Are You that Frickin’ Stupid?

Seriously, MRAs are you really that ignorant? Claiming that you’re all the slaves of women just because women can vote and don’t have to register for the draft? This is pathetic on so many levels. Let me just get out of the way that I don’t think women should be making decisions regarding war or politics. As one blogger so rightly stated:

“Just for the record, I am against the draft for both men and women. Over the past decade, there have been literally millions of young men who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but chose not to fight in those wars; if every man who supported a war also fought in it, there would be no need for a draft. As a woman who has never had any intention of enlisting in the military, I don’t think it is my place to tell men that they should or shouldn’t go to war, which is why I have neither supported nor opposed the recent wars. War is the purview of men: barring extreme circumstances, ie, the U.S. being taken over by Nazis, women should stay out of it.”

With that out of the way, I wonder if MRAs actually have any knowledge of politics at all Citizens do not have the power to declare war. Citizens do not vote whether or not to go to war. Only Congress has the power to declare war. The President may be Commander in Chief, but even he cannot declare war (although there have been conflicts with exactly what his Constitutional rights are in this area, as is exemplified with recent wars and military action). The vast majority of those in Congress are male and we have never had a female president. In fact, the 113th Congress is only 19% female. In fact, if you know anything about history at all you would know that the first woman elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin in 1916 (yes ladies women were in politics long before women’s lib), was the only Congress member who actually voted against WWI. The nature of women hasn’t change all that much since then. Even our armed forces are less than 20% female and they are all concentrated in the “softer” branches. As for feminists? They want to see women slaughtered on the battlefield and drafted right along with the men. The same with our children. They want women to lose custody so they aren’t “stuck” with the kids and are freed up to compete with men in jobs and politics.

So, cut the crap already. You are not “anti-feminist.” You MRAs are as feminist as the bra-burning, no shaving/bathing radials of the 1970s. You want to blame someone for the “custody wars” and resistance to combat duty/draft for females then blame us every day, ordinary people. Blame us ordinary mothers, blame us ordinary, everyday people who actually have some common sense and quit your whining. At the rate you waxed, coiffed metrosexuals are going you won’t even need women to breed with anymore (a dream come true for MGTOWs!) in a generation or two because you’ll be able to bear children yourselves.

 
So, take your shoes off, hang your balls (assuming you’ve still got them) on the coat-rack by the door and shut up. Any draft involving women would consist of old men sending young women off to war, not old women sending young men to war. The feminist fantasy of women filling up 50% of the jobs in politics has never happened and probably never will.

Advertisements

Feminism and Female Preciousness

“Why does this always happen to me? Things are going great for like a week and a half then all of a sudden it’s over and I’m mystified! Seriously I am mystified because it always starts out so well! Mike and I had such a connection! The first time we had sex, it was so beautiful; I cried…

“You cried?”

“…yeah…”

“You mean like one glistening tear on your cheek right?”

“No. I was really emotional. I even told him that I loved him”

“After how many days?”

“…five…two…”

The above scene is from the movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. We all know the movie, right girls? We’ve all seen it and laughed along with it. Glamorous, young, beautiful career women working for a popular women’s fashion magazine. Casual sex with marriage and children put on hold for a glamorous career that maybe less than one percent of women will ever hope to have. The thought that a woman might not be able to hold up to to male standards of casual, no strings attached sex and casual relationships(we might move in together later, maybe, but marriage is just so obsolete these days) is a foreign notion to these ladies. To think that a woman might get emotional during sex, even to the point of crying, is plain heresy to the liberation ladies. If a woman cannot be fungible with men and join in on the sexual revolution without becoming attached to the man, there must be something terribly wrong with her. After all, to conclude that men and women are truly different from each other (besides the obvious anatomy that not even the most hard-core liberal can deny) runs contrary to the feminist agenda.

