M is for Men Are Good

This shouldn't be a shocking message.
This shouldn't be a new message.
This shouldn't be a radical message that must be suppressed.

But it is the name of a website that I just discovered, via 'Angry Harry', that details that exactly this message is being actively supressed.

Go, start Here and read, and remember, Men ARE Good.


My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

P is for Protect Yourself

Another problem that presents itself to men in divorce and separation is what happens when you lose you job.

You can find yourself building up arrears while your ex collects 65% of your unemployment, and sues you, claiming you aren't searching hard enough for the next job. When you get the next job, she may sue you claiming that this job pays lower than it should have because you didn't do an adequate search. And the odds of being sued in these ways are high, because traditionally, the man (whups, the 'presumed higher wage earner') pays for the lawyers fees. So she's got nothing at stake.

To protect yourself you need to keep a record of who you sent your resumes to, who you spoke to, and what kind of networking and investigations you did in hunting for your job. You also need to track salary information for these jobs (if available), locations you looked in, job titles and the like.

And this isn't a joke - the burden of proof in one of these cases does not fall upon the accuser - the woman - it falls upon the support-payer; the man.

It is up to you to prove that you are doing or did do an adequate search to the court, and show where you searched and how.

I have been there, and I know.

They want to see how many folks you contacted, if you followed up, and where the jobs were located, and are liable to parse this data closely. It's a big deal. And if you fail to prove that your job hunt was sufficient, then you get the joy of 'imputed income', which is where the court pretends, for its calculations that you are making your old income. (i.e. when the facts don't allow you to come up with your insane support numbers, just plug in the pretend facts that will help. Nice.)

BLATANT PLUG:

So to deal with this documentation/job search issue I use a job networking tool that has good job-hunt reporting, called 'The Job Networking Assistant', from Anonymous Developments, who have just rolled out their latest version. The software costs a big $20, and automates your job search and networking efforts in a way few tools can. It autodials, generates professional-looking customizable emails, pulls up maps of job locations, tracks referrals, and a lot more. Upgrades are free, and revisions generally roll out every couple months. If you are a divorced person hunting for a job, this may be the best $20 you ever spent.

The standard version of the software is available for download as a free trial - just follow the link here.

Oh, and I get a big piece of the action, so do buy it and use it - it's good for networking, even if you haven't lost your job or aren't divorced or separated!


My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

R is for Reading List

As new voices emerge, it is good to remember where we started from.

Below find Youtube links for an interview based upon Warren Farrell's 'The Myth of Male Power'. Warren comes from a different generation than I, a generation that lived with more of the positive aspects of women's liberation.

I live in a world where those aspects have been digested, legalized and are assumed. If a woman wants a job, wants to join the team, wants equal pay for equal work - she gets it, and has a legal basis for it, and legal recourse if she doesn't get it. But negative aspects of feminism have balooned, and at the expense of men, and few of the old inequities have been redressed.

So it is very worthwhile listening to Warren - and remembering that since this interview, things have gotten much, much worse for men. Warren saw a brave new recasting of the gender roles that liberated both sexes emerging. Instead we have a brave new world of male servitude, second-class citizenry, and slavery, with women having all the options and men having all the state-enforced obligations.

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 2/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 3/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 4/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 5/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 6/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 7/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 8/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 9/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 10/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 11/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 12/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 13/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 14/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 15/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 16/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 17/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 18/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 19/19

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Y is for Yawning

Don't say I'm cheap. Even if I am. :)

If you don't read anything else today, go read Yawning at Hofstra at A Voice for Men.

Brilliant Excerpt:

Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.”

Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.

You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.

And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?"

Hey, look Hot Air is onto the Hofstra misandry too, with a must read article entitled: Making Children Of Women

Excerpt:

We’ve come to this weird place in our history where women become babies instead of have them. It’s all about choices - but not about consequences. Rights, but not responsibilities. When a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to kill the baby (or if you’re squeamish, terminate the pregnancy.) Repeatedly, in one case. Or she can choose to claim a goodly percentage of the man’s income for the next 18 years. Women have reproductive choices, men have obligations.

