Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Stand By Your Man: 12 Women in Support of a Cure for Prostate Cancer

The 2010 calendar, titled “Stand By Your Man: 12 Women in Support of a Cure for Prostate Cancer,” went on sale this month. All the money from the sales go to the Prostate Cancer Coalition of New Jersey, and the women plan to take to the streets of Manhattan next week to sell the calendar.

You can order the calendar here:
Prostate Cancer Coalition of New Jersey

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Our Current Problem – A Further Response to John

Once again, in response to my last post, John offered some very interesting comments. I encourage everyone to give it a read. Many thanks, John; your comments certainly help me focus my thoughts. I’ve added your web site to my list of Men’s Sites.

On many points I think we agree, however I disagree on some, and strongly disagree with what I infer is your solution. Where I think we most agree, although I don’t know that you see it, is in your argument that we should attack the cause of our current situation, i.e., politicization, not directly, but by attacking its cause, i.e., feminism. It’s mainly the tactic on which we disagree.

I agree with your comment that the real party in this conflict is the state. I agree because ultimately I think the general problem is that the relationship and the power balance between men and women has been fundamentally changed by the inclusion of the state. For example, marriage is now a three-way contract between men, women and the state. It is the alliance between the state and feminism that is our true enemy. Angry Harry recently addressed this alliance.

With respect to your comments regarding politicization, I do agree that, “the law is itself a restrictive phenomenon upon freedom,” and so must be addressed. I do see the state as the ultimate enemy of freedom. Importantly, it is also the source of female power. I do indeed see the politicization of private matters, such as marriage, divorce, and children, as a crucial problem.

More broadly, I agree that the law’s “value begins and stops with that (a restrictive phenomenon upon freedom).” I do not, however, observe that the current law has limited itself to its value. It is true that this is the historically unique ideal upon which the United States was founded: the idea that rights are naturally inherent and so government power limited.(*) In this experiment, the government supposedly does not bestow rights. One can see clearly the seed of our problem in the arguments for and against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The danger of inclusion was the implication that the government was conferring limited rights (hence, the 9th Amendment). Our instant problem is chiefly that this danger has now been realized.

But our problem is not just politicization, but more fundamentally, a faction problem as discussed in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9 and Madison’s Federalist No. 10. The feminist faction is indeed females “united . . . by [a] common impulse of passion . . . adverse to the rights of other citizens [i.e., men], . . . and [the] aggregate interests of the community.”

More precisely, our problem is a perverse realization of the faction problem as expressed through the feminist-state alliance. This codependent power relationship between government and feminism is the root cause of politicization, and our real enemy. In this case, Madison’s solution, a large republic, has not served to temper the feminist faction problem. Instead the government has embraced and rather opportunistically enabled feminism. From this man’s viewpoint, the feminist faction has served as little more than a sanction of government oppression.

With the allocation of government authority to the feminist faction, effected through so-called public policies that conferred special rights to females, the federal government skillfully escaped its constitutional limitations. It became a government that bestows limited privileges on men and suppresses our natural rights. Females of course self-servingly wield that government authority over men. Moreover, females’ selfish use of special rights supports and strengthens the government beast. The allocation and execution of such power is just too tempting for females to resist, and too advantageous for the government to curtail.

It is a problem of increasing government power as facilitated by the feminist faction. The quasi-communist feminist faction, with a very specific strategy and by using well-defined wartime tactics, allied itself with the government. Feminist expansion became government expansion. Our government happily acceded to the feminist demands because it fed the government’s ever increasing, self-serving, appetite for expansion.

Feminists understood this.

But I don’t assess our situation as having arisen principally because of some tyranny of the female majority. Again, I believe it to be a perverse faction problem. If our government functioned as initially restricted, I might conclude that its decisions were representative of the majority. However, there is more than ample evidence that our federal government plainly does not head the majority when its ever-increasing power is at stake.

Nevertheless, although the majority of females may not have pressed the feminist agenda, all females now, at least tacitly, enjoy and encourage the feminist-government pact.

We must break this feminist-government alliance.

Feminism will never abandon government, for government is truly its only source of real power. Moreover, so long as all females enjoy the benefits of a feminist-government union, they will never truly abandon feminism. Most importantly, government will never abandon feminism while it serves the government appetite for power and expansion. We cannot defeat the state directly. Nor can we defeat government-empowered feminism.

But we can defeat individual females at each and every turn.

Females have become the feminist-government alliance’s front-line soldiers. This is the principal reason I regard all females as members of the enemy camp. Given the opportunity, in a very utilitarian fashion, each female will treat us as the enemy; they will do so with the government’s full support.

Consequently, I cannot agree with your conclusion that the solution is as simple as depoliticization through transcendence, because I basically do not believe that will work.

I disagree that a man might transcend the power of the state through his own choice to opt out, with nothing more. Frankly, I believe that to be a false impression of freedom. While it is certainly true that, “a workhorse cannot be made to produce if he refuses to work,” in our case, females, through the power of the government, have many options to force compliance. As I said before, you can only go your own way so long as the government allows. I have to agree with the Elusive Wapiti when he says, “[t]he law will simply be changed so as to ensnare men that are attempting to avoid the government marriage trap.” We already see this government approach in countries other than the U.S.

