U Not Gonna Like This

More from the opening post of his blog (link)

We have a long road ahead.



The marriage strike is just the beginning. Like globalization or climate change, the marriage strike is not an easily tracked phenomena and the decline of marriage is merely the first symptoms of the conflict to come. Within the next few years, as the decline of marriages becomes too obvious for the media to continue ignoring it, there will be the usual spin doctors in the media who will eagerly depict this negatively as possible. Men will be portrayed as selfish, antisocial or even traitorous to browbeat them back into the slavery that is the marriage/divorce cycle.



This will not be resolved in a scant few years. This is a crusade which will take a generation and likely longer to truly bring to a proper conclusion. An entire generation of men have been beaten spiritually and emotionally. They have been condemned as criminals for the 'crime' of not being women. An entire generation of women have been raised to think of themselves as princesses. If history has shown us anything, once people assume a throne, it takes a revolution to remove them.




This is not a strike. This is a revolution.

What Is The Marriage Strike blog

http://whatisthemarriagestrike.blogspot.com

Divorce and family law is based on an antiquated social custom that it is a man's responsibility to support women because they are weaker, incapable of being equal to men, and better equipped to raise children. This is simply not the case in today's society and our laws need to be changed to reflect this fact.

And a thank you to the webmaster of Abolish-Alimony Bill Cabana, he linked to one of my old post which I found by accident while reading some other MM sites. At that time I stopped posting to my blog becuase I thought no one was listening. It was only after seeing that he linked my post that I decided to get back into blogging again. So please visit his blog and see what he has to offer..

http://abolish-alimony.blogspot.com




Abolish-Alimony Forum
http://reform.alimonyvictims.com/index.php

His comments were posted in response to a visitor "Woman With An Opinion." in a thread at the Eternal Bachelor (link)


Curiepoint...

"The fact is, none of you are happy in the state
you are in. If you were, the tone of this blog would
be different."

The tenor of this blog and others like it is
anger, not unhappiness; there is a difference.




Anger is a valid state of feeling, just like any
other. That which is shown here is the result of moral
outrage and indignation, and like it or not, those are
the things that make for change in an intolerable
situation.




What are we angry about?




Apart from the glaringly obvious paradigms that
are oft cited statistically here, we are angry at the
attempts to change who we are by deploying the same
exact shaming language that has now become the routine
vis a' vis women vs. men. Not one of these whiny
articles about men makes a verifiable mention of what
is truly in it for men in marriage. Not one makes
mention of how marriage will bring life long love to
any man. It's all couched in terms of what women gain
and the fulfillment of their desires. As to the notion
that married men live longer, well I suppose that's
true. Every man here however will likely agree with me
when I say that length of life does not equate to
quality of life. What matters is how one lives their
life, not how long it's lived. Real quality of living
comes from doing what one thinks is right, mistakes
made along the way and all. For myself, living a
married life under the tenor of the same kind of
whining displayed in this article will indeed cause me
to live longer, but ardently wish that I would not.




There is a passage in the bible that states
something akin to it being better to live in the
wilderness than with an angry and contentious woman.
If women want men to get jazzed about being married,
they need to collectively show us that they are not
angry and contentious. It really is as simple as that.
I'm not holding my breath however, as forty years of
such attitudes has become as deeply ingrained as
ground-in soil on a pair of jeans. Nowhere have I seen
anything to indicate that women's attitudes have
shifted at all. Men have had to endure all the shame
and guilt-by-association that has been the rallying
cry of women everywhere with nary a blip on the radar.
We simply withdrew further and further away from you,
to the extent of it being a new norm for men to
emrace.




You have all gotten what you demanded and guilted
and shamed into existence, Woman With An Opinion.
Deploying more feeble attempts at manipulation through
invective against men will avail you little if
anything, except a momentary personal satisfaction
that comes from venting your spleen yet again.




Your bed was made for you to sleep in forty years
ago. It has been all this time, and the turn-down
service was done by Dworkin, Friedan, Faludi, and a
whole host of others. I grant that these are the
radical elements of the hive mind, but it is their
views that are taught in schools, and enacted in
subtle and diluted forms through the law.




Men are angry and likely a bit hurt by all of
this. But, rather than willingly crawl back to you to
stick our heads in the noose again, we are simply
saying "No More". We shall turn our anger and outrage
back towards those that oppose us...and make change.
the first step in any change is refusal to comply with
the demands of the enemy. Such is the marriage strike
today.




You want us to marry again? Show us that it is
worth something to us beyond statistics and studies.
Show us that you are indeed worth marrying.




Again, I do not hold my breath.