Read the Whole Thing

Related: Falsely accused Hofstra Senior: “Thank God I Filmed It.” Oh yeah, because clearly the testimony of one skank is worth much more than that of five men. Oh, Lookie! we have a name for the young (struggling for a new, appropriate adjective here) woman: Danmell Ndonye.

Excerpt from The Gothamist:

The aunt of falsely accused Kevin Taveras told the Post that when Ndonye was split up from her boyfriend at an on-campus party, she and [Kevin] "started making out, and she said to him, 'Do you want to come back to my dorm?' He said, 'I have friends here with me,' and she said, 'Bring 'em along. It'll be hot.' It started from there. The point is she knew what she was doing... Stalin said to her, 'Are you sure about this?' She said, 'Yeah, sure, I want to.'" (Link)

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

W is for Why D'Ja Spoze...

There have been a number of articles on the much heavier impact of the current economic disaster on men than women. The Rights of Man directs us to a UK report that shows the impact on married/cohabiting men is twice that of women.

And why d'ja spoze that is? Why do you suppose that men are more than twice as likely to find themselves unemployed than women?

Is there any chance that it is because many of the jobs women fill are entitlement jobs, government jobs, you-can't-be-fired-from-this-one jobs, and she-has-something-on-the-boss jobs? Make-work jobs and no-show jobs? Service jobs that require just a bit less, but must be done come heck-or-high-water?

D'Ja Spoze?

But as we contemplate the reality of numbers like those in the graph here, there are others who say things like:

"In the early '70s, breaking out of the domestic cocoon, leaving their mothers' circumscribed lives behind, young women felt exhilarated and bold. But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved." Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2009.*

and

"Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man [sic]." Michelle Obama, First Lady (Hat tip for graph and quotes - American Thinker)


If it is so terrible to be a woman, than why d'ja spose the real numbers all seem to indicate something else? Why is it that 2/3rds of all male suicides are divorced or separated, and why is it that that number is almost exactly equal to the difference between the male and female suicide rate?

Why D'Ja Spoze?

The First Lady should know better, but perhaps in the echo chamber she lives in, she can't hear anything but the vaporings of NOW.

On the other hand Dowd is truly tone-deaf. She works in the news industry and should know that men are dying in the streets - but here she is wringing her hands about her ennui. Disgusting.

Update: Novaseeker dissects Dowd and her ennui gap here.

Brilliant line from Novaseeker: There are more widows, Maureen, in large part because men die younger than women do, and die much more often at work than women do. It's hardly a romantic advantage later in life if you are dead.

From my comment on Novaseeker's post:

Dowd is blindingly awful. How disgusting that she blathers on about her lack of happiness, her ennui, when 3x the number of men are dying of suicide as women, when men are dying earlier and in larger numbers from poor health care, when men's deaths make up 90+ percent of hazardous job deaths.
[...]
When we see black people dying in this way we attribute it to racism. I say that when men die earlier and in greater numbers, it is a result of genderism that fails to care for their needs, that drives them into dangerous jobs, and kills them off early. All while women like Dowd whine about their ennui. (spit)

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.


* I won't link the NYT or Dowd because they live in such a world of propaganda, and I don't want to send traffic their way. Probably I shouldn't link Whitehouse.Gov for the same reasons. But you can find the Dowd link at American Thinker here if you want to go wallow in it. I think you have to register to read her swill. But Novaseeker has a lot of it.

p.s. Welcome Novaseeker to the blogroll.

B is for Back in the Slammer

"She called me, and we're going back to court" related the lawyer.

"We'll make a motion, and the judge will go for it and he'll be tossed back in the slammer."

"And he's not a bad guy, he isn't mean or abusive, or intentionally delinquent, he's just out of work. He's a business suit kind of guy. A manager, and he can't get anything."

"I try and tell her that you can't get blood out of a stone, and that she's wasting her money on me doing these motions, but she doesn't care. Every few months we do it again, like clockwork.

