Thursday, March 31, 2011

Anarcho-Misogyny: A Nation of Boys

            Feminism, like other ideologies of hatred, accomplished its goal by getting its targeted class or group to buy into the stereotypes presented by feminists and by pushing men into a reactionary state where they inverted feminist dynamics to their own purposes.  Either way, men have looked puerile and whiny.  Victim simply isn’t a good look on anyone. 

            This is not to say that men have not been victims, because they have.  We have a nation of men who have bought into the feminist narrative. They are angry, confused, aggressive, lashing out in pathetic attempts to appear strong, and they are increasingly losing the one race that matters: the economic race. Feminists have failed to realize that a major legacy of perpetuating negative stereotypes about any class is that the more successfully the stereotype takes hold, the more likely it is that the class characterized in the stereotype will come to resemble the negative qualities therein.  We now have an epidemic of men living with their parents well into their twenties and even later, many of whom have little in the way of prospects for a career or a productive future.  Women are outperforming men at virtually every level, because after forty years of emphasizing females to the detriment of males in education, socialization, and professional occupations, feminists have achieved their goal: the subordination and degradation of males.  Well, you broke it, and now you get to deal with the legacy: a shiftless son who lives in your home until he's nearly 30.  At the same time, men are still responsible for their own lot in life.  

The Realities of Bias and Possible Implications for the Future

            In some 148 of 150 major cities, women now out-earn men.  Our economy has moved from a manufacturing base to a finance and service sector emphasis.  History is clear: when economies shift to allow their finance sectors a position of dominance, they gradually fade.  No empire has ever survived the transition from manufacturing or agriculture to finance, with its rampant speculation and exotic securitized devices. 

            In essence, our economy has moved towards emphasizing sectors or areas that are uniquely geared towards women.  Our government expenditures have conversely addressed the concerns of women, as noted by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny in their paper “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”  The following chart illustrates the reality of women’s suffrage on government spending, with an 11 year jump from $101 per capita to the $208 per capita in state level spending. 

           Take a look, men: that’s what progress looks like. But there’s more: a recent IMF proposal to cut the tax rate for Irish working women by five percentage points is so blatantly misandrist on its face as to be laughable.  The argument put forth for the tax cut is predictable enough: it will close the pay gap between men and women, promoting family-friendly workplaces.  However, there’s no acknowledgment that perhaps working fathers who have newly born children, and thus higher expenditures in the form of food and medical care, should receive tax relief in the name of family-friendly workplaces.  No, no, no…the relief is confined solely to women. 

            The Guardian had its say on the matter with the following:

Lowering income tax by five percentage points would go some way towards closing the gender pay gap of 8% that persists even when equivalent educational qualifications and responsibility are taken into account. Significant enactment of equality legislation has failed to achieve this.
            What no one wants to acknowledge is that men work longer and harder than women in the workplace, and this is a metric that has been measured in various studies.  Axel Schaffer and Carsten Stahmer noted as much in their study “Women’s GDP-A Time-Based Input-Output Analysis,” which examined the hours worked by men and women in Germany.  They found the following:
Relating to one person, men’s average annual working time comes up to more than 1,700 hours per employee. In contrast, women’s average annual working time is below 1,200 hours per employee.

            The problem of feminism is not that women don’t make enough for doing the same amount of work; it’s that they don’t get paid as much for doing less work.  In point of fact, Schaffer and Stahmer attempted to argue that women were doing unpaid work in the home that was just as beneficial to the GDP as the paid work done by men in the workplace.  Truth be told, without men doing the bulk of the work in the workplace, those women who choose to prioritize motherhood over career wouldn’t be in a position of choosing to do unpaid work while maintaining a relatively comfortable standard of living. 

            What do these points have to contribute to the idea that men are boys?  Simply put, the studies quoted above all point to women using government as a mace to bludgeon men into funding their priorities, be it more money for less work, greater government spending on healthcare and education, or a disparate treatment of mothers and fathers when it comes to taxation.  Men aren’t as important; therefore, their contributions can be whittled down and understated in the most condescending manner possible. 

            The men who go along with such nonsense are the enlightened ones, living their lives as groveling men who prattle on and parrot the feminist line so as to demonstrate their obeisance to political correctness.  We won’t call these men beta males, because that gives them too much credit. We’ll call them invertebrates.   

            The men who object usually do so in the worst of ways, by adopting a childish and rebellious posture replete with misogynistic language that reflects worse on the user than the targeted women. They retreat into defensive shells in their lives, confusing a capacity for rhetorical outbursts with strength.  Dismantling feminism is easy: the facts do not bear out that ideology.  All one has to do is calmly and logically point out the rational inconsistencies between giving returning mothers who make less money for working fewer hours tax relief while keeping tax rates constant for the fathers who work longer hours, make more money, and provide greater financial support for their offspring.  Misandry, like other forms of prejudice including misogyny, is utterly counterproductive. 

            It just feels good.  It feels good to blame others for your shortcomings, to refuse to acknowledge that your negative actions have negative consequences, and to reciprocate when faced with the obvious unfairness of prejudice.  However, it’s not in your rational self-interest to do so.  Anarcho-misogyny as a name is a direct provocation to feminism; it is not an endorsement of hatred towards women. 

            Illogic dominates any discourse over fairness or unfairness primarily because those who obsess over such concepts have relative definitions of what fairness is.  If I were to tell you that the corporate income tax was unfair to workers and consumers, you would likely agree with me in saying that corporations don’t pay enough taxes.  However, if I were to qualify my comment by saying that my belief is that corporate income taxes ought to be abolished, then you would likely recoil in righteous indignation.  “Why, they need to pay their fair share!” 

            But if I logically point out to you that corporate income taxes are externalized to workers in the form of lower wages and consumers in the form of higher prices, you’d likely pause to reconsider the fairness of the tax.  It’s in your self-interest to do so.  Ideology blinds you to your self-interest by offering you a chance to stick it to the man, even if the end result is shooting yourself in the foot.  People who live their lives in the flesh abdicate the ability to live life guided by the mind.  They have but two core issues to consider: grievances and payback. 

            If you were to cut taxes for married men and women with children for five percent, as opposed to merely women, mothers and fathers alike would have greater household income and increased means to provide for their children.  If you were to do the same for unmarried parents, the effect would be the same.  That’s not to say that people will use tax relief to directly benefit their children, because some people are irresponsible and will use tax relief to purchase items they don’t need that won’t serve as a benefit to their children.  My in-laws used their $9,500 tax refund to purchase new living room furniture and a bigger television.  In the meantime, my mother-in-law was tasked with paying for her grandchildren to have school supplies, clothes, and eyeglasses. 