Of course, this movie came out when I was younger and at that time I had no way of knowing I was being indoctrinated by feminist beliefs and ideals for women (what is feminism anyways? Wasn’t it that movement I briefly read about in Social Studies that gave us women rights?) At the time, it was just normal. Us women are supposed to finish our school and go straight into college so that we can “do something” with our lives. At the ages of 15 and 16 we are told by our parents that being sexually active is OK, as long as we visit the gynecologist regularly and be sure to remember to take the pill every morning. And, of course, remember that the pill does not protect against STDs or AIDS so be sure when you change sexual partners to make him wear a condom! Pregnancy before the age of 25 is not allowed because that would jeopardize college and career prospects!

So young women go out with boys. They may not necessarily want sex, but if we don’t give it to him, won’t he leave or think us a prude? Won’t the other girls and everyone think there is something wrong with me and outcast me if I confess I’m a virgin or don’t like sex? And if we have sex and it isn’t good, isn’t that because there’s something wrong with me?

This is the legacy of the feminist movement. Our society has become so blind to the differences between the sexes that they cannot even possibly imagine why women might need to be protected differently than men. To speak of unequal treatment of the sexes in any way is heresy and is cause for severe backlash and hatred against the brave sole who dares speak up.

But the fact is that women are not men. The sexes are neither mentally nor physically the same and when it comes to sex, our needs and desires are so vastly different from each other. But to speak of these differences is not allowed, as feminists have worked endlessly to gender-neutralize all of society so that women are not perceived in any way as weak or nurturing. This is also why women in combat doesn’t even spark backlash among conservatives anymore, because they too have adopted feminist ideals for their daughters. Feminists said that a young woman’s remains in a body bag should be perceived no differently than a mans and all of society has taken their argument seriously.

“Women’s increased sexual promiscuity and the high rates at which they have exercised their unlimited abortion rights have well served feminism’s goal of defeminizing women so as to make them androgynous male equivalents. Dramatically illustrating this commitment to promoting fungibility of the sexes, the women’s movement rejected changes to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment that would have lessened opposition to the amendment by forbidding military drafting of women or, at least, their service in combat. Since combat service would validate their consistent denial of female preciousness, feminists have always favored placing women in combat… Even if only relatively few women could meet the physical requirements of combat service, denying women exemption from that service serves feminism’s need to confute any perception of females as soft, yielding, potential mothers”[1]

So society has taken this message to heart. MRAs, and increasingly many men these days, are losing their caring and belief of treating women any differently than another man, and many are now simply saying if women are wanting “equality,” let’s let them have it. As one blogger stated:

“Sad to say but IMHO most men these days really DON”T like women ! That’s how much damage feminism has done !
Many men won’t speak out because they don’t care anymore what women want or if they live or die. It’s all a part of the “Men’s rights movement”. If women want true “equality” there are many that are determined to give it to them.”[2]

This was all apart of the feminist goal. Women’s sexuality is the most undeniable thing that separates women from men. The feminist theory was that if only men stopped being chivalrous to women and protecting women, then women would finally have to stop depending on men and putting their trust in them. Then they would finally achieve independence and stop relying on those alimony and child support checks!

Women, as opposed to men, have an extended sexual role that goes far beyond intercourse. This extended sexual role makes women precious, as women are the only ones who can bear children. This extended sexual role also causes women to perceive sex differently than what men do. It is not uncommon at all for a woman to become emotional over sex. Sex ties directly into women’s extend sexual roles of conceiving, carrying, bearing and nursing infant children. All of these sexual roles entail deep emotions. The nurturing hormone Oxytocin surges both in childbirth and in orgasm for women. In the aforementioned How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Michelle is assailed by her female co-workers for having cried after sex and become attached to the male. She is told that the most beautiful woman on the planet would drive a guy away with that sort of behavior. Crying, then calling him multiple times wondering why he won’t talk to her? What is wrong with this woman? Doesn’t she know she should just take it like a man and move on? It was only sex, after all. There are plenty of fish in the sea and she’s got a fashionable career and girlfriends to cry with over a fine glass of wine.

And because of the sexual revolution, many indeed may not care that a woman’s needs are different than a man’s. And as well, many men will also not care when women are shipped overseas to put their lives on the line in combat. In their view, women are not precious but instead androgynous male equivalents.