He gets out, more arrears build up, and she gets me to toss him back in."

"You'd think the judges might 'get it' but they don't. It's the system. I figure eventually she will see the argument of diminishing returns, and then it will stop."

There you have it. More or less exact words from a lawyer, about to throw an honestly unemployed man back into jail, for not forking money he doesn't have over to a well-heeled woman who can afford to torment him and keep him in jail.

Yet another case of legal gynocracy. Peonage. Debt servitude. Debtor's prison. Slavery. You name it.

And in today's economy, doubly depressing. More and more men are in this position today. Probably more than ever before. But the law says that the man is guilty. Guilty under all circumstances. Guilty until proven innocent.

Fall late on your payments, and you are guilty of violating the plaintiff's RIGHTS. She has a RIGHT to your money, even when you have none. And not paying is a jailable offense.

Remember that this is what marriage can be, and for many, many men, what it is.

Back in the slammer with you now...

Welcome to the Gynocracy.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

M is for Manifestos - unpub

In the Men's Right's world, there are a lot of proposed Manifestos or Bills of Rights, and I thought it would be interesting and useful to bring them together.

H is for Help - as in SHE Needs Help +Update!

If you haven't seen this article by Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein, it's time to take your eyes for a walk over to MSN Lifestyle, where they relate the story of David Woods:

Bleeding from the neck from a knife wound delivered by his violent wife, David, a partially disabled ex-Marine is cuffed, and treated like a violent offender.

Only when his children come crying to his defense, and - out of his presence - are able to convince a female sheriff's deputy what really happened, is he uncuffed, and the police begin to treat him like someone other than the offender.

So what happens next? Does his wife go to jail? Certainly assault with a deadly weapon is a felony?

No, instead the officers say that, "She needs help", and direct David to call the emergency mental health line for her health insurance policy.

Those Police, Always So Helpful!

Bye Guys! It's Been Nice! Stop By Anytime!

David notes: "Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue."

-And they think SHE Needs Help.

No, I think SHE is getting all the help she needs.

Enabling, Misandrist Help.

Howabout giving David and his children a hand, and locking this woman up?

It is interesting that the wife here actually makes a habit of accusing David of criminal and violent behavior against her. Accusing him of what she is actually guilty of. Something I think a few of us are familiar with...

And in case someone wanders by, and claims that men ARE usually the perpetrator, hey, it's time for a trip to the CDC, which just released a study indicating when violence is one-sided, women are the perpetrator 70-freaking-percent of the time, and when violence was reciprocal, women were most likely to have struck first.

Do go read the rest of the article.

Update:

And don't we hear an echo of this in the Hofstra False Rape case? The men's reputations and families were dragged through the mud... but the young woman? "Authorities have not released the accuser's name, saying they are concerned over her safety." -And; "Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help."

Want to get really enraged? Listen to the harpie feminist DA who claims 'no crime occurred', and seems to think the important thing is that they 'got her to admit the truth', and she somehow thinks that this 'put an end to this injustice'. How about THIS injustice? It is true that her community 'has real victims of sexual assault'. FALSELY ACCUSED MEN. How about some charges for the criminal in this case? (Hat tip Misandry Review.)

More Misandrist, Enabling Help for the Offending Women. More Abuse for the Men.

Update Update: Yet another example? Merced cops toss an unarmed, legless man out of his wheelchair, removing his pants in the process, snatch his 2-year-old daughter, and drag him off to jail, all on the claim of his wife that he punched her in the stomach 3 times. But lookie lookie, as you read through, you find the wife not quite so innocent: "Police took Phifer, Williams' wife, into custody during the incident on an outstanding $10,000 misdemeanor warrant for domestic violence." (on page 3) Hmmm, any bets as to who was the real violent offender? No word on how many times they tazed Phifer. "Recounting the experience, Williams broke into tears. "How much resisting am I going to do with no legs? No feet?" he wept. "It's ridiculous what they did to me. How far am I gonna run? Where am I gonna go?""