Real men will never submit to being led like sheep
to a slaughterhouse ever again.

More from the home page:

The Antipeonage Act is appropriate legislation Congress passed to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime. It is not the least bit unconstitutional, because it is authorized by an Appropriate Legislation Clause. What the Antipeonage Act does is that it defines as null and void any attempt by virtue of state law to establish, maintain, or enforce the service or labor of any person as a peon in liquidation of a debt or obligation, or otherwise. Any enforcement of such is a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $250,000 and imprisonment for not more than 20 years. If however, there is a kidnapping involved, say what happened to Dawn Case, imprisonment may be for any term of years to life.

Peonage is thus legally required labor to pay a debt or obligation. That child support is covered by the Antipeonage Act is argued in my briefs filed in Knight v. Maleng, 9th Cir. 00-35625. The United States Supreme Court denied review of this case on October 1, 2001. That sucks, but there are millions of us nationwide, and for those of you who are not fighting back, what the Hell is stopping you? Answer: You. When you stop stopping you, that is the beginning of us stopping them. The day you stop being afraid of them is the day they start being afraid of you. With the Antipeonage Act, they have a lot to fear.

Here's the site map:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/sitemap.htm

Main page:

http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com

Homepage of the book by the same name. here's more from the front page of the site:

Four years in the making. Over 1500 case cites. A watershed work of over 780 pages long, with charts, tables, law, Case cites and full Bibliography and Index.

http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/

The entire book looks like it's been reprinted online. So to being reading just go to the table of contents page located here:

http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/index2.html

Gender-Issue News & Views Rarely Put Forth By The Big Media and Most Leading Feminists.

Male Matters Blog

http://battlinbog.blog-city.com

Here you can find “material” about the American family law and some important cases.

GV 70

http://gv70.wordpress.com

More articles debunking the theory of Egalitarianism:

Which Shall It Be?
Liberty or Equality, Americanism or Marxism
By R. Carter Pittman
http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/misc/Which_Shall_It_Be.html


The Idea of Equality
By Jarret B. Wollstein
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=379


EQUALITY -- WHAT IT IS NOT
by Ted Honderich
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/whatequalityisnot.htm

Papers on the Psychodynamics of Political Correctness and Related Phenomena

Professor Howard Schwartz's Papers

http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/schwartz/Papers.htm

http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality2008.blogspot.com/

http://loseloseprospect.blogspot.com/

Stolen from his blogs header bar:



The Elusive Wapiti

Inane commentary on men's and father's issues, culture, and politics.
(from a Christian/conservative point of view.)

http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com

The other day while looking at the visitor stats for the site I noticed that people are looking for articles by Paul Craig Roberts. I've snatched several of his articles from the archives of Men's News Daily becuase in general I agreed with the points he was making. So I decided to get links from another site where he has been contributing articles Vdare and post them here.



Say Goodbye to England

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/column112601.htm


America’s Descent Into The Third World

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050715_descent.htm

Trade Dogma And The No-think Nation

http://vdare.com/roberts/no_think.htm

An Economist Rethinks Free Trade

http://vdare.com/roberts/no_think.htm

Abolishing America (contd.): The Economic Eviction Of White Men

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/low_wage.htm


Agenda Over Fact

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/column101701.htm


Privilege Before the Law
[Originally published in The American Conservative 2-24-03]

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/privilege.htm


Lott Case Shows Free Speech At A Crossroads In U.S.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/crossroads.htm


Free Trade, Mass Immigration - Shibboleths Blocking Debate

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/shibboleths.htm


Importing People, Exporting Jobs

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/import_export.htm

From the archives of the Desert Light Journal (link):

posted 07-26-06



The other day, this article in the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0719/p14s02-ussc.html) caught my eye. Entitled, NOW at 40: What's left to do? The subhead on the article was: Feminists rocked the 1970s and '80s, profoundly changing US society. Today's challenges are more subtle, but still urgent.




Looking back, (for those of us old enough to remember) there was a time during the so-called “second wave” of the 1960s when it seemed feminism was about equality. In the original NOW statement of purpose, it included language that alluded to women freeing themselves from society’s lack of respect by taking charge in their lives and advancing themselves through their own efforts. For a brief period of time, there were feminists promoting ideals of self-reliance and responsibility, but that time was over almost before it began. The radical extremists took over and today’s feminism is more about hating men, and propagating a constant state of outrage about their version of equality, the definition of which keeps changing.




