over men gaining their independence from societal expectations of marriage and family just like their female counter parts?


---------------------
I'll tell you why. Becuase men have finally figured out that dating/marriage and other relationships have become nothing more than wealth transference schemes for women.

As a matter of fact 2 of the top 5 reasons women have gained so much wealth and are poised to overtake men in 2 years (2010) and control the majority of the personal weath in the United States is becuase of dating and relationship with men.


The five top sources of women's wealth are:

Salaries, business income, and investments earnings

Inheritance (after a family member passes away.)

Becoming widower

Divorce payments, Alimony, and Child Support


Gifts given to her from boyfriends and lovers while dating (vacations, expensive trips, jewlery, houses, cars, trucks ect..)

(The above list comes from an article posted back in 2006 at Mens News Daily by Marc Rudov.)



Did you see that list? This is why men are backing off of women.

Marriage and the divorce that is sure to follow it, is nothing more than one of the largest wealth transference schemes in history and men have caught on to it!

So don't go throwin' buckets of Haterade all over them for backing off and not playing your game..

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

One can see the hypocrisy and prodigious egos at work here. We (the feminist) want the freedom of choice to decide whether or not we what/need men in our lives. However, we want to restrict you (men) from the same choice. The female ego, fed superfluously by feminist insecurities and their sexist ideology, harbors the belief that females are naturally superior to males; therefore the choice should be theirs, not the men's.

The female ego has a hard time believing that something inferior (men) may actually not want or need the company of a woman.

Females have been brainwashed to believe that men are irresponsible, unorganized, chaotic beings that cannot function in life without a woman's touch, guidance, and affection. But what they forget is that before we met them, dated them, married them, and had children with them, we were fully functional, happy, independent beings making the best of every moment in life with very little help from them.


In the past, marriage became a symbiotic relationship between men and women in which men were left to focus on expanding and succeeding in their careers, which in turn brought more stability and opportunity not only to them, but to their wives and children also.


(For more information on men, women and careers please see Angry Harry's article Did Women Really Want To Go To Work.)




But since the feminist movement, men can no longer count on women to stay at home and raise their children, cook their meals, clean the house, and many other family management tasks that traditionally were fulfilled by the females in their lives. So marriage no longer offers a man the opportunity of greater success than it once did.

So the question has now become: Why SHOULD men commit to settling down with women in today's relationship environment when marrying women now offers men less today than they did in the past? If we are expected to cook our own meals, do our own laundry, clean our own living quarters, and many of the other traditional female roles and still maintain our traditional male roles and resposibilities, then why do we need a woman in our life anyway?

(The answer WE DON'T!)

Men have greater opportunities for personal success by avoiding marriage, while still maintaining the same level of personal responsibility found in bachelorhood or marriage. The only thing today that women can offer men is sex, companionship, and children. And in reality, casual sex can be found through sexually "empowered" women within the feminist movement, companionship can be fulfilled by men or women, and children can be adopted, for which every man who does so will be elevated into sainthood like Angelina Jolie.


Think about it this way, the feminist movement taught women not to be dependent upon men, but it also changed roles so much that men are not dependent upon women either.

Another hypocritical and egomaniacal element I pick up from her rant is the argument that men should marry. Men who choose to postpone marriage are called "commitment phobics", a derogatory label which implies immaturity and irresponsibility. However, the feminist become disturbed, and rigorously dispute, any research or public opinion which implies a woman's life will be more stable and happier through traditional marriage vows. They have aggressively fought any government-funded programs which promote marriage, always finding these programs sexist and patriarchal. But now when the shoe is on the other foot, they prescribe marriage as the healthiest thing a man can do in an effort to achieve overall happiness.



And these women believe men have huge egos - LOL!



Now let me list some of her comments and my counter-point: Why should the government (and thus taxpayers) be forced to support the mother and child when it was partially the fault of the father who sired the child? How fair is that for society to end up paying for one man's sexual urges and inability to stop spreading his seed around? Men don't take this matter seriously enough. They think they can sleep with whomever they want without any consequences but in this world of STDs, HIV/AIDS and pregnancy that is simply not true.

Why should the government (and thus taxpayers) be forced to support mothers who have numerous children out of wedlock from different men, and then run to the government for support and aid to care for them?

And why is it these women do not receive contempt from you and other feminist - which you so eagerly pile upon men - but rather you and other feminist deliver assiduous applications of compassion, understanding, and impunity to these women? At least I admit, some men think with their penises, but your sexist attitude doesn't allow you to accept the fact that some women think with their clitorises (sorry, fair is fair ladies).

And if society or the deadbeat father doesn't pay up what is the social effect of having hundreds or thousands of women impoverished and struggling to feed and clothe these children?

First of all, women do not have to live in poverty. Women have the right to abort their unborn children to avoid the responsibility of parenthood - men do not have that choice. If men did, the deadbeat dad numbers would virtually disappear. Men can be forced into parenthood, women cannot. And if the child is born due to lack of protection by the man, it is still the woman's fault.



The feminist mantra is "My body, my choice!" Yes, legally this is true, but consequently, this also carries the burden of "My body, my responsibility". If you don't want the discomfort of nine months of gestation; have your ability to work and make living put on hold; run the potential to be a single parent in poverty; and chase a man around looking for child support, then it is the woman's responsibility - meaning you dear - to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. Second, studies show women initiate the majority of divorces and predominately ask for full custody of the children - and receive it.



So the heartbreaking stories of divorced women with young children living penniless due to men shedding their marriage vows is actually more myth than truth. If the genders were reversed, you and society would take a less sympathetic approach.

Men would be told unapologetically, "You made your decisions and you have to live with the consequences."

Oh! Excuse me. My bad. That is a quote from you in this same article directed towards men who bitch about feminism ruining their relationships. Thanks for proving me right about this difference in acceptance of resposibility between men and women in society.



Third, studies show that the majority of men do pay their court ordered child support on time, so your economic apocalypse from deadbeat dads is another myth.



However, you disregarded studies that show women are more likely than men to avoid paying court ordered child support.

Oops!


Should've done your homework.



I could go on taking this whole article apart piece by piece, but I think I made my point - the rest is just details.


But let me touch on one last quote:

However, I believe this propaganda fails to convince because it uses inherently flawed logic, useless rhetoric/slogans and the blatant sexism is its downfall.

I feel exactly the same way. And I'm sure if I go back and read your article again, I'll get that same feeling all over again.




Those comments come from JJ's Garage. If you wish to respost the article at your own web site or blog you can as long as you give him credit. And since I've made commenary in this article I'll formally give anyone wishing to repost my comments (if you think they're worthy of republishing) permission to do so.

Until next time..