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

F is for Feminized Field-Day

For some reason was thinking about 'Field-Day' the other day.

Now, I assume everyone knows what this is, and maybe they don't: 'Field Day' is a day of sports activity held at the end of the school year for school children - usually K-6, back in the days before they invented Middle School. (Why DID they do that anyway? Just so they could have more administrative slots?)

Anyway at Field Day, you did all of the different sports you were interested in - anyone could compete, and there were 'first, second and third/blue, red and yellow' ribbons for the winners from each grade.

There was a 100m dash, and longer runs, and relay races, and the broad jump, and the 'hop, skip and jump', and silly things like 3-legged races and wheelbarrow races. It was loads of fun.

Anyway, I now have my own kids, and attend and sometimes volunteer at the modern 'Feminized' Field Day. It is unrecognizable. First of all, it isn't held at a field. Not that no fields are available, it just wasn't that sort of thing. See now, at least for where my kids went to school, 'Field Day' is about social education.

It is about 'stop smoking', or 'drug avoidance' or 'save the earth' or 'gang awareness' or something. And there is some limited physical activity, but all just taking kids through the motions of avoiding the ciggies and dodging the pusher.

But nothing competetive. No. You go through the motions, and then line up for the next activity. Not that the kids minded hugely, it was a break from the routine, and they got to be a little physical, and get some of their energy out playing silly games.

The first time I helped at one of these things, I was like, 'OK, what do the winners get...' and I got stared at. EVERYONE is a winner. We don't give out prizes. OOHHHH.

Because competition is bad. Winning is bad. No we should prepare our children to live in a non-competetive world where the few who work take care of the rest of us.

OK, Let me know how that works out.

- Oh, wait. We're living it now, - with an economy destroyed by housing entitlements and government control of industry and banking - and soon, if we're lucky, healthcare.
...I can hardly wait.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

S is for Statistics

Back in 2006, I posted a review of sentencing of men vs women by our courts entitled H is for Happy (it was the New Year). I like sentencing stats - they reflect the actual functioning of the courts, and hint to us at the injustices that might be happening in other parts of the process.

My intent was to discover if the evidence of our eyes was true, and if women in general were getting a whole different kind of justice when they went to court.

The numbers were shocking - across the board, women were recieving much shorter sentences - about 40% shorter than what was doled out to men. And it of course leads you to wonder what kind of biases are occuring in the arrest, trial and probation phases.

Well, I thought it was time to re-visit this question, and I found a nifty and huge government database to work against:

United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics Program: Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act, 2007 [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR24232-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-02-23. doi:10.3886/ICPSR24232

Apparently they turn one of these out every year or did up to '07. You can download your copy here, (registration required) but the dataset is kind of large, and unless you have a recent copy of excel and/or are pretty good with databases, this isn't fun. Happily, I love this kind of thing and so:

I took the data, which is at an individual level, and first determined the average sentence length by gender: The average woman was sentenced to a 59% shorter sentence than the average man, with the average sentence (across all offenses) for a man being 57 months, and the average sentence for a woman being 23 months.

If men and women are really committing the same crimes, this already givs us significant evidence of bias, but let's compare apples with apples. The database gives us the primary offense, and we can break the data down by that:

The following list outlines, per the data that you can download and work with yourself, the percentages less (or more) that women are sentenced for the exact same crime as men:

51% 1 Murder
43% 2 Manslaughter
37% 3 Kidnapping/Hostage
68% 4 Sexual Abuse
34% 5 Assault
57% 6 Bank Robbery
24% 9 Arson
47% 10 Drugs: Trafficking
50% 11 Drugs: Communicatn facilities
81% 12 Drugs: Simple possession
54% 13 Firearms: Use & possess
(21%) 15 Burg/Breaking & Entering
14% 16 Auto Theft
57% 17 Larceny
45% 18 Fraud
46% 19 Embezzlement
49% 20 Forgery/Counterfeiting
40% 21 Bribery
14% 22 Tax offenses
40% 23 Money laundering
62% 24 Racktring (includes extortion)
100% 25 Gambling/Lottery
41% 26 Civil rights offenses
51% 27 Immigration
43% 28 Pornography/Prostitution
32% 29 Offenses in prisons
60% 30 Administration of justice
117% 31 Environmental offenses
34% 32 National defense offenses
100% 33 Antitrust violations
(253%) 34 Food and drug offenses
63% 35 Traffic violations

And now it is possible to calculate how much less, on average, by crime, a woman is sentenced to than a man: 40%. Note that there are only two (2) areas in which women's sentences exceed men's.