“Benefits accrue from this arrangement: for both, higher income; for him, freedom from the breadwinner’s responsibility; for her, status in the public arena, divorce insurance, and whatever pleasure she derives from market production. To the man, she is precisely what contemporary feminism demanded that she must be: a financially independent roommate who is a full-time market producer, much like himself. These ministrations are not designed to embody an individual who delights in developing her feminine role to its fullest dimensions, but to embody one who must narrow that feminine role sufficiently to become fungible with, and thus more closely resemble, her husband. This is why, in so using her, the man can be said to demonstrate despite of femininity. Women have thus harvested what feminism sowed; for some, the fruit has turned to ashes on their lips.”[3]

But, women must be independent, says mainstream society and the feminists. Traditional women are also assailed for depending on husbands. They act as if a woman has no clue of the “risks” involved in such a decision. But, if there is one thing that women *know* above all other knowledge today, it is that men are not dependable. That is, after all, the message we have received all of our lives. If there is one thing that women understand today, it would be that they must not trust in men. Of course, women’s dependency (when and where it actually existed in civilizations throughout history) has always been a common concern. Life is not always fair to us. The one we thought we trusted and loved could very well leave us or possibly die. Yet the feminists refuse to take accountability for their movement that liberated men from responsibility and caused women to understand that a career must be their first ambition in life. Their argument for forgoing alimony, for instance, is the same argument they still use today regarding women in combat. They will probably say “but, most men never paid their support” and likewise, “but, women are already in combat.” Feminists have always used the women who were in the workforce, without support or who had died as soldiers to officially demolish the laws that protected women.

A young woman might very well wonder then if she could ever trust in a man. Casual sex isn’t the glorious thing the media and the feminists constantly hold it out to be. Feminism has created a society full of Michelles. She has no power or hold over a guy that she sleeps with, yet he probably wouldn’t ever even consider her if she refuses sex. What is a girl to do or believe in her case? What is any woman to do? Women have deep emotional needs and the women’s movement has robbed women of their sexual bargaining power.

“Instead of deploring this development, women have been urged to become just as promiscuous and irresponsible as the men. Somehow, if we all descend to the lowest common denominator, we’ll find happiness in the mess we’ve created. “There isn’t a venerable history of women celebrating promiscuity;” writes columnist Frederica Mathewes-Green. “[I]f anything, women’s wisdom over the ages taught that emotional security was the precondition for sex being fun, and a wedding ring was the best aphrodisiac. But again, what did stupid old housewives know? Men called them prudish, so that’s what they were. Thirty years later women are still going morosely out into the night in dutiful pursuit of fun. And if it’s not fun, she presumes, it must be because something is wrong with her.” So now those of us who reject the doctrines of the sexual revolution (which had their roots in the “free love” movement of Marxism in the 1840s and in Margaret Sanger’s writings in the early 20th century) are expected to just go along with the “brave new world” the radical feminists created in the name of all women.”[4]

And, since men and women- in the view of modern society- are so fungible with each other, a woman must have sexual experience in order to be “good.” If the sex isn’t good, then there must be something wrong with her. If she is dissatisfied with casual sex then there must be something wrong with her. You will never hear anyone confess the truth of the matter. The conventional wisdom that feminists rejected at every turn is undoubtedly what can truly make a woman happy. Deep down women have a need to be able to depend on the man she mates with. This may also be why we are seeing the rise of such diversifications as BDSM. Increasingly I have been researching and seeing many women engage in DD (often with a side of BDSM) and feminists insisting that it is all about “exploring their sexuality.” They insist that it has nothing to do with actually needing to depend upon a dominant male and continue on with these games (for that is all they truly are). Yet while a traditional woman might find some aspects of BDSM erotic, she is already fulfilled by her dependency and trust in her husband. While men may have been disciplining their wives for thousands of years (not as often as we are led to believe, however) I cannot honestly see how women could actually want to engage in such a thing just for fun. But these games, much like casual sex, has been the feminist prescription for millions of women. The Michelles of the world continuously wonder how they can ever find a man they can trust in or a man that will stick around, yet feminism has no answers for these women. After all, they know very well how men lie and play women for their own benefit, right? How does a woman know she is truly special to the man? Surely not because he says so.