            That’s life.  You can’t legislate stupidity and irresponsibility out of human beings no matter how hard you try.  It’s infuriating, but in a free society, you are faced with these sorts of realities on a daily basis. 

            We have a nation of boys who live their lives in video games, pornography, and substance abuse, who go into their thirties living with their parents and never moving out of childhood.  They’re irresponsible with money, careless with their bodies, and seemingly determined to pick the wrong options over and over again.  It’s not that you can’t play video games, or that pornography will turn you into a rapist or a sex offender, or that you can’t use drugs and alcohol responsibly.  It’s that you don’t use any of these items in a manner conducive to meeting your obligations and responsibilities as a man. 

            Anarcho-misogyny assigns to masculinity the task of living independently in a self-sufficient manner.  As men, standing on your own, having unique convictions, outlooks, and approaches to life’s problems, and refusing to be drawn into debates framed by emotion and illogic are key requisites to being masculine.  This doesn’t make us insensitive, it just means that we are not ruled by our emotions.  We recognize that feeling a certain way does not legitimate any inference that arises from that feeling, especially if the inference in question conflicts with the available facts. 

            Moreover, the great problem of masculinity in America today is the tendency of men to reduce themselves to whining about injustice.  Don’t whine.  Develop the resolve, determination, and strategy to confront the problems you see in a practical manner.  The great problem with dominant paradigms and the constituencies they create is that they breed complacency within those constituencies. 

            Men didn’t take feminism seriously as a threat.  Some doubtless believed that greater self-determination for women was warranted, even just, but what they failed to realize was that feminists were never after mere equality.  They were after the abolition of traditional roles, the redefinition of gender, and the reclassification of equality as a means of extracting privilege for protected classes in the name of restoring equality. 

            Feminism was never about equality for women; rather, it was about destroying anything and everything tinged with masculinity.  It was, and still is, an infantile ideology borne out of churlish resentment and gender hatred.  For feminists, men were the root cause of every issue that ailed their kind.  They were the oppressors, and it was time to foment some strategy or approach that would defeat men as a group.  Any man who didn’t convert and “surrender dominance” was an advocate of patriarchy.  Ideology polarizes people into extreme constituencies of resentment, and forces them to surrender any capacity for rational thought in order to maintain strict adherence to doctrinal purity. 

            You cannot disagree with fanatics and not be seen as a traitor or an enemy.   The problem with ideological hatred is that fanaticism is contagious; it spreads from the hunters to the hunted, who reciprocate an inverted fanaticism in their response.  One could argue quite coherently and logically that black nationalism was an inversion of white nationalism.  Masculism in its present form gives rise to the same hysterical outbursts and resentful countercharges of feminism. 

            Moreover, those of us who oppose feminism very often overcompensate with our machismo in our reactions.  Rather than being clinical in our approach and systematically dismantling the irrationality that underlies virtually every single feminist argument, we are drawn into arguments about rape fantasies and exchanges of mangina-based insults.  Feminism is an intellectually vapid ideology. 

            One has only to read of Betty Friedan’s various foibles in her landmark book The Feminine Mystique to be aware of the fact that her sources were wrong, her representation of herself as a middle-class housewife was a lie, and her conclusions about victimization were suspect as a result. Simply put, she lied to make her points. 

            Furthermore, much of what feminism does is, simply enough, a total deceit that is easily addressed and combatted by anyone with an elementary understanding of rhetoric and debate tactics.  These are not particularly clever or smart individuals we’re dealing with here; they’re just pervasive. 

            Their rationale for anti-male policies is easily addressed, with the following example from the Guardian serving as a prime example:

            The difficulties that undoubtedly exist in persuading productive women back into the workforce after childbirth have contributed to a situation where women account for just one in five management positions in Irish SMEs. The family unfriendly nature of the workplace spills over into the political and public service arenas too. Just 14% of elected representatives in the Irish parliament are women and women account for less than one quarter of Irish senior civil servants. 

            The lack of uniformity among men and women in management positions is explained away as hostility to families, because God knows that none of the men in management positions have families of their own that they support and provide for.  No, no, no…only women have families!  Anything that results in a less than equal standing for women has to be not only misogynist, it has to be anti-family as well! 

            Feminists don’t want to acknowledge that women make decisions, and those decisions have consequences.  If you want to work and have a family, why should your company be required to treat you as though you have been working during your maternity leave?  What practical, business-savvy reason could they have for counting maternity leave as on the job experience for the purposes of a promotion?  The two are different to the point of being oppositional.  

            If you decide to work fewer hours, why should you be afforded the ability and the privilege of equal pay with someone who works longer hours?  Is it because your company should factor in the hours you spend doing housework as part of your compensation, as Shaffer and Stahmer appear to argue in their research?  Surely you jest! You cannot seriously suggest that a company receiving little if anything from the fruits of your work at home be required to factor in your labor outside of their workplace into equitable pay! 

            When you put it like this, you see that men have no reason to feel anything but emboldened before the demonstrably ludicrous arguments put forth by feminists.  You certainly shouldn’t be sitting on the couch in a surly and petulant mood, playing video games and refusing to work towards self-sufficiency and economic self-determination because the ball-busters are at work!  Go create your own company, and the lack of expense you put out in the form of corporate funded daycares and generous outlays for equitable concerns will give you greater profitability and the ability to out-compete any feminized business!  Stop whining and start doing. 

            The fact that you buy into the stereotypical view of men put forth by feminists and resemble it of your own volition does not mean that you have been victimized by feminism.  It means that you have chosen to play the role of victim.  In much the same way, the fact that women have failed to defy the roles put forth in stereotypes authored by others does not mean that they have been pigeonholed.  It means that they are suffering the consequences of their own volitional actions. 

            It is not manly to be belligerent, drunken, crude, delinquent in your responsibilities, or a procrastinator.  We have a fundamental problem with masculinity in this country, and the problem is that men have abdicated the definition of masculinity to the misandrists.  Well, the time has come for a nation of boys to become a nation of men, to recapture masculinity and define it in terms that respect the accomplishments of men, which are substantial.  Hard work by men built modern civilization into what it is today, and if we hadn’t created such a prize in the first place, feminists wouldn’t be in such a rush to seize it. 