Now perhaps the sentences being meted out to women are appropriate, and those given to men are out of line. With this nifty database to hand, I can calculate how many excess years are being doled out to men per primary offense, and the number is.... for 2007...

(drum roll please)

142,036.17 years.

Think of that, 142,036.17 years of productive male effort flushed away in the US court system just in 2007, - because men are not viewed as being as worthy of mercy as women.

Think what you could achieve with an army of 142,036 men working for you for a year! Even if these are difficult, or slothful men, a lot could be done! But it is necessary to lock them away, because, as you know,

...they just aren't women....

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M


p.s.

While I was in the neighborhood, and with the HBD/VDare/BNP/Bio-Cons and the like in the back of my mind, I wondered what the stats would say about Blacks as opposed to Whites in the courts.

And those who are Black do suffer from bias in some big-ticket items - murder (your average White gets a 7.3 year sentence according to the data, but your average Black gets 23 years), Manslaugter (Whites get a 23% discount), Arson (51% discount), and Drug Posession (75%!).

But the balance tips the other way for white-collar crimes, and the sentencing balances out around 4% in favor of the Black Man if you average across offenses. Whites are beaten up for Embezzelment -75%, Gambling -296%, Civil Rights Offenses -181%, and the like.

I guess that judges and prosecutors get 'fed up' with certain crimes in certain communities and races and sentence those extra hard, thinking that that will make a difference. Or perhaps certain crimes occurr more predominately in different communities, and repeat offenders get whacked. The data is there to parse that out if anyone is interested.

It's also fair to note that the things that blacks are being sentenced with carry much longer terms than what whites get sentenced with, but, you know, I am running a Men's Rights blog here, not a generic Civil Rights blog. If some Civil Rights guy wants to dig down on this data, and isn't technical enough to mince the data properly, I'd be glad to help.

Heck, maybe a grant could be written. :)

There might be grant money for studying how the court system screws BLACK men.
(Bitter? Me? Nooooooooooooooooo)

pps - had a brain spasm and typed 'years' instead of 'months' as the units for the average sentences in the 7th paragraph above. This has been fixed. In years (for those who can't divide by 12) it is 4.8 years for average male sentence, and 1.97 for average female sentence. The ratio remains the same, of course, with women getting a 59% discount on average. The other numbers (like the excess years men serve) did not suffer this problem.

B is for Blogging

I've gone to a nifty blog-listing tool on the left that gives you the blogs I link to in order of their last update, and their most recent post's title. Very Exciting.

Also scary again to me how bloggers in the MRA world turn over, fade out, et-cetera. Saddening to look at a good blog that has been un-updated for half a year... Did they go ghost? Are they just up to their necks? (Usually the case with me). Did they give up ranting about the system - or just give up? Did they kill themselves? One wonders.

-M

W is for Worried

Another couple interesting elements in the emergent Men's Interests world are the Bio-Cons and HBD aka 'Human BioDiversity'.

If I understand the Men's Interests argument of the former (the Bio-Cons), it is that there was something biological or 'natural' about the old social constructs - they gave 'beta males' - that is, the average dudes out there (and that means all of us at one point or other, in my opinion) - a way to succeed. One woman was bound to one man, and needed that man to make her routine work.

Overturning the basic social framework with easy divorce, sex-without-responsibilities, abortion on demand, government supports for single motherhood, and governmental divorce structures that leave men destroyed and women empowered disrupts our society. Suddenly the nuclear family is less common, and men are avoiding marriage as women are running for their marriage exit and alimony/support check.

