Search the Community

Here is proof that women are as perfectly capable of levels of violence and abuse as men.

I am a 28 year old female with questionable self worth. As a younger woman I had greater value with the promise of an advantageous intelligence and an acutely symmetrical face. My face is still sitting on a relatively straight line but in allot of ways the promise of my intelligence and success is less likely than it was a few years ago when I 'had more time'. There has been this reoccurring theme in my life that I hadn't reflected on for a great deal of time until the recent media exposure of hedonistic worship in Hollywood. I was raised to believe that a woman is more valuable if she has more to offer a man than beauty and fertility. This meant that I needed to outcompete my vagina to win a good father for my children. Being a seeker of intensity I was excited by the challenge of greatness. I always wanted to be 'number one' because I believed if I was the ultimate human, I might then, potentially, be worthy of love, so long as, I didn't let 'myself' go and get fat after having kids because then, it would be my fault for making my husband leave me to raise our children alone. yeah, issues. So, this theme that has haunted my frail and costly existence is that every time I was number one at something, other than being an attractive young woman, there was always a specific ultimatum that eventually would stand between success and my efforts. The ultimatum went something like: 'you are really good at preforming in your area of interest and that makes you more sexually desirable. Are you willing to trade sexuality in exchange for equal consideration for investment opportunities? Are you willing to renounce the value you place in the knowledge you've acquired in order to utilize it? 'Equal consideration' meaning: To be judged based on the merit of my success and not sexually. Though, in reflecting retrospectively, maybe everyone is judged by their degree of attractiveness and some of us get ignored and some suffice to entice predation. Every time I attempted to live a 'moral lifestyle' (one that opposes hedonism and moral relativism) and contribute tangible value to society, I'd encounter an older male authority that would compare my potential for success to my willingness to consent to being the object of their sexual gratification. When I tried to pursue some of these people legally, I was essentially made to feel that I needed to conform to a deranged reality where I have nothing to offer but sex and if I resisted conformity the consequence would be estrangement from any related opportunity for economic growth. Eventually, I became discouraged and slipped into a further depression that was initiated by competing with Hollywoods standard of beauty. During adolescence and young adulthood men in my age demographic would viciously and remorselessly ostracize women who did not emulate supermodels and divas like Brittany Spears. I realize they had also experienced pressure from being bombarded by propagandized media promoting the worship of Hollywoods decadent and satanic culture. My point is, for a while I've been trying to see the world in a different light-calling myself a foolish 'feminist' for fearing the potential risk of being in those situations again and reasoning with myself to refrain from the generalization of the moral integrity of all men by the actions of the ones I've met in my life and I'm grateful for that. But, I see now, how being disappointed over and over by working hard to achieve greatness only to have my efforts be diminished by the desirability of my sexuality has created an incentive for me to avoid 'success'. In a way that result was to my benefit because now I'm focused on entrepreneurial pursuits rather than apprenticeship and collaboration with institutions that are already in place. In another way it's unfortunate that even when I was absolutely the most valuable and productive within a group of people focused on a universal task, acheiving the greatest understanding and command of the relative skill set wasn't enough, I still needed to be willing to do 'something' that was obviously irrelevant, empty and meaningless to me. Fortunately, I didn't sell out, the majority of the time, though, once I tried it to see what was one the other side. You guessed it, absolutely nothing was on the other side of that door, not even another door, just nothingness. I realize that men deal with this sort of thing too and it's really more about the relationship of culture between generations rather than gender. Like, baby boomers vs millennials for example. I'm not sure that the generation preceding Baby Boomers objectified them the way us 'useless' millennials are. I'm optimistic that there is an honest discussion happening about the treatment of young people in regards to respecting the sacredness of an individuals sexuality. Disregarding the impact that sexual experiences have on an individuals life, to the degree that it is formally claimed to have no affect at all, creates a culture that considers a spectacular actor to only be worthy of opportunity in exchange for ownership of their body or sexuality. In a way it appears to be some form of weirdo ritualism, like, 'are you willing to erase yourself in exchange for economic success?'. Living in our current corrupt society, where we are coerced into paying tax on dollars that have inflated beyond any tangible value, it's understandable that many would tend to conform to evil in an attempt to be 'realistic' rather than sacrificing themselves like Socrates, for moral virtues. Now, after all this time, I'm sure that ones soul is more valuable than anything material. Unless you have children? :/ Life is a tough nut to crack. I suppose, the only way to out-compete your genitals is to refrain from games of that nature: Competitions measuring a persons self worth based merely on their sexually desirable characteristics. Humility and honesty about reality is the only way we can create the world we hoped we would enter from our youth into adulthood.