            I am not Betty Friedan, and I will not construct a victim narrative of my own out of thin air in order to appeal to a constituency of victims.  I appeal to power, and the potential for power present within every man and woman who seeks equality to define their lives and the responsibility that arrives out of making one’s own choices.  I am responsible for the consequences of my own decisions and actions.  I may justifiably be unequal to others based on the merit or error of my decisions and actions. If you agree with these statements, then anarcho-misogyny is for you regardless of your gender.  But if you wish to be a boy or a girl, sucking at the teats of resentment and victimization, I have no nourishment to offer you.  Grow up.  I see constituencies of empowerment rather than resentment.  

            If you’re a man failing to act responsibly and meet his obligations, you don’t belong among the anarcho-misogynist ranks.  If you’re a man that blames a substance, or a stereotype, or an ideology for your lot in life, as opposed to accepting the role of your own willful abdication to external forces or ideas in producing undesired results, you have only yourself to blame.  Victimization and power are mutually exclusive.  Your life’s path and destination are determined by your refusal to be a stereotype or a statistic.  You can acknowledge and protest the injustices of the world; indeed, you possess a moral and ethical obligation to do so no matter who is affected, be it a man, woman, child, or person of color.  Privilege within the law based on race, religion, orientation, gender, creed, or any other classification is wrong. 

            For the law to have any binding efficacy in our society, and our culture, for the common ideals we share to hold us together in an ordered community, we must have equality before the law.  Otherwise, the law is an agent of tyranny that promotes a few while denigrating others.  Anarcho-misogyny recognizes differences, but it rejects the idea that those differences can legitimately form a legal or rational basis for privilege for one class over others. 

            I look at the way men act, and I am reminded of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

            At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.  Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. 

            Substitute ideology for State, and you will have the gist of what I mean.  We exist in a prison of ideology that defines the way we think about meaning, difference, and our own existence.  Many men do not realize that their existences are largely a reaction to feminism that only serves to perpetuate the very worst stereotypes about our kind.  We aren’t defined according to our own individual concept of existence, because our concept is little more than an indignant reaction to an ideology we see as unfair.  In our rebellion we come to fulfill and confirm many of the core assertions feminists make about men. 

            It isn’t really who we are.  There’s nothing innately male or masculine about playing video games and acting like an ass in our day-to-day interactions with our peers.  I had a discussion with one of my friends about denominationalism in religion, and he put for the idea that religious schism was even more pronounced; because he believed that each individual attending a Catholic Church had their own unique belief system within and without the dogmas of the Catholic Church.  We pick and we choose, we define for ourselves, and so long as we are getting to a closer understanding of what we truly believe and why we believe it, it’s fine to act within existing ideological constructs. 

            However, when we attribute our demonstrably boorish, ignorant, and irresponsible behavior to those constructs, we aren’t engaging in liberty.  We aren’t free. We’re simply sidestepping accountability for the choices we’ve made by insisting that we really didn’t have a choice because of society, or culture, or religion, or our upbringing.  Freedom involves the freedom to make choices and the responsibility of dealing with the aftermath of those choices, good or bad. 

            Develop your own peculiar way of looking at the world and understanding how things work, and measure that method by the results it produces in your life.  If it works, continue onward.  If it produces less than desirable results, change it accordingly. Adapt.  Free markets for economics and behavior entail a certain amount of personal responsibility and risk.  The payoff for freedom is that you reap the reward if you make the right decisions, and you reap the consequences if you don’t.  Liberty doesn’t guarantee you happiness; it merely enables you to evolve your own personal path towards happiness. 

            This nation of boys that has sat surly and sulking for decades now must rise and begin to define its own path towards happiness.  It must throw off the chain of victimology and belief of helplessness before the idiotic tenets of feminism.  Courage and war are the only answers in the face of such inanity, and until you rise up as an individual man to face the stereotypes and stand as a living contradiction to the feminist narrative, things are not going to change.  


            We can link feminist or progressive ideals about welfare and government spending to the rise of women’s suffrage, but we can also say unequivocally that the more pronounced matriarchy is within a society, the more likely its males are to be stunted in their development.  See the nations of Europe, which are coming to grips with the reality that men aren’t leaving the nest.  In Italy, experts are starting to link the trend to a declining birth rate.  

To combat this, feminism is going to have to be defeated entirely.  The nanny state is growing for a reason, and that reason is this: feminists have no compunction about forcing their view of what it ideal onto the rest of us through the State.  While anarcho-misogyny rejects feminism entirely as an ideology, it recognizes that without the State, feminists have no means whatsoever to implement their ideas.  Simply put, by mobilizing politically with the idea of rolling back the State’s scope and reach, men can do a lot to defeat feminism and prevent further damage to their interests.

            However, for that to happen, men are going to have to start being men.  It’s time to get out of your parent’s basement and claim responsibility for the course and direction of our lives.  It’s time for men who have status and power to look upon their role as their brother’s keeper.  Shame is a powerful tool that can be used to compel men to do the right thing.  There’s nothing like ridicule from your peers; moreover, there’s also nothing like support from your peers once you start to move in a productive direction to keep you on track.  We have a duty to uplift our brothers in their efforts to become self-sufficient, accountable men. 

 Any move by anarcho-misogyny to address this will require a holistic effort on the part of men to assist each other.  It is time to do what we can to restore men to an equal footing, and to force the issue with those men who refuse to stand on their own by either withdrawing our friendship and the benefits thereof until they come around, or by confronting them directly with the brutal truth.  Either way, it’s time for men to reject the idea that destructive, stupid, or counterproductive behavior is somehow innately male.  

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Anarcho-Misogyny: Confronting Hypergamy

Anarcho-Misogyny: Confronting Hypergamy

            The issue of promiscuity among men may be summed up as a matter of quantity; for men, the issue is how many women they have bedded.  The issue is quite simple, because sleeping with women means being chosen by women.  It is affirming to be chosen by as many women as possible.  In this way, men achieve validation. 

            The issue of promiscuity among women may be summed up as a matter of quality; for women, the issue is who they have managed to bed.  Sleeping with a man to a woman means selecting the best of the bunch and getting him to select you in return.  For a woman, this equivalent to quality acknowledging quality, and there are no small amounts of arrogance and hubris at play. 

            The problem for women is that everyone covets quality.  Many different women desire a man who is deemed handsome, or intelligent, or wealthy, or some amalgam of the three, especially the first and the third, simultaneously.  What women entertain is a fantasy in which they monopolize the best for themselves, because their secret desire is to see themselves affirmed as the best through their exclusive possession of the best. 