OK, all of that is from my/a Men's Rights worldview, but try this definition on for size: (Source)

Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism"), is a stance of hesitancy about biotechnological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a social order.
Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular. Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious and cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category.
Bioconservative skepticism toward biomedical and other particular technological developments often is, but need not always be, part of a more general technophobic perspective or critique of technological society. Bioluddism represents a more radical and sweeping anti-biotechnological perspective.

So whichever of those you go with, or some cross-pollination of the two, fine. And see here and here for more on Bio-Conservatism.

But what worries and scares me is the HBD movement - Human BioDiversity - which is linked with Bio-Conservatism and which claims that the major differences between folks are not so much individual differences, but racial or genetic differences between major groups and genders.

And even if that was true, the formation of a movement around this idea worries me.

Because I think that HBD may often be a cover-word for racism - in fact, when you drill down on the bloggers involved, like Steve Sailer and Chris Brand you start seeing that they are participants in VDare, and the BNP and the like. (For more reading see here, and this post, (hm, <- this blogger also reads Roissy - and studies game))

Now I love my race like I love my gender, but even if we have good evidence that different races and genders are practically different, I don't want them treated differently by our country, and I worry that this is where focusing on this will get us.

Our founding fathers here in the states insisted that every citizen be treated equally, and that is because that is the only practical way to govern a democracy, and the only way to recognize and honor the spirit placed in us by our creator. It is also a capitalistic and legal principle that allows the truly talented to actually benefit from the work of their hands.

I want to fight for elimination of bias of all sorts - favoritism by gender, race, faith - our government should have no part of bias, and a revolution that enshrines our differences and tips the tables in favor of those who are seen as 'better' would create a new slavery, a new oppressed class, and set the stage for yet more revolution, chaos and bloodshed.

Anyway, I'm worried. I'm worried because our country, and our world is in a period of stress, and some of these new social movements that are popping up and being linked to the Men's movement on the web concern me.

I think men need to stay focused on fighting for their personal and group rights - if that means going ghost, fine - if that means going Galt, great (interesting how alike they can be) - if that means working together to break the logjam of of abusive anti-male government legislation - wonderful.

But let's not get distracted by the evil-ly tempting specter of racism and bias, and those who would look to slide them into our movement.

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

G is for 'Girl' ?

Apparently when it comes down to balls, Caster Semenya has them.



If you haven't heard this story, in a nutshell, here we have a world-class 'female' athlete, who was challenged because 'she' for all practical purposes, appeared to be a man.



But that wasn't as far as it went. No, in fact, when push came to shove, here we have a 'gal' who packs two testicles tucked away inside her body, and has essentially no practical girl-parts at all.



Now, I'm all for male-ness, and I think it is great that Caster is a guy. But in fact, she chose to identify as a woman. And mostly I'm also fine with that, too - you want to call yourself 'Wendy' or 'Sheila' or whatever and wear dresses and makeup sometimes, go for it.



But when you aren't honest about your true nature in places where it makes a difference - potential intimate partners or sports, for example, well, that's another matter.



I mean, who wants to discover at the point of groping, or getting down, or shagging, or whatever, that the person you are with is of a totally different gender than you thought, and has a completely different reproductive package going on than what you had hoped for. I mean that's just not fair.



And one would think that by the time one got to the world-class level in sports, one might have noticed, between all the physicals and such, that one wasn't really a girl.


Not that the 'shemale sports' angle is new. Back in the day Russia was famous for marketing things as 'women' in the Olympics whose bodies had seen more testosterone than most men could ever dream of their wee lumpkins producing.



But when you think about it, in this unisex world we live in, where silly politicians insist that genders be funded equally and have equal opportunity - unless it hurts the man - here is a prime example of a gender difference.



Why do we segregate the sexes in running, in swimming, in the various physical competitions?



