U Not Gonna Like This

This is the archives for the Backlash.com when webmaster Rod Van Mechelen sounded more like MMs/MGTOW of today. The link below contains articles on various topics covering the years 1991-1995.



That Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues.

The Male-Positive Perspective



http://www.backlash.com/book/sexism.html

Remeber in my last post I made mention of that fact that feminism seems to care so much for blacks.. Well, in the comments section of NY Bucks last post (MRA Equals Misogyny Homophobia and Racism) Khankrumthebulgar made this statement:



My younger Friend. I have watched what has transpired between the Genders for 5 decades now. Nothing has changed in Men, except our love for Women has been turned to an adaption to survive our interactions with them. What Angry Harry has postulated should be recognized.




US Feminism is Lesbianism. Lesbians compete with Men for Sexually desireable Women. Especially younger Females. They hate and dispise Men. Yet our Women seem to ignore the obvious. Life is not all about them.



Men have been reduced to disposable Beasts of Burden. The Duke LaCrosse case being a prime example. How can Men be in control aka. "The Patriarchy" when White Affluent Males are nearly destroyed and subject to 30 years in Prison on an accusation without merit by a Whore? And worse yet a Whore who changed her story 12 times? And could not remember ever being penetrated?



Men are responding to survival instinct. Heather needs to get a clue. Look at reality or go to hell. Black Men have been the recepients of a cruel social experiement, now foisted on all Men. The wholesale removal of Men from the family, with disasterous results. There can be no real Men's Rights Movement, unless Whites speak up for our Brothers of Color. Too many who languish in Prisons, the products of single Mother homes by White Liberals.




Khankrumthebulgar




Another commenter would answer Khankrum with these comments:

Ninjas 4 Jebus said...

"Men are responding to survival instinct. Heather needs to get a clue. Look at reality or go to hell. Black Men have been the recepients of a cruel social experiement, now foisted on all Men. The wholesale removal of Men from the family, without disasterous results. There can be no real Men's Rights Movement, unless Whites speak up for our Brothers of Color. Too many who languish in Prisons, the products of single Mother homes by White Liberals."

I find this genuinely distressing. Do you really think you see an element of racism in this mess? I am a white man, and I can assure you that such is not the case! Men of all races are suffering under this wicked and unnatural ssytem! Come on over to my house, Khankrumthebulgar, where you will drink my beer and we can discuss this in a more relaxed fashion. Deal?


Well where does Khan get the idea that there's racism in feminism...


I'll tell you where from this article at International Mens Network :

Book Review

"Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920's"
by Kathleen M. Blee
University of California Press, 1992
ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)

Available online at www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/5625.html

We often hear about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Suffragettes being the source of the women's rights movement. This has been repeated so frequently that the public believes this to be the true, veritable source of the present-day feminist movement.



"Women of the Klan" proves this to be untrue. Many of the Suffragettes, as we find out, were also deeply involved in the WKKK until well after passage of the 19th amendment. In political terms, women banded together in the WKKK to get the vote, using it to "blackmail" support from their husbands in the KKK.

Because this odd amalgamation, legitimate interests of women became dangerously poisoned with the sick paranoid agenda of the Klan, a problem that the legitimate women's movement has never come to terms with. (A point for understanding: In the present day, we do see a legitimate egalitarian women's movement hard at work, but its effectiveness is overwhelmed by the highly empowered radical feminist movement which over the years has gender-baited itself into a fortune in federal funding and the power that goes with it. We must now all come to terms with the fact that the radical feminist movement is an extremely dangerous movement, no less reprehensible than the racist movement, and these organizations and individuals must be called out on the carpet and rejected).

Observations and Conclusions:

"Women of the Klan" unquestionably demonstrates that racism was, and still is, first rooted in sexism. Despite the fact that public policy has been disinfected of the tangible appearance of racism, underlying sexist policies continue to run rampant in America's federal and state laws, driving discrimination against men of all races, but with a somewhat stronger impact on black males.

Today's black men are hit with with a "double whammy". While black men might not be discriminated against initially because of skin color, the sexual fears of black men operate strongly to assume that a black woman with a child is a victim who should be showered with public assistance programs, and the black man persecuted economically to support his own social demise. The welfare state has been segregating the black family actively for nearly forty years with devastating effect on family structures and mistrust between black men and women.