Guys watch 'The Red Pill' movie if you can. It is just marvelous and just in my own life was instrumental in finally getting loved ones to understand our perspective against feminism. http://theredpillmovie.com/ It covers the journey of a feminist to becoming a normal person after daring to listen to a few from the MRA movement.

hey thinkers, i'm confused regarding this. please help me out. Stefan mentions quite often that 80 to 90 percent of household spending is done by women. He uses this stat to point towards female power/authority. Or at least, as a counter-argument to the patriarchy. i've seen this, but am still confused as to what exactly it means. If my wife buys me pants this counts in that figure, no? Like...if women buy the laundry machine, and the groceries...this counts towards the figure. So i'm not exactly sure what this says about women "controlling" the purse. Doesn't this stat just prove that women do more shopping for the household? Or am i missing something. thanks

My husband, Kevin Beal, and I discuss the latest feminist outrage. This time, typing!

So this popped up in my fb-feed. What's your take on it? http://alanalouisemay.com/blog/2016/1/9/the-world-needs-angry-women

Camille Paglia has a new book out called "Free Women, Free Men", which I've not read, but apparently is a tome of scathing essays pushing back against third wave feminists (nothing new for Paglia, herself a feminist), eviscerating PC culture's ruining of university scholasticism and turning higher learning into SJW indoctrination factories, and actually defends masculinity and traditional roles for the sexes as (*gasp*) biologically-based rather than entirely socially constructed. http://www.uarts.edu/users/cpaglia https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/booking-request.php?SpName=Camille-Paglia

Hey guys, This is the first of what should be many episodes exposing the inconsistent arguments feminist opinion leaders put out that continues to perpetrate the double standard narrative that domestic violence against men is somehow acceptable. I hope you like the approach I've taken. Read: http://consistencytest.com/2017/01/05/woman-on-man-domestic-violence-is-acceptable-episode-1-jezebel-tracie-morrissey/

Taking to pieces this common issue raised by feminists...

Scenario: A woman wearing slutty clothes, goes into the dirtiest bar and flirts with the sleaziest looking man. She gets drunk with him, goes back to his house, flirts with him a little and things go too far. He begins to try to have sex with her, she says no, but he doesn't listen and she is raped. Background: Recently my girlfriend and I have been debating this idea of the nature of responsibility in the situations leading up to a rape occurring. It began with her stating that she should be able to wear whatever she wanted when walking down the street. I told her that I didn't want her wearing sexual things without me because that may lead to "bad things" happening to her. I said that she is free to do it, but she has to understand that there are consequences for her actions (even if that can lead to rape at the most sever level). I tried to compare it to a person walking into a bear infested forest with meat wrapped around them and being eaten by a bear, or a guy walking down a dark ally with $100 hanging out of his pockets and getting robbed. At this point she told me that I am comparing apples and oranges and that a woman who is raped "never has any responsibility" for putting herself in that situation. Question: 1. Does the woman have any responsibility for the rape occurring? 2. If she does have a responsibility, can her actions here, or in any other scenario ever take away responsibility from the offender? 3. Does this mean I am telling her that she/women in general cannot wear whatever they want? Thoughts?

should women (criminal) have harsher sentencing than men due to the fact they can have children or is there an answer why this would be wrong?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/melbourne-university-opens-up-jobs-to-women-applicants-only/7426704 Hmmm "Equal opportunity act allows for positive discrimination" ...anyone else see something OFF with that... lol

Link to the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36266753 What are your thoughts?

enjoy... Why do we give robots female names? Because we don't want to consider their feelings How we gender robots is not an abstract, academic issue: the link between how we treat "fembots" and human women is real. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/04/why-do-we-give-robots-female-names-because-we-dont-want-consider-their

Hey there everyone. I know it's sometimes hard to believe because the media focuses too much on the batshit crazy ones, but in my experience I've interacted with a whole lot of rational, actually-looking-for-equality feminists. That is to say, they are against all forms of abuse based on gender including the draft, unequal access to be with your children after divorce, etc. They also recognise child abuse as the way by which gender (and other) abuse is perpetuated in society. So, in short, they are allies in my eyes. What do you feel would be a good way of separating these nice, egalitarian feminists from people like Anita Sarkeesian? Thanks for your time. ♥

A response to a criticism I see all over the internet.