            This does not happen.  Alpha males have options, and no single woman can overcome this obstacle to exclusivity.  What intelligent men realize early in life is that even for an alpha male, there will always be a bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, and wealthier male.  What unintelligent men believe early in life is that love, fidelity, honor, and decency matter to women. 

            When it comes to institutions like marriage, such ideals do matter, but women are in a state of constant aspiration.  They are always looking to move on and up.  For women, there’s always a better deal on the horizon or a better deal that got away. Contentment with the present is simply not possible with women. 

            Beta males do not understand this precisely because they entertain unrealistic beliefs about women.  Chivalry ought to die because it has nothing to do with success in mating or life.  It is an antiquated ideal that has no place in fulfillment for men.  It simply renders men into a shoulder for women to cry on; rather than being a full human being, you become an emotional crutch when their first option falls through. 

            But what is more, beta males have to understand that status is a matter of choice rather than destiny.  In an earlier article, Anarcho-Misogyny Revisited, I examined the African cichlid fish Haplochromis burtoni, specifically the males, because they are grouped into two subsets: territorial and non-territorial males.  The territorial males are brightly colored, with testes three to four times larger than that of non-territorial males.  The non-territorial males are so colored and sized as to be similar to the females of the species.  What is relevant about H. burtoni for beta males is this: at any time where a territorial male is struck down by disease or predators, a non-territorial male undergoes physiological changes in his brain neurons and in his body morphology to transmogrify into a territorial male.  The territorial males, when moved into proximity with larger territorial males, undergo a reverse transformation into non-territorial males. 

            Beta males are so pale, so appallingly dull when compared to their alpha peers, as to be almost feminine in their mannerism.  They are the girlfriends who pick up the pieces when an alpha defies a female’s attempts at hypergamy and refuses to commit to exclusivity. 

            Human males have a choice as to their lot in life.  We are not cichlids whose lives are defined by the evolutionary decrees of necessity in ratios of dominant to non-dominant males.  The answer for beta males is to reject a value system that consigns them to a life of disappointment and second-class status, to recognize that the spark present within alphas is also present within their kind.  The difference is that the switch is off in a beta male, whereas it is on in an alpha male. 

            We have only to look at the sorts of men women choose in order to see what women value.  Each man, at some point in his life, has been embittered to realize that women prefer men who can rightly be characterized as louts.  If you wish to be preferred, you have a behavioral choice to make. 

            Your brain physiology, like that of the cichlid fish, will change with your decision. In the article Practice-related Changes in Human Brain Functional Anatomy during Nonmotor Learning, researchers noted that a simple variation in a task (either repeated an appropriate verb for a visually presented noun or simply repeating the visually presented noun) could change the brain circuits used to accomplish either variation.  This was possible with less than 15 minutes of practice. 

Moreover, when you learn new behavior, you gain brain cells in your hippocampal neurons, which are associated with associative memory formation.  Simply put, the more you learn, the greater your neurogenesis is.  You are as fully formed as your decisions make you.  The idea that we should be resigned to our present roles has no foundation in brain physiology whatsoever.  There is always room for change, room to learn and develop more and more.  

As a human being, the options available to you are endless, but your decision must be to pursue a destiny of your own devising.  Anarcho-misogyny is quite unlike any other system that touches on race and gender in that it does not have a victim myth.  We believe in only one form of victimization, and that is self-victimization.  

Society may be oppressive, culture may be degrading, but that is the fault of whatever class is being oppressed or degraded.  You are only entitled to the respect you have earned through due diligence and the accrual of strength as a deterrent.  If you are so weakened as to be easy prey due to your own complacency and apathy, you should not be surprised that society sees fit to construct a scapegoat myth out of your group or class.  The maintaining of rights is a constant chore, and the only way rights transcend paper and ink is when individuals and groups accumulate the strength necessary to force tyrants and demagogues to acknowledge rights as actual limitations on their own power. 

Anarcho-misogyny does not seek to negotiate from any position besides one of overwhelming strength.  Those who share in our commitment to equality before the law, defensible inequality based on one’s own merit and effort, and the abolition of privilege for classes within the law recognize the necessity to labor for strength.  What is strength?  From an individual and a class perspective, it is capital. 

Economic self-determination is the only self-determination that matters, and with women now making more than men in 148 of the largest 150 markets, we can see why the tide has shifted where the media message on men is concerned.  Simply put, the denigration and vilification of men is both profitable and popular.  Advertisers and members of the creative class who do so are tailoring their message to accommodate a class with means. 

To some degree, the problem confronting males in today’s current climate is an attitude of resignation and utter confusion as to what being a man means.  Many of us grow up with less than ideal role models as men.  Some of us have no consistent male influences in early life at all.  We are feminized as a result of  our circumstances.  We either don’t know who our fathers are, or we have absent fathers.

Men have a duty to other men to re-define what it is to be a man, to free future generations of matriarchal influence that seeks at all turns to feminize men into beta males.  Simply put, being a man involves self-determination, confidence, and mental and physical strength.   Power is both a means and an end in and of itself. 

            Masculinity is self-control; the rejection of feminine efforts to force men into a constantly reactionary position whereby we appear petulant and even churlish when faced with the baiting of women.  Moreover, masculinity involves the ability and willingness to accept constructive criticism when it is offered, and the pride to reject belittling criticism when women put it forth in the guise of legitimate criticism.  Certain tones and tenors used by women to make otherwise valid points ought to be torn apart immediately.  It’s not what they’re saying; it’s how they say it that betrays their ultimate intent, which is not to help a man grow and progress, but rather to demean him with his shortcomings and relegate him to a role of subordination.  

            Moreover, masculinity must become militant self-esteem.  There is a lot men could learn from women in this area, especially given the developments of the past forty years.  When advertisers appeal to women, they do so by calling out to goddesses and queens and princesses.  They do so by appealing to a sense of power and entitlement.  You are worth it. 

            In confronting hypergamy from a standpoint of power and militant self-esteem, men are entitled to exercise discretion over their own bodies in the extreme.  Advances in vasectomies have given men the option of having a vasectomy in their single years with the possibility of reversal later on.  In this day and age of uncertain paternity and women who derive significant income from child support, my advice would be for men to undergo a vasectomy as a form of birth control. 

