« Prom King and Prom Queen Syndrome | Main | Fathers & Families’ Dr. Ned Holstein on Nationally-Syndicated Eagle Forum Radio Show »
Do Men Think Less Of Women?
By Rebuking Feminism | Source | December 14, 2009
A feminist made the following statement:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does this mean??? It means no more provider dependent. No more primary care giver, no more isolated resource provider after divorce. THE CHILDREN WILL BE SHARED. AS AN INDEPENDENT WOMAN AND AS CURRENTLY IT IS A LIABILITY TO TAKE ON THE PROVIDER ROLE FOR THE VERY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTINUED OBLIGATION TO DO SO AFTER DIVORCE THERE WILL BE NO MORE ALIMONY. NO MORE UNEQUAL LIABILITIES IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT AND AS SUCH THE POTENTIAL DIVORCE CONTRACT. WE ARE EQUAL!!!
It means they must split meals, they must open our doors or take turns showing such graces, they must buy us or bring us gifts in courtship, they must in fact provide and protect us as well. They must earn a high wage so that we may stay home and care for our infant child. They have taken on our role now they must allow us to take on theirs. We must no longer compete for anything between each other to provide to them. No longer compete for territory or resources. We must blow around like leaves in the wind, not a care in the world and demand the pussy be shared and not on the terms of provision or protection they must share the external utility of provision and protection to be our equal otherwise they will be our superior. Sex and access to reproduction can not be taken from them, they will still have it for us to compete and work for.
+of+ScreenShot009.jpg)
Bernard Chapin of Chapin's Inferno holds up a copy of The Disposable Male
My reply:
Men don't think less of women. Men think less of themselves and other men if they are like a woman AND most probably it seems women do not like it either.
THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE!
THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE!
The reason we have feminization insults for men is because if you are like a woman you are not able to serve women or perform the complimentary role the masculine plays to the feminine.
Men carry no inherent value for the simple fact that we exists and are beautiful and attractive. We also have no value on the mating market for the simple fact that we exist. Women will not mate with us because we have a cock and are willing to GIVE (external) them our genes but men will mate with women for the simple fact that she is willing to TAKE (internal) our genes. Remember this giver and chooser dynamic when it comes to the mating dynamic of humans and the sexual selection process. Remember the internal (feminine) and (external) masculine forces of potential energy.
Men carry no inherent value for the simple fact that we exists and are beautiful and attractive. We also have no value on the mating market for the simple fact that we exist. Women will not mate with us because we have a cock and are willing to GIVE (external) them our genes but men will mate with women for the simple fact that she is willing to TAKE (internal) our genes. Remember this giver and chooser dynamic when it comes to the mating dynamic of humans and the sexual selection process. Remember the internal (feminine) and (external) masculine forces of potential energy.
Men must be, we must produce, we must provide, protect, we must take pain, we must die for women and children. We must possess external utility. We must posses the character traits, abilities and qualities that facilitate such ends and if we do not we are a "pussy"
The reference to man in terms of feminization words used as an insult have nothing to do with men's view of women rather it is a way to emasculate him or declare he is like the feminine. If a man is like the feminine he is worthless to women and has nothing to offer and as male value in the mating dynamic is weighted in external utility, if he lacks this, he is in fact no longer a man.
Mostly it is used in terms of what is not able to or willing to do. It could be that he is not strong enough, not brave enough, resourcefully or monetarily successful enough, not _______ enough, you fill in the blank.
Mostly it is used in terms of what is not able to or willing to do. It could be that he is not strong enough, not brave enough, resourcefully or monetarily successful enough, not _______ enough, you fill in the blank.
These emasculations are used upon him most particularly when a man is unable or unwilling to produce something of direct value or lacks the qualities such as honor, courage, size or height,strength, intelligence, commitment etc that facilitate the production of such ends.
The very things that will make him of utility or value in culture and more particularly FOR THE BENEFIT OF WOMEN. So again, men have no innate mate value but must compete, protect, produce, become and acquire etc.
"Don't be a pussy." Why must men sacrifice their comfort, their safety and their vary lives for women? Why must men "do", "become" or "be" a man, because a man's value is not inherent in the mating game....
"Don't be a pussy." Why must men sacrifice their comfort, their safety and their vary lives for women? Why must men "do", "become" or "be" a man, because a man's value is not inherent in the mating game....
It is said that men, "real men" will always put women and children before themselves. It is said that a "real man"
will die for women and children. A "real man" must produce, provide and protect, he must be of utility or a bread winner.