“As Zora Neale Hurston’s John Pearson so well put it: ‘You know better’n tuh b’lieve anything uh man tell yuh after ten o’clock at night.’ A woman can only know through the life the man constructs with her, through how he makes her feel as a female, through what he is to her and does for her compared to what she does for him by bearing his children. It is easy for a man to give these assurances to Brünhilde by assuming the traditional provider role, for that’s what she wants from him. But what can a man do to assure the spiritual virgin? She largely does it all for herself.” [5]

 

Notes:

[1] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 191. Spence, 1998.
[2] “Do Men Like Women?” by Judithann Campbell, quote in comments section.
[3] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 349
[4] http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml
[5] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 144.

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

You Deserve Whatever’s Coming to You

There is nothing worse than a man that refuses to accept his responsibilities as a man. There is nothing more pathetic on this Earth than the man who, instead of accepting his responsibilities for women, instead wants equality with them. I’m talking to any mangina out there who complains about how victimized he is by our justice system or how he does not want to be the breadwinner for his family because it is either to much work or there is nothing in it for him. You men are not impotent victims. You can whine and cry all day but in the end if you are accepting the doctrine of gender equality and gender-neutral laws you are simply contributing to you own demise. You do not have to be run over by women or dictated to by them unless you so choose. Most women will follow if you just begin to lead. But, no- and I’m especially talking to you pro-equality MRAs out there- you choose instead to accept equality and push your burdens off onto women.

Most women, unless they are the exception, want men who are dominant and in control. It’s not something that we always come out and say. But it is nonetheless something that we all crave and expect men to understand. You could put a stop to anti-male legislation that prevents men from leading and keeping order within their families but you choose instead to protest anything that would hold you to any kind of traditional responsibilities for women and children. It’s so obvious to every single one of us traditional men and women that you are promoting equality to be let out of your responsibilities. The equal rights movement took off in the 1960s and 1970s with feminism and you jumped on board at the prospect of no longer being held to the duties of being a man.

But the simple fact of the matter is that you have no right to shun your duties as a man. Civilized society depends upon you fulfilling those duties. Just watch and see what you are going to cause by promoting that women fulfill your duties, assume the roles as breadwinners and register for the selective service. At first you will cause the suffering of women, but soon after will follow the suffering of all and the complete collapse of moral order and domestic tranquility of your own nation and then the rest of the world.

If you want to end this then take charge of the situation. If you fulfill your responsibilities, even if it may be difficult and tiring at times, your families will stay together and order will be restored to your society. Don’t let your wives order you around or be responsible for your support/their own support. You must love her and be responsible for her and in charge. If this is too much for you then you deserve whatever is coming to you. Yesterday I saw a man describe divorce as “pulling off your testicles through your wallet.” But I can’t bring myself to feel sorry for you pro-equality men and MRAs out there when you sit around shunning your duties and stating that divorce is a “freedom” and that you support the equality of the genders. Women are out there performing YOUR rightful obligations and all you can do is sit around and complain and want further out of responsibility. If you support male-female fungibility then you (and I’m also talking to feminists as well as women have been hurt and victimized by gender-neutral laws) deserve whatever is coming to you.

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Push to Register Young Women for Draft: The Totalitarian Impulse of Feminists

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16745990-push-for-all-younger-women-to-register-with-selective-service-gaining-steam?lite

Don’t worry women! Feminists are on your side. Of course women should be ripped up out of the home during their prime childbearing years and prime years to find a husband to serve in the military just like a man. Of course don’t exempt women from combat either. Let’s treat women just like men. Then, turn around and call crisis about violence against women after you train men not to show any chivalry to women and be desensitized to a woman’s screams. Then, after sacrificing the precious and irreplaceable youthful years of women let’s get ultra paranoid and ban abortions because that’s the only politically correct way to say that we can’t afford to sacrifice the fertility of women. And, shhh! Don’t say anything about below replacement birth rates and be sure to play dumb as to why Western civilization is dying out. Then, tell me all about how feminists promote “choices” for women. Ah, the irony of feminism.