The substantial size of the gender segregation problem has resulting in deeply reinforced beliefs that black men are irresponsible, untrustworthy, sexual predators of women. These beliefs have become so extreme that a surprisingly large collection of public policy makers have called for the creation of "women only" welfare housing in which men are not allowed to live or even enter. It is this "sexism" and sex-segregation within the black community which directly prevents further advancement of the civil rights movement, sustainable economic advancement for the black community, and forms the dysfunctional basis of today's twisted style of "racist politics".



Due to the continuing work of the descendants of the WKKK, radical feminist public policy has been generically expanded to encompass all men, using the same gender-baiting tactics used by the KKK to destroy the families and civil rights of blacks. This expansion continues not only to disguise discrimination in the black community while keeping community morals, morale, and apathy at record levels; it has actively moved into all classes irregardless of race.



There's also this article from David R. Usher:

In a Wall Street Journal editorial “White Guilt and the Western Past -- Why is America so delicate with the enemy? Shelby Steele suggests that America’s inability to fight war effectively was caused by “the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty.”

Shelby’s theory is wrong. The collapse of white moral authority is not the problem.

The replacement of male authority with feminism is. To Steele’s credit -- he was gazing in the general right direction – but missed the real target. In America, there is one place where white supremacy and radical feminism existed: The Ku Klux Klan.

The crucial relationship Shelby missed is this: post-modern feminism (which has clearly admitted to being a supremacist movement) is the living granddaughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK), where second-wave feminism (as we know it today) was gestated and borne.

It is important to recognize that the WKKK was not in the mainstream of the suffragette movement, but did strongly support it.

Other articles on the subject of the Women's Klan and feminism:



Indiana History Women of the WKKK Documents

The Encyclopedia of Arkansas Women of the Ku Klux Klan (WKKK)

What Men are saying about Women. Feminism started in the WKKK

The Politics of Sex 1923

Dads Now Women of The Klan



So there you have it, proof that feminism does indeed have racism in it.

Until next time.....


Realted Post:

The 20th Century Anti-feminist movement

It's More Than Just Black and White

Where you''ll find such articles as:

Disposable Dads Day
by Raymond Hughes

http://www.mens-network.org/deadbeat.html

Debtor's Prison is Alive and Well
By Mark Charalambous

http://www.mens-network.org/debt.html

Feminist Fury
Men's issues groups voice legitimate concerns, not hatred

http://www.mens-network.org/feminist-fury.html

and a number of other articles.


International Men's Network Articles section

http://www.mens-network.org/art.html

Here's part of an essay I found on libertarianism and the roll of the federal government:


The name they usually give their philosophy is "voluntaryism." They have an obsession with doing everything voluntarily, and they claim, a "compulsory" government, even if a freedom-loving one, forces itself, its police, its courts, and its military unto people - hence is wrong.





The fundamental philosphy is this: you are not truly 'free' unless you can be your own little government, with your own police force, your own military - and with laws, written by yourself. True freedom, they say, is being able to make your 'own decision' over all matters in your life, including being able to choose what would be your own privatized government.






Let's cut through all the utopian images and ideological rationalizations put forth by anarcho-capitalists of how anarchism might work and examine, fundamentally, how anarchism would work. Keep in mind their fundamental philosophy which is that private individuals can be their own government with their own police, courts, and military.




To visualize an anarcho-capitalist society, drawn out in full, naked form, imagine houses lined up with nukes, electric fences warding off intruders, and attack dogs - fully ready to take justice into their own hands for their owners.




For an effect of what justice would be like, imagine a specific place where there is no government enforcing justice - on the highway. A person, on the highway, who feels he has been unjustly hurt by another will often take justice into his own hands. If someone "cuts off" another person, the person "cut off" will often do anything to punish the other person up to and including killing the other person (as has been done before).




No matter how an anarchist rationalizes his idea of what anarchism might be like, what anarchism would be like is one set of thugs (what they would call "protection agencies") versus another set of thugs. Who would determine what is right and wrong? Whoever had the biggest guns.



Anarcho-capitalism, boiled down, would operate much in the same way that the black market operates today - where men do hire their own "protection agencies" (their own thugs) and do indeed take justice into their own hands.



The reason to reject this philosophy is this: this is not how man should live.


So for those of you that have questions as to why our government is necessary you can go here to read the rest of the article.

Again from Outcast Superstar's Happy Bachelor's forum:

All Men Should Not Marry
Thread Started on Sept 8, 2007, 8:58am

Here is a masterpiece written by tiredofit on the Don't Get Married Board.