            The decision to do so is ultimately private and need not be shared with prospective sexual partners, girlfriends, or even wives.  A woman is not required to notify her husband of an abortion, and her husband is not bound to notify her that he had a vasectomy before they got married.  Additionally, having a vasectomy gives a man a degree of reproductive self-determination that a woman cannot influence.  A man can have a child at his leisure and discretion.  Moreover, should he not wish to have a child, he can appear compliant with the desires of his mate in their attempts to do so without being castigated. 

            Should a man choose a polygynous existence, he can do so knowing that he is free from the concern of impregnating any girlfriend or mistress he might have.  He is free to enjoy sex on his own terms, to be affirmed by it as he sees fit without facing exploitation from a former lover. 

            Beta males who choose to morph into alpha males may do so knowing that their actions will not give rise to reproduction later on, and a medical history that includes a vasectomy will give a court pause in any proceedings on paternity.  At the very least, a paternity test can be order that would likely exculpate the male who has undergone a prior vasectomy. 

            A man is entitled to make these decisions of his own volition without the input of any woman. After all, what woman asks a man for permission to procure an abortion, or makes her decision to carry or terminate a pregnancy entirely contingent upon the consent of her partner? 

            A woman can still achieve the status of having slept with a desirable male, but other than a status increase, she is not likely to gain either child-support or alimony from the exchange if reproduction is removed as a possibility.  It’s your body, your money, your sperm, and your life, men.  Do as you please with all of it, and take all necessary steps to protect what you’ve earned and what you have as a man. 

            There are innovations from other cultures that we might import here as we restore our political power and voice.  We might take the example of Iranian Muslims who enter into a contract called the sigheh, where a type of temporary marriage is entered into.  The conditions are spelled out at the beginning, from the amount of support that will be provided to the amount of sex that will be given.  The contract can be anywhere from a few hours to months or years in duration, and it is renewable. 

            This seems like a far more reasonable arrangement for men to pursue than the antiquated institution of full-blown marriage. If either partner fails to meet the other’s standards or expectations, the contract need not be renewed. Both parties, therefore, have an incentive to maintain themselves and behave in an upstanding manner.  If they do not, the contract is voided and the benefits are lost. 

            Sigheh represents the best of what marriage has to offer without any of the finality or restrictions.  It benefits a woman by providing her access to a man’s means, and it benefits a man by providing him an outlet for sex and companionship on terms that are mutually agreed up and binding at the outset.  Additionally, the breach of the terms by a woman does not a result in costly court proceedings or a division of property for the man. 

            Additionally, a pre-nuptial agreement ought to be a requisite for every man at the outset of a marriage.  Property should be partitioned, with pre-marriage assets placed entirely off-limits.  Property accrued as a result of joint purchasing, where the man and the woman have paid for the item in equal or divided amounts should be divided according to the contribution.  If the property cannot be divided physically, it should be liquidated and the proceeds divided according to each party’s contribution. 

            Every man should insist on ruling out alimony altogether as a condition of his prenuptial agreement.  Moreover, should the woman fail to compromise on any tenet or codicil fundamental to the man, the man should get up and walk away from the entire relationship.  Economic self-interest has to trump emotion for a man’s well-being and self-interests to be represented.  That may sound harsh, and avowedly unromantic, but the simple truth is that a divorce proceeding where the division of property is left at the discretion of a judge is far harsher to the interests of men than women. 

            The final piece of the strategy in confronting hypergamy is for men to start looking realistically at what women are.  Simply put, a male in his twenties is better suited to pursue a relationship with an older woman.  A woman hits her sexual peak in her thirties, and a man at that age ought to realistically assess what he wants from a relationship and pursue it without shame.  Moreover, older women have their own means and their own status, and the introduction of a younger man into the networks they’ve already established can be important to later success in employment and business.  Your peers in the same age group cannot offer you either the status, the connections, or even the same sexual competency as an older woman because they don’t have any of those things. 

            The economics of the matter do not lie. The older someone is, the more likely they are to have a better economic footing.  And let’s be realistic: we’ve all seen older women that we’ve entertained carnal thoughts about.  At various points in my life, I was attracted to Arianna Huffington, Nanette Hansen, and others.  They were intelligent, attractive, successful women. 

            In essence, one of the answers to hypergamy is for men to start realizing that it has merit, and to practice it on some level themselves.  If you’re a beta male, it isn’t because you’re oppressed or society has forced you into anything. You are a victim of your own resignation, and just as quickly as you resigned yourself to a fate as a less attractive, less successful, and subordinate mound of self-pity, you can change. 

            Go to the gym, read a book, and watch what you eat.  Start dressing differently and adapting your life to getting what you want out of life.  Do what works to get what you want out life on your own terms.  Maybe you won’t get exactly what you want, but who does?  It’s not a matter of whether or not something is wrong per se, but whether or not it has practical utility to your life and your ambitions.  If it does, do it, so long as it isn’t illegal and doesn’t put anyone’s life at risk. 

            But most importantly, realize that the brotherhood you have with your own kind will be key to resurgence in male self-determination.  We need to mobilize in this country to combat misandry.   We need a National Organization for Men to promote men’s reproductive self-determination, equality for men in custody and divorce cases, and the abolition of misandry that pigeonholes men in those areas. 

            We need to organize boycotts of products that make fun of men and denigrate us as dumb, sex-obsessed morons.  What’s so bad about being sex-obsessed, anyway? Sex is good, isn’t it?  It’s the basic drive that compels us all.  Why wouldn’t you want it in greater quantities?  Why would you feel ashamed of having it?  The people who want to put taboo restrictions and attach unreasonable expectations to sex are the ones with the problems, and their puritanical and dogmatic approaches to sexuality have been ruining the sex lives of others throughout human history.  

            This is clearly seen in the way we refer to those people who “overly” enjoy sex: freaks.  The same pejorative we use to refer to someone with an extra toe or an animal with two heads is used to refer to individuals who aspire to have sex on their own terms, for their own edification, and for their own enjoyment. Does this not seem a bit absurd? 

            It’s time to reject this line of thinking, and to take concrete steps to achieve sexual self-determination and pride for men on their own terms. It’s time to empower men to define their own lives however they see fit, to remove the institutional and social obstacles to men who seek to live life as an alpha male by their own merits.  Moreover, it’s time for other men to celebrate their achievements and that of their brothers, as opposed to acting resentful and envious to the point of being bitchy.  Cattiness has no place on our side of the fence.  If we can stand in the stands at an NFL game and cheer for men whose abilities enable them to aspire to achievements on the gridiron that we simply cannot match, we can recognize greatness in our peers and celebrate when they realize their potential.   Just as it isn’t to the exclusion of our own potential when an NFL quarterback throws a sixty-yard pass across his body under pressure, it isn’t exclusory to our potential when one of our co-workers gets a promotion. 

