Post: #1

What do you think of this article?

It's (IMO) an interesting look at how masculinity is viewed by more traditional minded women. It's not quite the outright contempt that feminist pour on men, but it's still not a view I really find flattering (i.e. men as obedient workers who need to be "trained").

It's certainly worth a read though.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/feminism-has-...rotectors/

Post: #2

It is post menopausal, fem centric thinking.

Remember, the least valuable member of the tribe is a post menopausal woman. One of the aspects of pair bonding is to have someone who gives a shit about a woman once her eggs have dried up.

It is why both fathers AND mothers wouldn't let a pre menopausal female pick their own husbands, they both knew the hamster would have them pick a mate who would dump them and leave them unable to fend for themselves, which is "can't".

Pairing them off with a man who would stay with them, even after her value sunk to zero was in her best interests, even if at the time she's young, hot and tight she didn't know it.

Now, they can be alone and unwanted, and that's what equality feels like.

Post: #3

(09-14-2014 09:11 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  What do you think of this article?

It's (IMO) an interesting look at how masculinity is viewed by more traditional minded women. It's not quite the outright contempt that feminist pour on men, but it's still not a view I really find flattering (i.e. men as obedient workers who need to be "trained").

She got a few points right, but seeing men as unable to protect them against "barbarians at the gate" is simple war-mongering Republican crap.

The military is still highly masculine as well as the Police force. In some units they even get TRT for free (know it for some Police units). The divorce rate and suicides in the US military is just through the roof, but that is another matter. No one would underestimate the US military. And frankly this time around the global elite pretty much controls everything in the world including Russia and China. The Islamists are self-fabricated, armed and set loose only on selected targets. There are likely so many secret agents in their ranks, that they could be wiped out within weeks if the US truly wanted. The US soldiers are not pussies - I have met plenty of 40+ guys who could crush me within seconds and their eyes show that they have seen shit.

She is right on the belittling of men and the emasculation of the average male - but the real enemy is within the official control apparatus which serves only the plutocracy. Those men will unlikely rebel against real tyranny. I do not see a rapid meltdown and chaos, but there might be flashmobs and riots and those women will miss masculine men who might have defended them in the past.

The barbarians this time are the ones within and they have already stormed the country. They have destroyed the healthy independent society and there is no one stopping them in the future - without strong men - women are at the mercy of a totalitarian state.

Post: #4

Chemtrails, Haarp, grays, groom lake, Building 7, thermite.

Would you like some fries with that Bilderberberger?

Post: #5

(09-14-2014 10:57 AM)getswole Wrote:  Chemtrails, Haarp, grays, groom lake, Building 7, thermite.

Would you like some fries with that Bilderberberger?

Keep it civil, will ya? And before you throw me into some kind of pot take a look at Carroll Quigley's books (historian for the CFR), Antony Sutton and the Congressional Reece comission on foundations.

Post: #6

Guess it's all about context my friend. I'm a combat vet, an Oathkeeper, a CCW'er, A Rifleman and I own a fully off-the-grid retreat in one of the few places in CONUS that is safe from just about everything. Unintended Consequences and the EF&D Series is on my bookshelf next to Cooper's Art of the Rifle and FM 21-76 among many, many others.

Does this change your view of my previous comment? In other words take a chill pill. T'was but a jab in the ribs.

(09-14-2014 11:37 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:57 AM)getswole Wrote:  Chemtrails, Haarp, grays, groom lake, Building 7, thermite.

Would you like some fries with that Bilderberberger?

Keep it civil, will ya? And before you throw me into some kind of pot take a look at Carroll Quigley's books (historian for the CFR), Antony Sutton and the Congressional Reece comission on foundations.

Post: #7

Short hair, don't care.

That woman has made herself look like a man, and complains no men will protect her.

Woman, I am the barbarian at the gate.

Post: #8

She's just another woman trying to cash in.

Look at how vocal and active women are becoming.

Pathetic men will give her a wider audience than men who have been fighting (and lost jobs and friends in the process) for years and decades.

I personally have no interest in what "anti-feminist" women have to say. Nor should other men who have put their necks out there and taken actual risks to speak truth to power.