It's because women, quite simply don't measure up. Our species is sexually dimorphic. Or in English - boys are different than girls. And not just in what we carry about in our pants. We are taller, stronger, faster, and for whatever reason, a bit sharper about practical things like geometry and math, when not held back by feminized schools.



And if women want to have any fun - if they want to win in competitive sports, men and things that are genetically male must be kept out.



Oh there is the occasional woman who can compete with the boys, and being all Aristotelean and stuff, these extrordinary women are often allowed to compete as an exception - at least at the high-school level.



But men aren't allowed to compete in women's events. That just wouldn't be fair to the poor ladies.



Because we're different. Because we're better.



And that's good to remember, while the state, the workplace and society tilt the tables again, and again, and again in favor of the woman - it's good to remember that there's a reason. It's because they can't compete in a fair fight.



Not that it isn't unfair to put us in the position that men find themselves in today.
It is unfair. Very unfair.



But it's good to be different. It's good to be male.





Now - back to finding a way out of the gynocentric rat-trap.





Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.



My Best To You In Your Struggles



-M

G is for Game

Heard of 'Game'? Know what a PUA is? Know who Roissy is?

See, I'm a bit older than some, and was happy to catch my second wind (i.e. become separated from my ex) when I was flush with income and working in a big city, in circles with a lot of lovely women, -oh, and mostly I love to just chat with folks. So I didn't need 'Game', I had natural (or un-natural) 'Game'. (If you have money, and a gift for a bit of gab, what else do you need?)

But for those of you who just tuned in, and to whom these words are odd, let me bring you as up to speed as I can.

Apparently, in 2005, a book called 'The Game' by Neil Strauss was published that told a purportedly non-fictional/autobiographical tale of a man's indoctrination and ascent in a society of 'Pick Up Artists' (PUAs) - becoming an expert - who was eventually christened 'Style' (His mentor had the moniker 'Mystery'). Here's the wiki writeup, go read it, I'll wait.

Funny thing is, the whole thing reeks to me of the '70s and leisure suits, but it probably seems that way to me because I actually remember the '70s and leisure suits - and is a sign that this kind of thing has been going on for a long time now, and this is just the latest incarnation - perhaps a slightly more technical one, which relates to our increasingly complex way of living.

So basically, what Game tries to be, if I haven't missed the key points, is to treat relationships between men and women like a game, and to adjust one's actions and inputs so as to achieve certain goals - in this case, getting the woman in question into your bed - but perhaps also to engineer your relationship in such a way as to achieve maximum ongoing satisfaction.

Anyway, I am noticing more and more about 'Game' in the MRA (Men's Rights Activism) world, (like here at Oz Conservative, and here at In Mala Fide) and I think it is an expression of some people who are following to a degree the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) paradigm. PUAs/Gamers are looking to achieve sexual satisfaction, without having to live into the standard roles that society sets for men: Alpha Male, or Wage Slave.

For a summary of Game, perhaps here is a good place to look.

Oh and Roissy? I read him as a gamer, but kind of famous, and with a game plan that can extend to longer term relationships, although his view of women is, naturally, not the most positive in the universe. (Yeah, I know; 'pot, meet kettle' - but can you blame us?) Look here for a proposed Roissy Manifesto.

What does gaming look like? Well here is a brief vid of Love Systems on Tyra Banks providing a few pointers to an awkward young fellow. Not real gaming, but you start to get an idea.

Now, there are those who criticize 'Gaming' the system from a couple points of view:

1) Isn't it unethical to pretend to be someone you are not/act in unusual ways to get somewhere with a woman - isn't it misleading?
2) Isn't this bad for the men involved, and our culture?

Now I can hear both of these criticisms, and I relate. On #1, it seems to me, a real man would be himself, no? On the other hand, when faced with a blatantly unfair 'game' where the other participants are not being anywhere near themselves (lipstick? blush? perfume? hair removal?) and are liable/likely to revert to a much scarier form once they 'have' you, perhaps 'Game' is very defensible. Especially when the culture/system we are playing into punishes long term relationships by USUALLY taking half of your assets, and potentially half of your income, and your progeny.