Truly, how better to enslave a man than to delude him into believing himself free?

You seem to acknowledge this problem when you state that men must “have the backbone to say ‘no’ to entitled women. You state that, “cultural attitudes filter into democratic processes,” and that it is the “culture that projects its cultural and spiritual shortcomings into the force of law.” You seem to argue again that the solution is to man-up, go our own way, and thereby change both our and the female mindset. As mentioned before, male transcendence of the politicization is not a solution, so presumably it must be the change in female culture that will change the law. You give the impression that females will surrender if we do not fight them. Again, you leave our fate to the whims of females. With this, I strongly disagree.

Frankly, I simply don’t believe that most females awoke one morning with a sudden epiphany, nor, left alone, will they in the future. I do not think that the men-going-their-own-way tactic, without more, is sufficient to dissuade females from allying with feminism. Females must be actively led by men to realize that feminism is contrary to their best interests. They simply will not come to this realization on their own. Consequently, with your argument, that in conclusion again seems little more than leaving our fate in the hands of females, I strongly disagree.

The fact is, the foot soldiers on the ground are the females. Females exercise the state’s power and sustain the feminist-government alliance. Only by defeating the soldiers can we break the feminist-government alliance.

We must compel females to forcefully reject feminism and the feminist-government alliance.

We must take aggressive action against rank-and-file females to actively convince them that a change is in their best interest. We must treat all females as our enemy until they no longer wish to fight or to passively support our enemy. At every turn, we must contest the female use of government power until females surrender. With each battle won we diminish the power of feminism.

Only when females surrender, en masse, will the feminist agenda cease to be a source of government’s ever increasing power. Once rejected feminism no longer serves as a source of government power, government, fickle and self-serving as it is, will abandon feminism for more effective sources of power.

This is how we win.

We must make deserters from feminism of females, not become deserters ourselves.

(*) We can argue this point later. I tend to think of this more as propaganda for the masses.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Defining Victory – Day Two

In the comments to my last post, John disagrees with my assertion that victory over our enemy may be best defined as equality under the law. Quite to the point, John declares that he “hate[s] the word equality as a political platitude,” since it “refers to the effect, and ignores the cause.” He claims that the use of such a term leads to us “arguing over the initial conditions.” Most rightly, he states that, “as long as women's groups allege that women are or have been oppressed, they will always be able to portray female supremacy as an equality movement.” I agree with many of his comments, however, his conclusion that “even using the term equality plays into their hands,” I believe to be flawed.

I must take full responsibility for John’s misunderstanding, because again I have failed to be as clear in my writing as I might have. John, my audience is not feminists, not females generally, and not the general public of males. (Although, I certainly appreciate the writers who do address such audiences, as they have taught me much). No, instead my audience is men like you, men who have studied the feminist propaganda, given much thought to the issues and problems, and who have reached certain conclusions regarding the fight at hand.

And so, understand that when I use the phrase “equality under the law,” I hope that you read it not as a feminist manipulation of the language, nor as a “political platitude”, but for its plain meaning.

Equality under the law is power.

In this men’s movement, most of what I read directly complains of a lack of equality under the law - facial inequalities or inequalities in the application of divorce law, child custody law, criminal sentencing, civil rights law, employment law, education law, health law, VAWA, IMBRA, etc. The remainder complains of societal disparities, such as our negative portrayal in the media, female attitudes generally, and feminist indoctrination classes in universities. Precious little time is afforded proactive solutions to these complaints.

So, John, while I believe you are surely correct to speak of cause and effect, I just think you address the wrong cause and effect.

Now, I do not wish to fall into the trap of wasting time “arguing over the initial conditions, i.e. the cause that precedes the alleged effect.” You see, I wholeheartedly agree that it serves no purpose to argue over initial conditions. Indeed, I am well beyond being concerned with initial conditions.

I am, however, very much concerned with our instant condition.

Currently, we are in a war. Most importantly, the power of the state, i.e., the law, is not on our side. I do not, from a strategic viewpoint, care about how the law came to be (although, from a tactical standpoint, such history may well serve our needs). Instead, I care that the law, as written and presently applied, is being used to shackle us.

The cause of much of our problems, both individually and collectively, is the current law, because that is where the draconian power of the government lies. The effects on men are losses in divorces and child custody cases, lost education and job opportunities, lost freedom, even in some cases, loss of life.

You already know that because of such power, currently, one lone female’s word is all that is required to deprive you of your property, your children, your liberty and your freedom. Without such power, feminism becomes little more than a failed experiment; a feminist no more than a laughingstock. You and I have no such power. Feminists understand this, and so, are laughing at us.

Your solution, or definition of victory, is for men to “go on strike,” thereby denying women the opportunity to be “pampered by men.” In addition to women waking up to the realization that there are no “good men” left to support them, the individual man may awaken to the realization that he has become liberated “from the need to live his days in support of a wife and family.” Victory, it seems, is nothing more than a man “content in the peace and serenity that he has found.”