            He’s realized his potential, and we simply have to work to realize ours.  If our bosses aren’t giving us a fair shake, we aren’t precluded from seeking employment elsewhere.  Men have to stop buying into the victim myth and start believing that self-determination comes from effort and a refusal to accept marginalization.  Each individual man has his own gifts and abilities, and it’s in our interest to bond together to achieve a world where each individual man can realize those gifts and abilities not through privilege, but instead through hard work that leads to the reward of personal achievement. 

            For women, the interest is clear: having strong, confident, and proud men around is conducive to better sex, stronger friendships, and yes, better relationships.  A man who is secure in who he is isn’t going to be threatened by who you are.  Anarcho-misogyny is concerned with reviling feminists, but we have nothing against women who argue for equality rather than privileged standing to the exclusion of men.  We’re after a world where merit and personal achievement are the only justifiable bases for inequality. 
            Confronting hypergamy through an honest assessment of what it is, how men can utilize it to get what they want, and how men bear responsibility and face the consequences for their own choices can only lead to a better outcome in the future for men.  Identifying and recognizing misandry and its religion of feminism does not entail whining about how you’re oppressed; it entails identifying your opponent, their strengths and weaknesses, and formulating a strategy to go forward and achieve success.  That’s the manly thing to do.  

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Why I Am An Anarcho-Misogynist: The Original Post

As I’ve come to divorce myself from statist paradigms, I’ve also become increasingly cognizant of the state’s alignment with female driven concerns and motivations. The welfare state, the nanny state, all of the major advances of the state into social concerns over the past fifty years are undeniably matriarchal in their concerns. But more than that, societal conventions that deny a man’s natural and innate inclinations to preach some false idea of domestication as the ideal are the creations of a matriarchal tyranny.

We men are not naturally inclined toward monogamy or marriage. Societies that promote such end results are clearly the product of male hatred on the part of the women who drive such values. Women have appropriated the state and religious institutions to systematically de-masculinize men and relegate us to a less virile, less potent existence. Instead of celebrating our masculinity, we are taught to regard it as an impediment to the liberation of women. The two are mutually exclusive, because the feminine paradigm of thought is largely concerned with the oppositional, either/or mutually exclusive dichotomy.

It is no accident that mainline religious denominations are dominated by women from a membership standpoint. Consider the following from the article The Feminization of Christianity by Leon Podles, which finds church membership ratios overwhelming dominated by women: Roman Catholics, 1.09 to one; Lutherans, 1.04-1.23 to one; Mennonites, 1.44-1.16 to one; Friends, 1.40 to one; Methodists, 1.33-1.47 to one; Baptists, 1.35 to one; Assembly of God, 1.71 to one; Pentecostals, 1.71-2.09 to one; and Christian Scientists, 3.19 to one. Podles notes that when men do attend church, it is usually only because they are pressured into doing so by women.

Podles goes on to critique the clergy, and what he notes is informative: “Because Christianity is now seen as a part of the sphere of life proper to women rather than to men, it sometimes attracts men whose own masculinity is somewhat doubtful. By this I do not mean homosexuals, although a certain type of homosexual is included. Rather, religion is seen as a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life, and therefore attracts men who are fearful of making the break with the secure world of childhood dominated by women. These are men who have problems following the path of masculine development. Is a truism among Catholics that priests become priests because of the influence of their mothers, and many priests are emotionally very close to their mothers, more so than to men, even to their fathers.

Lewis M. Terman and Catherine Cox Miles measured masculinity among men involved in religion, and their findings were even more striking: “Most masculine of all are still the men who have little or no interest in religion. Very masculine men showed little interest in religion, very feminine men great interest. Women who have highly feminine scores were also especially religious, while women who had more masculine scores were neutral or adverse to religion. The difference was clearly not physical sex, but attitude, or gender, as the term is now used.

For a woman, a man must be civilized and domesticated, for in hisnatural state he is little more than the sum of his drivesand impulses. These drives and impulses must be harnessed and directed towards the pursuits deemed productive and appropriate by women. Many of the ideals that men are driven towards, such as marriage and family and a life built on the idea of reproductive responsibility for men and reproductive emancipation for women, are indisputably the province and idea of women.

In the area of reproduction, a woman will tell you that a man’s input over reproduction ends the moment he ejaculates. He is responsible for the outcome she determines, but he has no input or choice in the matter. The correct answer is this: a man has a choice, a free choice, and he should be allowed to choose whether or not enter into the child-rearing with a woman. If he chooses not to do so, society should not punish him or denigrate his free choice. He never forced the woman to have a child. She chose of her own volition to do so, and she is responsible for her choice. To force a man to take responsibility for the choice of a woman is deeply perverse, but as in all feminist ideology, this essential distinction is never made.

Examples abound in the animal kingdom of males of a species being uninvolved in child-rearing, even altogether detached from the support and raising of their offspring. Yet feminists strongly believe that men should be coerced into an unnatural model of reproduction whereby their earnings and the fruits of their efforts are pilfered by parasitic women in the name of supporting progeny, but the truth of the matter is that we all know women who use child support as a mere enhancement of their own standard of living while the needs of their child go met.

To oppose these arrangements is to reject institutionally centralized authority, and to say that choice extends to a man as broadly as it does a woman. It is the duty of all humanists, all anarchists, to reject feminist thought for a new mode of thinking which posits that men, like women, are entitled to choose their own course as sovereign and autonomous beings. Simply put, anarcho-misogyny is a new way of viewing antiquated arrangements like family and monogamy, neither of which can be said to be the natural state of males. Who benefits from such institutions? The only possible answer is to say that such institutions, specifically monogamous marriage, benefit only a woman by allowing her to establish monopolies over a man’s capital assets and the work product thereof. Society as it currently exists provides perverse incentives against the free choice of men, incentives that conversely provide women economic motivation to consider divorce as a viable economic alternative to marriage, especially in community property states. Moreover, a woman within a monogamous relationship has a monopoly over the only asset sufficient to make any man entertain the prolonging of marriage: sex.