Independence as women define it is mutual dis-need of the other sex i.e. "I don't need a man" an "independent woman"
In order for true independence or mutual dis-need to occur, in order for this goal to be reached between the sexes men must no longer "be" "produce" ""provide" or "protect" women and children. We must no longer value or aspire to the qualities that make us "a man". We must no longer look down upon ourselves or other men if we are not these things i.e. if we are a "pussy". All of these things must be withdrawn for women to be dependent on or need. They must produce these things for themselves, they must be "independent".
Acts of chivalry must be withdrawn in ALL aspects, alimony and child support must be withdrawn in all aspects, we must no longer produce or be the "bread winner" for women. We must no longer provide or protect them or display such social graces that display such willingness. Do not buy gifts (a demonstration of resource devotion) do not open doors (a demonstration of protection devotion and utility of strength) do not pay for dates and buy their meals (a demonstration of resource or devotion to provide) Notice all the social graces relate to what women say they do not need from us and that they would like to share instead i.e. what they would like to be "equal".
Men must no longer dominate what women are willing to do for us. If they want to share in the work of providing external utility by all means let them provide and protect us....Let's be equal, lets share... Women don't need these things from men right??? They do not select us as mates because we have these attributes right??? They will even let us take on their role right??? Lets see if they will??? They have not let us yet but we must call them on this equality thing asap!
In crude terms their giving forth access to sex and reproduction is not enough payment. If they have or obtain everything that we have to offer them AND still control sexual selection, what males will have to do for them then will be left over for their whims to decide. I venture to say that this will be humiliating for men. So being that the balance of power will be all in the hands of women they must give to us back the external utility the potential energy, the work we had to give them i.e. what they are now doing for themselves.
What does this mean??? It means no more provider dependent. No more primary care giver, no more isolated resource provider after divorce. THE CHILDREN WILL BE SHARED. AS AN INDEPENDENT WOMAN AND AS CURRENTLY IT IS A LIABILITY TO TAKE ON THE PROVIDER ROLE FOR THE VERY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTINUED OBLIGATION TO DO SO AFTER DIVORCE THERE WILL BE NO MORE ALIMONY. NO MORE UNEQUAL LIABILITIES IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT AND AS SUCH THE POTENTIAL DIVORCE CONTRACT. WE ARE EQUAL!!!
It means they must split meals, they must open our doors or take turns showing such graces, they must buy us or bring us gifts in courtship, they must in fact provide and protect us as well. They must earn a high wage so that we may stay home and care for our infant child. They have taken on our role now they must allow us to take on theirs. We must no longer compete for anything between each other to provide to them. No longer compete for territory or resources. We must blow around like leaves in the wind, not a care in the world and demand the pussy be shared and not on the terms of provision or protection they must share the external utility of provision and protection to be our equal otherwise they will be our superior. Sex and access to reproduction can not be taken from them, they will still have it for us to compete and work for.
Make no mistake, when they have taken our external utility THEY WILL STILL MAKE US WORK FOR THEIR CHOICE OF MALES IN SEXUAL SELECTION only our work then will not be an honorable place I assure you of that. In fact they will say we are redundant and look at us with contempt.. They will ask...."Are Men Necessary" "Are men going extinct" "do I even need a man" hmmmmm no but I think I want one around but on what terms....hmmmm what ever I decide the terms will be...both in marriage and most importantly after divorce.
What then gentlemen do you think they would have us do for it then???
In reality and in all truth women have something we want and need which can not be taken from them. Her womb is potential energy and potential energy = work. Women for the simple fact of existing are fertile and already are of value. Their potential fertile energy is potential work that males seek to be worthy of, to provide work for in return, to provide sperm??? no sperm is cheep and readily available. Women can purchase male genes through the mail by what celebrity they look like. Are men designed to provide external utility....YES!
Given that women want what men want to work for and give them, they want to get these things for themselves, they want to be "independent" Men must no longer provide these things to women and insist they value us for and allow us to take on their role. Granted we do not have the potential energy that gives them inherent value but they need to realize that this is what they have asked for. However they can support us financially so that we may stay home and take care of such things as domestic tasks but more importantly wean our infant child.
Gentlemen, ask yourselves what women are trying to be an "independent woman" from and this will alllow you to understand what you may become dependent upon them for or share. Equality by definition means the same, there are not "gender roles"
Most particularly, if women will not allow us to take on their role, if they will not provide and protect us or at least share the work in doing so. If they do not take on the potential energy of our external utility as males
it is paramount that we as men find out what women are dependent on men for and withdraw these things in ENTIRETY.
If what we want from women (wife, mother, her sex her fertile potential energy) can not be taken from them I surmise that most men would decide to give women what they want in exchange for what they have. Most men would devote themselves somehow in ENTIRETY. Lets call this devotion marriage.