Young men shouldn't marry... because they have their talents, dreams, and future to utilize. Women will marry young men as a sort of "down payment", a future retirement plan.



Old men shouldn't marry... because of their assets and wealth to be taken, and older women resemble mummies. Young women marry old men for the money when he dies.



Poor men shouldn't marry... because they will forever remain a wage slave, working, working, working, until the day he dies or retires in his sixties. If she divorces, he is enslaved to child support payments and often kicked out of his own house.



Rich men shouldn't marry... because most of the women will be gold diggers. During the marriage, she will siphon off much assets and wealth her way. If a divorce comes, she will take off with a good chunk of the cash.



Men with dreams shouldn't marry... because the wife will stomp on those dreams and say that your purpose on Earth is to please her. You should either be pleasing her or making money for her to spend. Dreams are for children, dear.



Men without dreams shouldn't marry... because all the pleasures you take in life, be it fishing, hunting, gaming, motorcycling, or football, will be diminished greatly if not removed entirely. Your hobbies become 'guilt trips' while your wife's hobbies become 'quality time'.



Religious men shouldn't marry... because marriage has nothing at all to do with being religious. Jesus didn't marry. Monks don't marry. Churches are not men's friends. Every church allows tons of divorces including Catholic Churches (under the skyrocketing annulments).



Non-religious men shouldn't marry... because you are getting married to the government. If you say, "That is absurd! Married to the government? Ho ho! I am married to my woman!" then watch how the State falls upon your head when a divorce comes. "But I will never become divorced!" Then you get to remain in the Government sanctioned sex program that is called "Marriage".


What!



You don't think it is a government program? Try having sex outside of marriage. You may get away with it for a while... until a child appears and you get slammed with child support. You could co-habitate, yes, but the state will declare you two married and then you become "institutionalized" into marriage. Threats to the government sex program, i.e. marriage, such as prostitution is attacked and removed at every point.


And the reason why the "free sex" exists out there in the first place is for the women, not the men, which is why media and even men say that getting laid is 'getting lucky' as if women have bestowed a favor on the guy.



What does all this mean?



It means DO NOT MARRY. It is not because women have a self-interest in regards to marriage. It is because male interests in marriage have been legislated out of existence. In Church, male interests have been moralized out of existence (while her interests are extolled).



Culturally, you will always be seen as a loser. Despite the gain of fame or wealth, you still remain a loser... only a USEFUL loser. Society will re-configure itself so that women are right... always... and forever... If a law says women should go to jail for murder... well, the courts will say, "She was distressed. It could not have been her fault," and behold how the woman goes free. If a woman is in an argument, society and everyone will shift so the woman, in question, is right. If religion contradicts women, those parts of the religion will be left out. If history contradicts women then history will be re-edited so women are right. If Nature contradicts women (STDs, cervical cancer, can't have children when 40), it is declared a "social crisis" and scientists are set to task of "fixing" the problem.




Not marrying won't make you free and happy. But it will keep you from the shackles. You may think being lonely and single is misery, but it is paradise compared to the TRUE MISERY of marriage.



Don't Marry!

This intro to an article by Dr. Helen a writer for Men's News Daily poses the question Should alimony go?

The lovely and on-side Dr Helen asks the following question re: Should alimony go ?

Should we now get rid of this scourge as now it looks like women will also have to pay (Shock horror) and ofcourse as soon as women are held accountable just like men all of a sudden it's just not on. Women being the stingiest creatures on Earth hate that idea. Why should they have to pay their hard-earned money to someone else just because the Judge actually has a think...

This cannot be right, let the moaning and whining begin and watch how fast women will kill this obligation as fast as they can say " no more sex, we're married".

You can read the entire article here....

This article comes via Father Magazine:


Deceptions of a
"Gender Equal Society"
by Robert Sheaffer


It is now clear beyond any possibility of doubt that the supposed 'gender-equal society of the Montagnais-Naskapi', which is cited in feminist circles as one of the best evidences of a supposed "nonpatriarchal society", has absolutely no basis in fact. It was the deliberate deception of a Marxist feminist, created out of selective quotation and misrepresentation, yet uncritically accepted by her feminist readers. The fact remains that all present and past human societies are patriarchal, in spite of the many feminist lies and half-truths invented to obscure this. Indeed, the ease with which academic feminists will resort to deception to bolster claims such as this one about vanished "nonpatriarchal societies" is perhaps the best reason to doubt their claim that future societies will be nonpatriarchal.

You can read the reast of the article here...