Wait, I saw a good comment on this lately... ...here it is, on View from the Right:

While I don't subscribe to Roissyism, I understand the viewpoint.
The only thing the modern American (Western) girl has to offer me is sex. Which I'm not willing to pay more for than a tequila shot and a lie to the face. After the fact, what does she have to offer?

Is she going to be my life partner? No. Is she going to be my helpmate? No. Is she going to be the mother to my children? No.

Then she isn't worth 50 percent. She certainly isn't deserving of presumptive paternity (20 percent for 18 years for some bastard that isn't even mine).

We live in a culture that encourages divorce, out of some misguided need to liberate women from the "oppression" of marriage. And we have a legal system that rewards women for divorce.

Why do you think the divorce rate is so high? Why do you think that over 70 percent of divorces are filed by women, after only a few years? Why do you think it is that 1/3 of the paternity tests performed prove that the husband is not the father of the child? It couldn't possibly be that the culture and legal system make it profitable for women to divorce their husbands and commit infidelity, could it?

She gets a title, a house, a bank account, income, insurance, and guaranteed child support (regardless of who the biological father is). He gets a roommate and obligatory sex, on occasion.

Is there any other legal contract whereby one party can arbitrarily change her mind, for no reason and without penalty, and walk away with half of everything? No.

Is there any other legal contract whereby one party is required to pay child support for a third person who is not party to the contract, because the second party ran around behind his back? No.

Change the culture and change the law, if you want marriage to mean anything.

Change the culture so that women are held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. Change the law so that the biological father is responsible for child support.

Unless you do that, marriage is a loser's contract for a man. Until such time, the best strategy is simply to buy her a tequila shot, lie to her face, have sex with her once, then dump her in the morning before she wakes up. Replace her with another bar slut the next night.

Which brings me to point #2 - what is the net effect of 'Game' on society? Isn't it bad? I suspect it is probably bad, but I think it is unavoidable. To the degree that long term relationships with women are dangerous, men are going to persue short-term relationships instead.

This isn't even a necessary part of 'Game', just how it can be, and often is used.

And this goal, the 'short term relationship' as the commenter above posited, is driven by the strong natural drive for sex, the danger of relationships, and also by the (sometimes accurate, sometimes not) perception of the women we meet as shallow, grasping and not worth our time - not worth the time of a long-term relationship - especially in view of the cost.

But even placing the blame for the effects of 'Gaming' for short term relationships where it belongs, what are the likely effects?

• Men become outwardly more adapted to charming and bedding women quickly.
• Probably more women will have children without any apparent father.
• Men will probably more often live lives that are freer of encumbrances, at least until they actually fall in love.
• Marriages will become more rare.
• Men will wait for someone who is worth committing to, rather than seeing ''sex" as being the same as "marriage".
• Perhaps, just perhaps, women will find ways to sweeten the pot - making marriage worthwhile to suitors. Dowries are seen as a primitive concept, but in a world where women can steal 'legitimately' half of a man's posessions, and enslave him for life, if a woman came to the marriage with a significant pool of assets herself that was turned over to the man, then marriage might be more attractive.

Hmmmm - seems like some of these things are happening already.

I think some form of 'Game' is natural in the relationship space, and has gone on forever. The real change is in men's realization of how deadly serious the 'Game' has become - it has changed our goals, and it is changing our culture.

And what do I think of the 'Game' providers/consultants who charge thousands to help men buff their 'game'? Sounds like a lot of money, but is it really any different that an 'image consultant' or a 'career coach'? If you have the bucks, and you think it will help, give it a shot. I'd start by reading the source materials, and saving my money. :)

Your comments and thoughts are welcome - please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Update: Good grief: THL (a contributor to this blog) has already been big in the Roissy world, and I didn't know it. I have to set up a blog reader or something. OY! I noticed that he had gone Galt (a little background, also here), but he has also gone Truther! It's a messed up world! I don't share his trutherism views, but I want to know how to go Galt in my own life. Really. It's kind of like an economic MGTOW.