So, in my online dating hunt I see something that disturbs me over and over.. It's worded differently every time, but the sentiment is the same.. I love animals more than people. Why do so many young women feel this way? It doesn't make sense to me. There is simply no way that one can connect with an animal with the full range of emotional intimacy, honesty, curiosity, empathy, and authenticity as you can with another person. And yet, there seems to be a large number of young women who really feel as though they love their precious pets with all of their heart, and that this love can't be rivaled in a relationship with another man. This is deeply troubling if that is even remotely true. To me, that signifies a damaged emotional apparatus and an inability to genuinely connect with people. And don't get me wrong - relationships with pets can be deeply rewarding, affectionate, and enjoyable. Nonetheless, I find it disturbing when I read a Tinder or OKCupid profile which has this red flag waving on it. What are the causes of this strange phenomenon? Why does it seem to happen primarily to women? It's quite possible that it happens with similar frequency to men, but men remain less vocal about their preference. I'm almost positive that this is not healthy, but am open to correction if I'm missing something. What are your thoughts?

Wow, we just got back from The Witch, and it was really, really well done. There are some very strong performances in this film, including by some very young actors -- I'm not usually a fan of films with children in leading roles...a lot of cringing...by me... Some of the themes and tropes I noticed, which I've listed in the topic tags, were very compelling and explored to varying degrees over about 90 minutes. I'll just touch on a few of these themes, and they may contain spoilers. Superstition and Theocracy and Child Abuse -- This film is set in one of the early Puritan "plantations" -- probably Massachusetts Bay colony sometime in the 1630s or 1640s if I had to guess. The opening scene is the convening of a religious court where a man stands trial for blasphemy, which leads he and his family's excommunication (a la Thomas Hooker). The farmer and his family establish a farm in a remote area, praying all the while for providence from sky daddy. Every plan, every action, every is considered in relation to God. An entire family -- a pregnant wife, a set of twins, and another brother and sister -- is cut off from the protection and the resources of the community for a mere disagreement on some mundane theological point. One of the sons of the farmer is tortured with thoughts of his dead younger brother roasting away in hell because he wasn't baptized before he was (spoiler alert) ...kidnapped by a witch, ritually murdered, and pounded into jelly, and then rubbed all over the witch's naked body, allowing her to fly. Destruction of the family -- The exile of the family embeds them more fully into the stress and hardships of living in nature, as they hack a living "out of the wilderness with their own two hands, bearing their children along the way" (Last of the Mohicans, 1992). The stress and toil have real consequences on the relationships between the family members. Thomasin, the eldest daughter is suspected of having been complicit in her brother's disappearance and another brother's death. The father sells his wife's prized silver cup to purchase animal traps, and fails to tell the truth when it would have saved Thomasin from the suspicion of her mother. Later, the mother seems to hint at infidelity back in England after the father comes clean about selling the cup. Witchcraft and Satanism and Feminism -- I couldn't help but think about Hillary Clinton, watching the witch smear bloody baby ointment all over her wrinkly old lady backside -- symbolic of the State destroying the futures of the as yet unborn tax chattel. She apparently lives alone in a remote hut in the woods and is possibly able to transform into various animals (usually a brown hare -- not sure what it's supposed to symbolize). As you may know, there was a story perpetrated by the "vast right wing conspiracy" that Hillary and her gal pal and former "spiritual advisor", Jean Huston, who is a New Age mystic and once helped Hillary conjure the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt in a seance in the Green Room -- oh but don't worry it was just "roleplaying"...in preparation for "It Takes a Village". The pay off at the end of the movie (major spoiler) ...is Thomasin conjuring Satan, selling her soul to him, and then following him, stark naked, at night, into the woods where there, a coven of 7-10 witches are gathered around a bonfire wailing in arcane tongues and levitating against the night sky...summoning the egregore of the future America...when women will wear the pants(suits) and use the power of the state to destroy their men and extract their resources through their urethras and call NASA sexist because it crushed their dreams of flying in space. I'd give The VVitch 82 out of 100 NuvaRings. The sound editing could have been a little crisper, especially since they were speaking in the Thee and Thou form of English. Visually, it's pretty bleak, which is an obvious choice in keeping with the stark emotional tone of the film. Great debut for Robert Eggers -- looking forward to seeing what he does next.