A man should be able to freely choose his sexual partners, even when he is within the confines of marriage, and no free choice can be had when semantic denigrations of male sexual emancipation exist such as infidelity and promiscuity. We are taught from a young age that a man who engages in such behaviors is a rolling stone, but the simple truth is that he is a man engaged in the fullness of manhood. He celebrates his being and all that is elemental about being a man. A man’s assets, the fruits of his labor and his creative genius, ought to be his and his alone. Women are attracted to wealth for what it represents: attainment with minimal effort or genius on their own behalf. Through marriage a woman may yoke the product of a man’s efforts and genius for herself without ever contributing anything of value to the generation of those efforts or the genius that enables a man to achieve for himself.

It is not infidelity, or promiscuity, or irresponsibility when a man chooses to engage in sexual congress with many women. It is not wrong when a man makes a simple choice to direct his assets towards pursuits beyond the provision of capital for a woman and the children she utilized his sperm to gain. It is mere choice, and a man ought to be entitled to make that choice. A woman who cannot provide for her own children absent a man’s contribution should not be having children in the first place. We are all responsible for our own choices, and no cogent argument can be made that a world with abortion as a reality condemns women to child-rearing. If a woman makes the argument that her values prevent her from entertaining an abortion, she is still making a choice as to her values and the consequences should be hers alone to bear.

If and when total emancipation for man is achieved, and women find that marriage is no longer binding on a man’s choices to the point of limiting his sexual options to his wife alone, we shall see how many women value marriage as an institution solely on the basis of sentimentality. The sole value of marriage as an institution to a woman is coercive. Coercion is why women value marriage, divorce, and monogamy as ideals.

A man yoked in marriage cannot escape without the stigma of divorce, nor can he hope to elude the possibility of losing half of his property. Even if his income contribution to the marriage was much larger than that of his spouse, the courts will not take into account his disproportionate contribution relative to the division of property accumulated during the marriage. A woman knows this, which is why the threat of divorce is such a deterrent to men who are questioning why they are involved in a marriage that does not meet their needs as men.

Only a man who has been feminized through societal pressures and conventions can buy into the idea that marriage is fulfilling. A man who is true to himself, and who truly knows himself, can only come to the conclusion that marriage is the antithesis of everything he is as a man. We are hardwired for polygyny, and our physiological realities prove as much.

According to an article in Psychology Today, we know as much much because men are taller than women:
Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.

The work of Darwinian historian Laura L. Betzig confirms this: “[W]hile powerful men throughout Western history have married monogamously (only one legal wife at a time), they have always mated polygynously (they had lovers, concubines, and female slaves).” This begs the question of how we arrived at a dominant paradigm of monogamous marriage, with infidelity being denigrated as a moral wrong rather than a natural outcome.

The answer is female-dominated and defined religion, specifically Catholic sexual mores, with their veneration of virginity and Marian devotion. As women came to the forefront of religion, sexuality became distorted into an egalitarian matter. For attractive women, polygyny didn’t work because they couldn’t monopolize the assets of their wealthy male partners through marriage. For unattractive women, polygyny didn’t work because they were unlikely to gain anything beyond an unattractive man with little in the way of assets, and even then, a man was free to decamp and pursue a better deal.

Simply put, marriage in its current form is the product of female apathy. A man is expected to be reduced and subjugated, first wooed by a woman who holds out the prospect of incendiary carnal delights during the stage before marriage, only to withdraw such delights after vows have been exchanged. She has no incentive to keep the illusion going, because she has arrived the moment marriage becomes a reality. All of society and the law is oriented towards punishing a man who chooses to reject the unnatural and pernicious institution of modern marriage to follow his natural inclinations.

Feminism is the natural outgrowth of phallic hatred. It is not an instrument of advocacy for equality or egalitarianism, and even if it were, we are not equal. It is one thing to insist on equality before the law and the state; it is another thing entirely to insist on equality of outcomes and results. Feminism does just this, as do the matriarchs who have seized the state in order to direct its efforts towards uniquely female social efforts. The state has been redesigned to care about health, about education, about egalitarian outcomes, and about promoting the universalization of said concerns throughout the globe through NGOs and other institutions. Given the pairing of security with nation-building and other maternal acts in our foreign and military policies, we can say without doubt that feminization has been the driving force of imperialism and fascism over the past forty years.

Remember the note of Podles, and his concern that religion in its modern incarnation attracts men of doubtful masculinity. There is an argument to be made that statism in its current form attracts men of doubtful masculinity, and so does every other ideology which posits matriarchal concerns such as social justice and welfare. To allow socialism and other communitarian ideals to have their way is execute the Promethean impulse within men that reaches towards fire to achieve greatness on an individual level. Feminization teaches us that individual achievement, and any insistence on reaping the rewards of individual achievement as an individual, is selfish and evil. It denigrates that within ordinary men that might give them the chance to be extraordinary.

I am an anarcho-misogynist because I believe in the autonomy of individuals, and the right of every man to determine for himself his course in life. I believe in absolute choice, and I repudiate the idea of law now and forevermore insofar as that law emanates from centralized institutions or majoritarian consent. I am my own law, an individual fascist. I am Man, Superman, and I aspire to a higher morality whereby my choices and consequences are my own apart from all others. I believe in no higher order beyond that of individual choice, and I reject the idea of centralized order. I believe in voluntary associations for individual transactions, with nothing being the immediate exchange.

The fact that I ejaculate during sexual intercourse does not mean that I consent to all possible outcomes including pregnancy and fatherhood. I have consented to the immediate sexual act, and in order for me to be considered a father, I must consent to fatherhood, which is a separate transaction altogether. I retain autonomy and sovereignty throughout all phases of my existence, and reject the idea that consent can be implicit. A woman may choose to engage in motherhood, but that in no way obligates me to the converse of fatherhood. It does not matter how many times I engaged in sexual intercourse, if my stated intention was merely sex, I cannot be said to have consent to reproduction.

Reproductive freedom for a male is summed up by the ability to deny consequence for consensual action, just as it is for a woman. If we are to be equal, a male’s ability to abort his decision by refusing to accept obligations for the consequence of sex in the form of parenthood must be honored. Feminism is nothing more than the authoritarian, statist attempt to enforce an equality of outcomes over the consent of individuals. A woman who chooses to engage in parenthood can use the state to enforce parenthood and its obligations over the will of a man. She can bludgeon the man into accepting responsibility for her choice, while obliterating any rational distinction between the choice to have sex and the choice to bear a child to term. There are two distinct choices, but a woman’s feminist outlook seeks to render one choice out of two for any man in order to coerce and force him into a role she wants for herself. His capital must be pilfered to support and sustain her choice.