Post: #9

I think this highlights a real point of contention between men and women in the current climate. It's the fact that being a woman doing whatever she wants in life, not answering to anyone is acceptable and often encouraged, but men have to be beasts of burden. If you want to be left alone as a man that's not acceptable. At 31, any woman that finds out I'm single feels compelled to try to set me up with some woman. However, the context of setting me up involves me having to take said friend of her's on a date and treating her special. One woman mentioned to me how her friend wants out of her current relationship and that I could be this friend's "out" so I should flirt with her. It's not my job to help some girl get out of a relationship, she can leave on her own.

Post: #10

"The Bilderburger" - the world's most powerful burger.

Post: #11

Not a bad article.

Here is what's telling about it: this call for traditionalism is now considered so radical it can only be run in World Net Daily. If you ran it in Newsweek, hipsters and the feminist lapdogs would throw tantrums.

One other thing:

"Men – trained, manly men – are necessary for a balanced society. They take on the tough ugly hard jobs women can’t or won’t do."

Unfortunately, those jobs were sent overseas. So all we do now is sit around and pick apart articles like this. Both parties and their ties to big business are to blame. Some of what's happened is economic in nature.

Post: #12

(09-14-2014 02:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Not a bad article.

Here is what's telling about it: this call for traditionalism is now considered so radical it can only be run in World Net Daily. If you ran it in Newsweek, hipsters and the feminist lapdogs would throw tantrums.

One other thing:

"Men – trained, manly men – are necessary for a balanced society. They take on the tough ugly hard jobs women can’t or won’t do."

Unfortunately, those jobs were sent overseas. So all we do now is sit around and pick apart articles like this. Both parties and their ties to big business are to blame. Some of what's happened is economic in nature.

Women - trained, feminine women - are also necessary for a balanced society. She missed that part.

Post: #13

(09-14-2014 01:31 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Short hair, don't care.

That woman has made herself look like a man, and complains no men will protect her.

Woman, I am the barbarian at the gate.

Love this, one time I heard a girl say, "Fight the patriarchy!"

I looked at her and said, "Girl, I AM the patriarchy!" The look on her face was hilarious.

Post: #14

What she says is technically true, but she is only saying it because of her own selfish reasons, without any insight or regret.

Repentance can only come when someone is genuinely sorry for what they did and acknowledges that they might have been wrong. She has done no such thing.

Post: #15

Feminists want to exploit us for our treasure-to strip men of the economic resources that men produce to a much greater degree than women

This woman and other new wave anti-feminists want to use us for our blood- to have us do the dangerous jobs and fight the wars while they reap the benefits without the risks

Nor do the anti-feminists want to give up the vote, have lesser property rights, lesser familial rights, lower wages, less job or educational opportunities, more behavioral restrictions or anything else to balance out the greater responsibility they want to impose on men.

They are just as anti-male as the feminists are, they are just sneakier about it. They are not our allies

Post: #16

She is offering a version of Esther Vilar's argument from The Manipulated Man.

I found it amusing that she barely stepped out of PC space by acknowledging that dangerous jobs and those that require heavy physical labor are disproportionately performed by men, but was careful not to mention the science and engineering fields, where the same is true, but mention of which is more non-PC than saying men dominate oil field jobs for good reason.

Post: #17

OK, let's break down just the first paragraph, which was so filled with facepalm that I dared not read further.

Quote:Specifically, I admire men who are controlled, confident and who fulfill their biological destiny as protectors and providers.

I wonder what would happen if men got it in their heads that they might enjoy living their lives without taking on the onerous "duty" of protecting and providing for an entitlement queen?

The people who write this stuff, and specifically the women who write this stuff are truly diabolical individuals. Let someone talk about "training" women to fulfill their "biological destiny" as (insert subjective soundbyte here), and find out how quickly these same people will shout that notion down.

Should women be "trained" to better fill their "biological destiny" as broodmares and homemakers? By whom? And who decides what the "biological destiny" of another human being should be? Patrice Lewis, I suppose, moron though she may be?

Make no mistake, these women are far, far worse than feminists, because at least the feminist is nominally opposed to gender roles. You can reason with certain feminists, most are our enemies only because they're smug idiots who don't recognize their own hypocrisy and lack the cognitive faculties for self analysis. But these tradcon losers knowingly and happily accept the freedom feminism has purchased for them, fairly or unfairly, while holding men to the same biological determinism they're committed to eradicating for females.