Narration by Milo Yiannopoulos. Original audio - http://tomwoods.com/576/ This video is completely viewer supported. Please consider becoming a patron of our work: https://www.patreon.com/illustratedphilosophy

For the eight years I worked in a Montreal hospital, I seriously desired to have a sex change. After years of figuring out why I felt that way, recently, especially since I discovered the full extent of feminism and men’s right movement, I got my answer. I felt so compelled to fit the fuck in, to keep my Nurse’s aid job in this extreme Quebec feminist dominated culture pervading society in almost every area. Because I was “lucky” and “fortunate” to like and do cross gender dressing, and being quite gender and sexual orientation blind since teenage years, I could have gone more easily than many, through the whole sex change process. If I became the more politically correct sex and gender, I would be be more valued, popular and loved, within this feminist, leftist, and anti “All male aggression in all context is wrong” society. FDR’s feminism and MRM works are the primary reasons for me putting a stop to going through the whole process. In hindsight, I’m glad I terminated that direction.

So in having spent the better part of 5 years invested in the atheism, men's rights, and anarchist communities it wasn't until around 7 months ago that I began to catalogue my beliefs regarding these topics. Not to my surprise they coalesced around particular principles that I had been holding to and so engendered my involvement in these areas. Yet something I hadn't expected happened. I discovered a coalescence with regard to my enemies. That is, I found a link between feminists, theists, and statists though I quickly whittled that down to a commonality through ideological belief. Well of course right? But that commonality wasn't just that they were ideologues but that they shared the exact same belief in common. I had discovered a singular belief common to all ideologies that to do this day I've been unable to disprove. Quite a claim right? It was a few months later I discovered that with the addition of a single psychological relationship to identity, one could develop a conservative or liberal mindset. Fast forward another month and I am blown away by r/K selection theory and how it accorded with my own observations. Now granted my only exposure to r/K is through Stef himself so I am unaware of the entire breadth of the argument presented by Anonymous Conservative. Yet in Stef never mentioning this angle or rather this explanation I feel it is my duty to outline some of it here. Suffice it to say, I may have discovered the actual logic to the 'r' and 'K' mindset respectively. That evolution engenders these is almost without a doubt, but I contend that even as biological motivations, they actually rely on one logical axiom and then one more relationship to identity. That is to say, 'r' and 'K' are the result of a logic system that evolution is responsible for implanting. It is like computer code. The evidence for my theory which I will provide Stef albeit in a messy, first-draft form, is that it goes further to explain the phenomenon of social justice and feminism and the 'arguments' and perspectives they purport to have. When my theory is taken into consideration what they say makes logical sense though granted it must operate on a single false axiom from the start. From here I have begun to predict their response to current events with an accuracy that one would consider prophetic but really it's elementary. Again, quite the claim. Karen Straughan expressed interest in the material regarding the feminism aspect and she has been sent a copy. This is the best means I know of to contact Stef and the crew and so here I am. Now while I imagine I've made some mistakes in my own reasoning, the bulk of the treatise I've written is with regard to the logic system of the Left or 'r' demographic with the 'K' taking a backseat so to speak. If I have failed (should any discrepancies be discovered) in my attempt to establish this logic system as a necessary part of human psychology, that doesn't mean it isn't how the 'r' and 'K' operate regardless. It just means they're operating on faulty reasoning whose origin is unknown rather than entirely disproven. That there exists problems with both the 'r' and 'K' would naturally have us assume that their's is a faulty system of reason to begin with. But I digress. The summary is attached as a PDF file and was written for Karen in particular. There is also some conjecture regarding MGTOW and reference to a previous conversation we had had. These shouldn't confuse you but I want to make you aware of this regardless. This summary is about 15000 words and the treatise itself is about 100000 words. It's not as though it takes more than a few pages to argue my point but that the breadth of its applications are so vast I took the time to explore many of them. Now in the summary, given that it was written for Karen in particular, doesn't explore in full the claim that all ideologies are fundamentally founded on the same belief, but the greater treatise does. If the summary whets your appetite for it I will provide it with Mike's blessing (given the size of the file it too large). Though really, it's so elementary you'll figure it out yourself and kick yourself for having missed it. Or I'll tell Stef in an interview. It's so obvious and seemingly trite as to make you question your ability to think and observe the world at all when it's full influence is demonstrated. Stef said, though I'm sure he was quoting another, that ideology was the creation of arbitrary categories (or something like that). As it turns out I was establishing just that, save I had established that ideologies were axiomatic identities that existed without criteria. This will prove to be an important distiction. I guarantee it. All the best everyone and, should this argument prove useful, consider this my donation to FDR. Stef, you said getting therapy was payment enough but hell, I can still do more. Why not establish a logical axiom upon which all ideologies are based, the logic system for 'r' and 'K', and with that the 'key to the kingdom' with regard to human allegiance itself? This is going to make Bill Whittle's head explode. Or maybe I'm wrong. Only one way to find out. PS - The summary was written in the span of 36 hours so please, I needn't be shown any spelling or grammatical errors. There are plenty I'm sure. Summarization of Treatise.pdf