And they have the nerve to say I hate women. Anti-feminists (TRUE anti feminists) are the only ones trying to stop feminists and other groups that support gender neutral laws from hurting women.

Feminists have never been for women! Their entire movement was about invalidating all laws that protected and gave common sense advantages to women! There is no reason for women to have to register for the draft. Our prime years for child-bearing are between the ages of about 18 and 25 (the very years they want women to have to be subject to the draft). Men don’t give birth. They don’t get pregnant or nurture young children from their very own bodies. That’s why tradition placed military duty, jury duty and the obligation of support of a family to the men. Though not every woman will or can have children the very fact that females as a group, as opposed to males, can bear children is a very solid reason to exclude women from military duty and such male burdens like alimony. We’re also nowhere near as big or strong as men. The average man will probably never in his lifetime meet a woman that is truly stronger than him and that can overpower him physically.

Feminists are not on your side ladies. Neither are these men’s groups that want gender-neutral laws. Please pass this on and stop supporting the faux notion of “gender equality.” Feminists have always wanted this for women. They supported male plaintiffs to ensure women weren’t exempt from the draft (even though they lost) and they supported male plaintiffs in just about every area of the law to ensure there was absolutely no law that protected or exempted women. After this there will be nothing protecting women. And if they can secure the Equal Rights Amendment it will only be that much worse for women.

This is what women’s lives will soon look like:

Soviet Union Eglitarianism in Action: The Great Con of Women’s Liberation

The Feminist War on Women: Forced Labor

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Ban on women in Combat to be Lifted: The Feminist War on Women Continues

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/

Right now our rivals are celebrating that the restrictions on women serving in combat have been lifted. The feminists are celebrating this as another “milestone” to women’s equality. But what everyone must understand, assuming they are not already informed, is that this decision sets a dangerous precedent for ALL women. It also is dangerous for the security of our nation and all of our service members- both men and women- who are already serving. Almost certainly, women will be subject to any future draft and now that all the barriers to women serving in combat have been removed there will be nothing protecting young women from being thrust into combat alongside men. At this point I will not go into detail about biology or the simple facts of human nature. What must be understood is that this is what feminists have always wanted since the women’s movement burst onto the scenes in the 1960s and 1970s. This was also the major thrust behind the Equal Rights Amendment. Feminists were relentless about passing the ERA. When opponents suggested a compromise in the 1950s with the Hayden rider and later with the Wiggins amendments, the feminists would hear none of it. There would be no compromise for them. They simply would not settle for the Equal Rights Amendment if it meant that women would retain the rights, benefits and exemptions they currently held under the law- benefits such as exempting women from the draft and combat service and laws maintaining that it be the primary obligation of fathers to support their children, as well as other laws regarding insurance, statutory rape and different treatment of unwed mothers vs unwed fathers. The period between 1972 and 1982 saw U.S Supreme Court decisions change nearly every law the ERA was designed to change. The only exception was the draft. In the 1981 case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, every feminist organization around teamed up with men’s organizations when a group of men from Philadelphia protested the draft because it did not include women. Though feminists were generally opposed to the draft, they took up the case anyways because to not do so would be to abandon their goal of male-female fungibility. They lost their case in a 6-3 decision siding against the plaintiffs. Then Justice William Rehnquist dissented “The Constitution requires that Congress treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.” The Court concluded that drafting women was unreasonable because women were not eligible for combat and the main purpose of raising troops was to engage in combat; under this reasoning women could be excluded for the purpose of military readiness.

Now feminists have truly abolished all remaining protections for women. This decision to lift combat restrictions sets a dangerous precedent for all women- the women already in service who do not wish to be in combat and normal civilian women should there be a draft in the future. The time to act is now. For the sake of all women living today and the sake of future generations of women, TWRAs must make a stand. Please share our message. The war on women- the REAL war on women which comes from feminists- and the war on reasonableness must be stopped. Feminism must be brought to its knees.