Quote:Men are essential for training boys to tame the testosterone and channel their natural strengths and aggressiveness in appropriate ways.

For the benefit of whom? Other women? What does appropriate mean in this context? Again, is it essential to train girls to channel their "natural strengths" in appropriate ways, or would that be viewed as oppressive to women?

Quote:Trained men are, in the words of columnist Dennis Prager, the glory of civilization. (It goes without saying that untrained men are its scourge, but that’s another column.)

The trouble with this author is that she throws around meaningless subjective words as though the meaning is clear to everyone else, such as "destiny," "trained," "untrained," "appropriate." For example, you have to define what is desirable in men before you can "train" them, and only failing that can you finally label them untrained and therefore a scourge.

Gentlemen, the fundamental reason the manosphere is here is exactly because everyone is trying to "train" you to be a better man, and we're here to discuss what we find desirable in ourselves without listening to these imbeciles prattle.

These people are not friends, these people are merely feminists who came to the realization that in a few years noone will remain to pay their bills and take care of them.

Post: #18

(09-14-2014 09:27 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  It is post menopausal, fem centric thinking.

Remember, the least valuable member of the tribe is a post menopausal woman. One of the aspects of pair bonding is to have someone who gives a shit about a woman once her eggs have dried up.

It is why both fathers AND mothers wouldn't let a pre menopausal female pick their own husbands, they both knew the hamster would have them pick a mate who would dump them and leave them unable to fend for themselves, which is "can't".

Pairing them off with a man who would stay with them, even after her value sunk to zero was in her best interests, even if at the time she's young, hot and tight she didn't know it.

Now, they can be alone and unwanted, and that's what equality feels like.

Bingo. Pair bonding was created for the benefit of women. Feminism has since tainted and destroyed the institution of marriage. So now spinsterhood is becoming more commonplace.

Post: #19

(09-14-2014 09:20 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  OK, let's break down just the first paragraph, which was so filled with facepalm that I dared not read further.

Quote:Specifically, I admire men who are controlled, confident and who fulfill their biological destiny as protectors and providers.

...

The people who write this stuff, and specifically the women who write this stuff are truly diabolical individuals. Let someone talk about "training" women to fulfill their "biological destiny" as (insert subjective soundbyte here), and find out how quickly these same people will shout that notion down.

Should women be "trained" to better fill their "biological destiny" as broodmares and homemakers? By whom? And who decides what the "biological destiny" of another human being should be? Patrice Lewis, I suppose, moron though she may be?
...

This is an excellent point Wadsworth! The article is even way worse than it seems. We are so fucking conditioned to hear men of being "trained" that if a woman shows a couple of valid arguments we hardly see that she used highly derogatory statements on men, that would never be accepted if applied on women.

Training their daughters to fulfill their biological destiny of being mothers & caretakers!

@Assman - you are completely right. She did not mention male intellectual superiority which she would not like. The uneven distribution of IQs that men have with the propensity to have way higher top-level men in addition to very different interests and intellectual infatuations make us men the by far more creative, innovative, technologically interested and also by far more risk-taking gender. Men are responsible for scientific advancement - that is how our dismorphic species is designed. More morons & aggressive psychopaths among us, but also by far more top scientists, explorers and doers and shakers of society - the latter men create civilization.

She glibly omitted that part, because working in the oil fields, emptying their trash and bombing some poor nation to the stone age as soldiers - those are the things she wants men to be used for. Best under the command of "competent" leaders like Hillary Clinton who had this to say about the killing of Gaddafi:





It would truly be paradise to be "trained" by leaders like Hillary to fulfill our biological imperative and be soldiers for that bitch, change the oil in her car and drive her shit around. Obviously that is all what we are good for even for seemingly anti-feminist women like these.

Post: #20

Old bitch should start up a Wife School first and produce trained women for us, before running her mouth on the lack of "trained" men.

Post: #21

You mean "trained" men to do women's bidding?

Post: #22

(09-14-2014 10:40 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The military is still highly masculine as well as the Police force.

Now, if only they did something about this feminism/progressiveism thing.