This perverse arrangement, as oppressive as it is, can only be termed misandry. As Warren Farrell noted in his work Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, “In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.” If you wish to be free of the dominant paradigm of misandry that is all pervasive throughout our society and its media, then you must reject everything that society speaks against manhood. You must choose the existence of a solitary individual, choosing only those relationships or interactions that complement your desires and further your interests as a man. No woman is entitled to pilfer or rob the fruits of your effort and your genius simply because she chose to get pregnant. Your capital is the beginning of your power, and your values as a man who believes in self-determination and individual autonomy are the foundation of the accruing of capital.

It is unnatural to deny that we are inclined to desire women sexually, even intimately. But these desires should not be exploited by women for material gain, and those women who cannot separate desire from tactical strategy are unworthy of our esteem. A society that incentivizes and enables such manipulation and exploitation is unworthy of our support. A state that builds and perpetuates entire institutions out of misandry is our enemy and must be deracinated altogether.

Modern feminism is not concerned with equality; it is concerned with denying justified supremacy to those men who earn it by virtue of their own labors. No matter how hard you have worked, no matter the merit of your achievements, you are to accept equality and even subordination to women as a corrective for perceived slights and oppressions of the past. Many women who assert such injustices have arguable never experience said injustices personally, but they claim them as a means of gaining a superior footing that they have not earned, or an equal footing that they do not deserve by virtue of their own effort.

Feminism is a shortcut to equality and supremacy for women who seek such standing without the requisite labor or effort involved in achieving it. Equality of our outcomes, even superiority of outcomes, must be statutorily mandated in the interests of justice or some remedy ideologically associated with justice. One cannot be a feminist without hating men on some level, for feminism involves dissociating women from blame by forever casting aspersions on men for the result of a woman’s choices. It is absolutely absurd to blame a man for a woman’s pregnancy and the reduced economic status thereof because the man she had sex with does not surrender his money and his wealth to enable her choice. The choice a man made was confined to the act of sex itself, and did not in any way represent assent to parenthood or the support of a woman who choose parenthood as a result of the act of sex. A woman who makes a such a choice knowing that she does not have the self-sufficiency to support herself, much less a child, is a monster. A woman who makes such a choice with an eye towards confiscating a man’s wealth through the state is a parasite, nothing more and nothing less.

It is time to reorient the priorities of society and human existence, to reject the state and the male-hatred it perpetuates. It is also time to say that women are not entitled to equal pay for equal work, because the reality of the matter is that few women ever engage in anything equivalent to equal work. As a retail manager, I encountered resistance from female employees when I would close a store. Almost universally, female retail employees felt that men alone should be tasked with cleaning the restrooms. It wasn’t a girl job. But as Gail Kelly, CEO of Westpac noted, despite the fact that equal pay was the line at her company, a gender pay gap still existed because the choices made by men and women are simply different when it comes to careers. What feminists are after is not equal pay, but unequal pay whereby they are able to do less at work and prioritize other matters while receiving the same pay as men who prioritize their career over all else. Equal pay is a pernicious misrepresentation, a totally disingenuous argument put forth by feminists seeking to perpetuate privilege rather than equality.

Moreover, women could engage in sexual dialogue with males on the job at will, and most males, being the men that they were, would not object. However, a woman’s objection to a male’s advances or banter was rooted in subjective and shifting standards. Women tolerate desired advances on the job, reciprocating the sexual banter of men they like, often as other men witness the interactions. However, if one of those witnesses gets the idea that a woman is receptive due to her reciprocation, he is likely to be in for an unpleasant surprise and a harassment complaint. The critical distinction to understand is that onus is always shifted to a man, and no liability for conflicting signals can ever be imputed to a woman, who always plays the part of a victim at her convenience.

I reject categorically the idea of sexual harassment, because it is never tied to any objective standard in either theory or application. Guilt where sexual harassment is concerned depends not on any reasonable or universal standard, but merely on the fiat declaration of a woman who very often tolerates the same or similar behavior from men other than the alleged perpetrator.
In much the same way, women engage in sexual dalliances with men and state after the fact that coercion was involved. Simply put, women falsely accuse men of rape on a scale that is staggering, consuming vast amounts of money and time with their false accusations. There is the example of 27 year old Lisa Fraser, a woman in the United Kingdom who consumed 600 hours of police time searching for her non-existent rapist. The authorities decided not to prosecute Lisa Fraser.

There is also the case of Warren Blackwell, who was convicted of rape and jailed, only to be released when the authorities were forced to admit that his accuser had a history of crying rape. Blackwell’s conviction was overturned on appeal, but due to laws in the United Kingdom, his accuser remained anonymous. His accuser was not prosecuted, and Blackwell has no opportunity to sue her for defamation because she is guaranteed anonymity by law.

Then there is the case of Biurny Peguero, who accused William McCaffrey of rape, resulting in his being jailed for four years. There are so many examples you can find in a simple Internet search that the end result of feminism are obvious: women can hide behind anonymity while their victims languish with their reputations forever tarred by the mere accusation. I am an anarcho-misogynist because I oppose the fundamental unfairness of this arrangement. Anonymity for rape victims is fine, so long as the anonymity extends to the accused as well. In the United Kingdom, such reforms are underway after a case in which a serial rape accuser was revealed to have driven one of her victims to suicide.

Feminism is not for everyone, despite the arguments of the supposedly enlightened progressives who buy into such nonsense. As an ideology, feminism ought to be re-christened as what it truly is: gender resentment and male hatred. The dominant ideological paradigms of our time render hatred of males and whites acceptable, because liberalism has a stunningly asinine moral calculus that posits reciprocal action as a corrective for deeply immoral past bigotries. Two wrongs do not make a right, unless of course you are a feminist.

I do not hate women, of course, but to speak against feminism is often characterized as misogyny in and of itself, much like any query against the policies of Israel is reflexively labeled as Anti-Semitism. Such knee-jerk reactions are rooted in a surrender of intelligence and logic on the part of those who resort to such nonsense, but such is the way of our world. If opposing feminism makes me a misogynist, and seeking to tear down the state as a construct makes me an anarchist, then I am, proudly and forevermore, an anarcho-misogynistic capitalist. Power to the phallus. The song below is dedicated to all of the women who covet what a man has, and seek to appropriate through the emasculating rhetoric of feminism and the coercive force of the state.