this is an excerpt from my blog i've been sitting on for a while preface: i will be using the terms “man” and “woman” in a general sense, though i understand that there are some exceptions, just like a horse by definition has 4 legs, but sometimes they are born with 3, however that doesn’t make that animal not-a-horse. so please, contain your exceptions until the end. theory: the use of the word “objectification” (labeling) is a woman’s way of saying she feels uncomfortable in the face of the fact that a man is sexually attracted to her, or another woman. but instead of being honest about her own discomfort, she uses the term “objectification” to turn the blame on the man. just like how a priest uses the term “sin” to turn the blame on other people when his prophecies and predictions don’t come true. the words “sin” and “objectification” are nearly identical in practice because neither are rationally defined by an external method, and instead are used to absorb anything that the user feels uncomfortable in response to, and then masquerades this as a universally applicable concept, not a personal preference. there is, of course, nothing wrong with being uncomfortable. i encourage everyone to speak up about things that make them uncomfortable, with the understanding that your discomfort does not generate an obligation in other people to cater to it. what is wrong, however, is lying. claims of objectification are dishonest, because objectification is not defined by any objective standard, just like pejoratives. since there are no objective standards for detecting objectification, any claims of objectification are dishonest because no proof is possible until there are objective and testable hypothesis for determining the presence of objectification. for a better explanation of why it is a lie, see my article about the dishonesty of pejoratives. so if claims of objectification are dishonest, what is the incentive for their use? here is a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis: benefits: 1. causes man to feel moral dilemma over being attracted to a woman, thus pausing his pursuit. if he is a good man, he will take a while to process this moral dilemma, or he may disregard the claim, because he does not know what is meant by objectification. 2. woman eliminates what she believes to be the source of her discomfort in the short term. 3. woman discovers a short-term degree of power to mitigate the amount of attention she receives. costs: 1. a good man will continue to be confused about whether or not his own attraction is objectification or not, possibly causing long-term harm to other romantic investments. 2. man associates the confusion with the woman, instead of the foggy concept of objectification. 3. the woman drives away good men who can detect this strategy. after this strategy is foiled, she must either invest in a new social group or a new strategy for mitigating male attention. what are your thoughs? do you have anything to add or correct?

How offensive can something be until it becomes funny? This video holds the answer.

OLD

There is a petition at Change.Org with over 83,000 signatures to get Roosh's books banned from Amazon's website. https://www.change.org/p/amazon-com-amazon-stop-selling-rooshv-daryush-valizadeh-rape-books?recruiter=49965476&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-no_msg&fb_ref=Default Frankly, I've grown very weary of all the man shaming in this world. I am a victim of rape, genital mutilation, gender segregation, violence, and worst of all, the lies of feminist-Marxist culture. I am a man, and I am not afraid to fight back. I will not be cowed into keeping my head down and my mouth shut! I will be buying a copy of every single one of Roosh V.'s books in a show of male solidarity. Let's fight the lies of the social justice warriors! Who is with me? Who has the bravery to stand up for your gender? WAKE UP MEN!