Unlike the “first wave,” which achieved its goal of getting the right to vote, and then simply faded away, it would appear this second wave isn’t willing to recognize their work is done, and it’s time to go on to something else. That’s because their work isn’t done. Certainly, equality in most things has been achieved, but that isn’t what the new breed of feminists are looking to change.



If you look back at the history of the women’s movement, you find that behind the concept of votes for women, which many people believe was the entirety of the 19th and early 20th century feminist activism, are the ideas of Marx and Engels and the philosophy of eugenics as advanced by British feminist Frances Swiney. These were new and attractive ideas of the time. First-wave feminists were quite open about their hopes for communism and an androgynous society achieved by eliminating men through a variety of means. They sought also to eliminate marriage and the family. Many of those same people also doubted the intelligence and abilities of ordinary women.



It doesn’t take much digging, but if you look carefully at the attitudes expressed by today’s feminists through their writings, the social programs they’ve established, and the laws they’ve enacted, you find that almost nothing has changed since Victorian times. You won’t find many beliefs that are more retrogressive than feminism. It’s as if, despite a century of advancements in culture, science and politics, feminism remained suspended in time under some sort of impervious bubble.




The differences between today’s feminists and those of Victoria’s day are that deceit has become part of the package, and their tactics have changed. The bigotry expressed in feminist thought was once considered acceptable, but today’s society would not tolerate those ideas. The communism that was once a Utopian ideal has proven to be unsuccessful, with a tendency to mutate into a state of totalitarianism. There is a clear need to keep recognition of actual feminist goals to a minimum.



While the early feminists damaged property and engaged in overt violence to get their point across, today’s feminists mostly use behind-the-scenes threats and intimidation, in addition to public accusations of wrongdoing against anyone who disagrees with them. Their attacks on heretics are no less vicious for being non-physical. They have destroyed lives and careers, and created an atmosphere where few are willing to challenge even the most preposterous notions expressed by feminists.



Feminists will go to great lengths to try and maintain the fiction that they’re working for equality, and probably aren’t entirely unhappy with their public profile suggesting perhaps they’re just an eccentric bunch of complainers, safely ignored. If you read the whole article at CSM, you find almost nothing of substance was said by the NOW figurehead. Her remarks included the usual self-congratulatory feminist party line, along with the same erroneous statement about their membership they’ve been using for the past five years, at least. The reader may wonder why it is that an important milestone event such as a 40th anniversary would only attract 800 participants, but shrug and go on to something else.




Many believe that the abortion issue is the only thing feminists still care about, but the fact is that feminists and their extremist ideals are firmly entrenched in many aspects of modern life. They have been allowed to further their political principles, their anti-male, anti-family agendas, and their basic disrespect for women under the guise of “equality.” They’ve made a lot of noise, and convinced enough lawmakers (and enough women) they had answers to difficult social problems, that they’ve been given what they wanted; often in hopes they’d just shut up and go away.



The legacy of feminism is a quite different scenario than they would have the public believe. Let’s take a look at their true accomplishments:





* Because of programs established on the basis of feminist attitudes, it is now virtually impossible for anyone, male or female, to find practical, realistic help for relationships where domestic violence is a problem.


* Divorce has become a battleground, rather than the “solution” it is often touted to be. Families, and especially children, have been reduced to a monetary value, with their emotional needs almost universally ignored. The opinions of legions of court-appointed personnel take precedence in this situation.


* Child protective services seem bent on imposing state control on families, rather than addressing their problems in a way than could have positive results. It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the value of a family in concrete terms, and the attempt to do so has destroyed too many families needlessly, while leaving some
children in danger.


* Education at all levels, from kindergarten to graduate school, has become feminized to a degree that forces boys and men into a situation of having strikes against them before they even begin. Expected to conform to unrealistic and uncomfortable standards of behavior, boys in the lower levels are often drugged into compliance. Men in higher education are at constant risk of violating unknown and illusory standards that vary widely and are imposed by individual women, based on their personal opinions. Girls schooled in feminist doctrine are never allowed to develop emotional maturity.


* Feminist-imposed laws regarding sports programs have removed or restricted support from men’s programs while forcing sports on disinterested women.


* In the workplace, the constant threat of lawsuits based on perceived sexual harassment or discrimination has damaged employee/employer relationships and inserted a degree of mistrust and suspicion that ultimately has a negative effect on productivity.


* The “Battered Woman Syndrome” was initially devised to justify premeditated murder when committed by a woman, and is now also used as a defense against lesser charges such as DUI. This same syndrome was used to explain the need for imposition of “no-drop” laws that prevent women from dropping assault charges. In this usage of the syndrome, women are presumed to be under the thrall of evil men, and therefore cannot do anything to cause them harm. Apparently we’re not supposed to notice the two situations are diametrically opposed.