Ask yourself, are women able to get the things they want from you without marriage? Are women provided and protected for outside of marriage? Most importantly are they able to get these things after divorce? If so do you still get what you need from a woman after divorce or is it a one way selfish transaction of protection and provision while you yourself have no wife, no mother of your children, no children as you have no right to be a father and are degraded to visitor and isolated resource PROVIDER.
DOES NOT PROVISION = PROTECTION? How is it then that women can gain what they want while you get nothing?
Ask yourself gentleman, is the binding contract of marriage not also the potential binding contract of divorce?
As such:
Marriage = PROVISION AND PROTECTION OF A WOMAN and "HER" CHILDREN
Divorce = PROVISION AND PROTECTION OF A WOMAN and "HER" CHILDREN
+of+ScreenShot009.jpg)
Bernard Chapin of Chapin's Inferno holds up a copy of The Disposable Male
NOW GENTLEMAN, IS MARRIAGE FOR YOU ???
True independence for men is access to mating opportunity without our provisional or protectional value being diminished by women taking this external utility we compete for to give them from us.
True independence for men is being of no use to women or at very least insist on them being equal to us in the external utility that we provide to them and compete for and provide these things to us.
True independence for men is also mutual dis-need of women. If what they have can not be taken we must demand they give it and if not, diminish our obligation to obtain it. I've noticed this has happened in the black community and in places where a mated pair bond is not needed in nature for successful gestation, provision and protection of offspring.
Males compete among each other for dominance but this is mainly for themselves. Their ability to provide and protect is not given to the female but is symbolic. The male displays his prowess, good genes, health and vies for competitive advantage over territory and resources but does not employ them to provide and protect females. Rather male worthiness of genetic fitness is competed for among males through fighting but the spoils are not given to females in order for her to mate with him.
They mate get females pregnant and then walk away and find more females to get pregnant. The defining factor in this dynamic is that males don't have any obligations to the female thus "diminishing our obligation to obtain it" as I have outlined above..
Any thoughts?
I do in fact think that women will continue their independence. I believe we will in fact move toward an order of mutual dis-need. I believe is male external utility is no longer needed it makes no sense to provide it from an empty apartment in alimony and child support. I makes no sense to still give these things to them when we can not obtain what we desire from them in return. The pair mated bond of marriage is dissolving and moving toward another dynamic. We as men must embrace this, we has men must go our own way.........We must fight for equality, to be independent.
Given the mating dynamic I've outlined women have claimed themselves to be "sex objects" which makes us as men, as our value to women being heavily weighted in external utility, "success objects" BUT NO MORE!!!!
+of+ScreenShot003.jpg)
REMEMBER THEY ARE OUR COMPETITORS NOW FOR THE VERY THINGS THEY SEEK FROM US. THEY ARE ARE SO BY FORCE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS AND TITLE IX. TITLE IX HAS SHUT DOWN HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF MALE SPORTS TEAMS, SCHOLARSHIPS AND PROGRAMS. IT WILL SOON BE EXPANDED FROM COLLEGE SPORTS TO ALL SCIENCE, TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS OR WHAT THE COUNCIL ON WOMEN AND GIRLS CALLS S.T.E.M. THEY NOW OBTAIN 60% OF ALL COLLEGE DEGREES. I EXPECT WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE EXPANSION OF TITLE IX BY THE FEDERAL COUNCIL ON WOMEN AND GIRLS MALE REPRESENTATION WILL DECREASE TO 30% OR 20% OF ALL DEGREES.
WOMEN DEMAND NOT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BUT EQUAL OUTCOME BY UNEQUAL MEANS. THEY CONTROL 54% OF THE VOTE AND CONTROL POLITICS. WOMEN HAVE SECULAR REPRESENTATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO ADVOCATE FOR THEIR SEPARATE CLASS INTERESTS AWAY FROM MEN AND AWAY FROM THE POLICIES THAT FACILITATE THE MATED PAIR BOND AND THE FAMILY ITSELF.
The concept of "free love" began during the Communist Revolution and was implemented in the United States during the 1960's. It was an essential element of the cultural Marxist subversion of American Culture.
SEE: Works of Alexandra Kollontai 1921
Sexual Relations and the Class Struggle
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/sex-class-struggle.htm
AND:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Kollontai
I HOPE THAT THE ARTICLES AND INFORMATION IN THE REST OF MY BLOG WILL HELP CREATE AN EVEN CLEARER PICTURE AS TO WHERE WE STAND WITH THIS AND WHERE WE SHOULD GO.
Topics: Rebuking Feminism | View Comments