These are just a few of the most noticeable examples of the changes in society wrought by feminism. These changes have resulted in several organized movements against the feminist’s programs, and these may increase as the radical leftist political agenda behind their programs and the damage they cause becomes better recognized.




If these leftist activists are allowed to continue unchallenged, we can look for future laws making it harder to arrest or jail women for any crime. Proposed under the guise of “protecting” women from domestic violence, these laws will only erode women’s rights to take responsibility for their actions or make decisions regarding their families. Some women in situations of domestic violence may find themselves forced by law to leave their homes and take up residence in women’s shelters for a defined length of time, despite the fact these shelters provide little more than divorce assistance.




Children and the elderly will also be adversely affected, as the “all males are abusers, all females are victims” philosophy takes hold in child and elder abuse programs, which previously have operated under more realistic principles.




Feminism has a rich tradition of myth-making and storytelling, so it should come as no surprise that they would apply this creativity to justifying and rationalizing their actions and beliefs. They have told an appealing story of a benevolent movement for women’s rights, which entirely obscures the ugly reality. NOW is simply a convenient façade. It allows the public to believe in a feeble, irrelevant organization while the real activists pursue their ambitions of power and control.

Here's another link:


http://www.misandry.us

This is one book that every anti-feminist blogger should have on their reading list. Too few of them understand where the roots of women's smug sense of superiority comes from. Well it can be traced back in large part to a book written in 1952 by the late anthropologist Ashley Montagu in a book entitled Natural Superiority of Women.





Here's a review of the book from David Throop's Men's Issues Page (link):

Montagu, Ashley The Natural Superiority of Women, Collier Books, N.Y. 1974


This is a very important book. In many ways it was in the writing of this well known anthropologist that the classical liberal case for social equality between genders has crossed the Rubicon to inanity. 'I should have not written this book', forswears the author, 'had I thought there was any danger that women would adopt superior airs and deal with men as their inferiors'. The book attempts to prove that women, collectively, possess biological qualities that better assure the survival of the species.



It is a convoluted but a hugely flawed argument. Even we accept the premise that quantitatively women are kinder than men and their social skills engend- er higher survival rates of the human species we will not avoid the problem of populations overrunning their resources on a small planet. So it may well be that women are killing us with kindness. Nonetheless, the idea of adducing survival (de)merit points to genders has caught fire and the nincompoop parallel between human males and 'dinosaurs'(both sexes) which Montagu introduced here to peddle his superior attitudes to women soon became a feminist byword.

So it might be a good idea to add this book to your reading list as well.

More from Faustuslair (link):

Thursday, May 17, 2007
Men, The War Against Feminism is NOT about Tact or Logic

Guys, this war against the modern female and feminism won't be won with the likes of tact or logic. The femmies would not have gotten this far if morale was such the pinnacle of the feminist agenda.

I know we men would like to think that the principles of logic would be the foundation of our victories, but that is not the case. The femmies did nothing but shout, throw tantrums, and engage in the most ruthless vocal bedlam for the last 30 plus years. They gained quite a bit of clout as a result, didn't they? Even the manginas in congress can only tolerate so many high pitched decibals against their eardrums.

At various fellow sites, I am seeing the majority of the accolades of the opening posts being attributed to those who have the most "logic" or deductive reasoning in them. And where there is the slightest semblance of force or control against feminism in any blogger's post, as there rightfully should be, all an opposing femmie has to do is use the same fucked up shaming tactics and ad feminams to silence said blogger. Guess what? It WORKS! The man feels taken aback, disgruntled and feels he needs to withdraw said agression. And the cunt gives a yelp of joy, rubs her hands together and releases a sigh of content; another score for the femmies, and all carries on unabated.

Is this the tack we wish to continue with?? Does logic really win in the face of femmie cannonfire?

We as men need to come out kicking, clawing, seething, and belching out OUR claims to OUR rights, here and in public, regardless of how it goes against our nature. Thus far, it's been "she" who makes the most noise - wins. We need to wear politically incorrect t-shirts, stating our ruthless MRA views, such as "Misogynists aren't born - theyre MADE", or even statements that reach: "Think I'm gay? What is there to gain being STRAIGHT?" There are a million cognates we can use, and loudly proclaim our stance when called out on them. Right out on the street.

All this can be done while still going our own way in regards to individual contact with females and/or relations.


The vile, evil femmies have gotten what they strove for by making noise - a lot of noise. We men need to fight that action with the same equal and opposite reaction! And feel no shame in doing so!