Myself, I do not characterize such a tactic as victory. However, I do agree with the Elusive Wapiti who remarks that, “men need to look after themselves first.” As I’ve previously stated, I’ve gone fishing. I generally agree with this going-my-own-way tactic, and indeed, I even agree that it might be something of a victory of liberation for an individual man. In my private life I have done so. I encourage all men to do the same.

But this is, at most, a tactic, not a strategy. It is surely not victory. Basically, it is only a soldier’s most primary form of self-discipline. Starving our enemy of our labor is required of all soldiers. A soldier never provides aid and comfort to the enemy. This is nothing more than one of the first rules of war, as I’ve noted before.

It clearly does not change the balance of power on the battlefield. Refusing to fight, without more, just does not win wars. It will never end this war. Instead, it will lead to certain defeat.

Hear these words well: “For evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing.” Don’t be a male who does nothing. Don’t be deceived into believing that such escapism is anything more than a temporary respite for an individual man. Passivity only serves our enemy. It will never make us free. It offers but an illusion of freedom - an illusion that lasts only until some female, applying her power under the law, shatters it.

Simply acting as if you are free does not make you less of a slave.

This victory of serenity essentially fails to attend to the very source of feminist power - the law itself. As long as females have such great power, men will never find the serenity we seek. To put it bluntly, the power of men-going-their-own-way can never compare with the incredible power of the federal government. In fact, we are only allowed to go our own way so long as the law permits. Under the control of females, the law may not always offer men such a privilege.

Frankly, we can expect that females’ eventual reaction to men going their own way will not be a positive change in their behavior and attitudes. Females with overwhelming power will not change to our benefit. Females will not awaken “one day with an epiphany,” and a newfound admiration of traditional sex roles. There will not be a collective female cry for men’s rights. If history has taught us nothing, it has shown us that females will use every government-sponsored power, under the law, to whip us pack-mules back to work.

And so, our strategy must be to take back this power of equality under the law. We must deprive our enemy of its benefits. We must control and use it for ourselves. It is the only path to freedom.

Presently, we do not have a free choice regarding our bondage to the law. However, all men have this choice:

Will you walk off the battlefield a slave, or will you fight for your freedom?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Defining Victory

In response to my last post, John asked a very relevant question, “If women are the enemy, then how do you define victory over the enemy?”

Simple answer, when men and women are treated equally under the law.

Although practically any given female will proclaim that equality is the goal of feminism, equality is plainly not our enemy’s goal. A female’s use of the term is nothing more than a shaming tactic to silence men. Have we not all heard the question, “don’t you believe in equal rights for women,” when attempting to debate with females?

No, the very core of feminism is women’s rights. It is not about equal rights or equal privileges, and certainly not about equal responsibilities and equal consequences.

As proof, I challenge each of my readers to peruse the National Organization of Women’s website and note how often the phrase “equal rights” is used compared to the phrase “women’s rights.” A Google search turns up 4700 occurrences of the phrase “women’s rights” but only 1540 instances of “equal rights,” of which most are concerned with the Equal Rights Amendment, lesbian and gay rights, disability rights, or equal pay “rights.”

NOW even uses the phrase “equal women’s rights” - as if equal rights are only for women. You see, in the eyes of females, we are all equal. It’s just that some are more equal than others.

Bottom line, I say we win when we have given females what they pretend to want – equality. Who can argue with such a strategy?

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Gone Fishin’ – Day Two

The comments received on my last post (thank you all) have led me to believe that I should generally clarify my position on our current status.

We are at war.

Make no mistake, slowly but surely we are being enslaved and exterminated. Men who lead moral lives of honor, courage, and integrity are a dieing breed. We are offered only contempt, scorn, ridicule, and of course, blame. Our children have been taken from us. Our labor is no longer our own. Many of our compatriots languish in prison, or worse, have taken their own lives. Our very thoughts are under attack.

Freedom, it seems, slips from our grasp.

We constantly read of the strategies and tactics of our enemy. Cognitive dissidence and the dialectic are always at work against us. Political arguments are reframed, language is redefined, and so society reengineered. The lie is now the truth. Murder is choice. Evil is good. Death is life. Freedom is slavery. Slavery is freedom. And much, much worse, we are told and expected to be happy about it.

And we do nothing.

No more.

John, you are correct. I have indeed adopted collectivist thinking. The same as warriors always do. I no longer question whether a particular female should be rescued, the same as American soldiers did not question whether a particular Nazi was the enemy. Our enemy adopts collectivist thinking – we are the enemy simply because of our anatomy. If we fail to do the same, we will fail.

Do not be deceived by females who claim they are not feminists. Hold no compassion in your heart for any individual member of the enemy. For each and every female has been trained from birth to be our enemy. Their beliefs are so ingrained, their weapons so powerful and readily available, their righteousness so sure, that none can truly be on our side.

Heed these words of wisdom, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Our enemy’s power is approaching the absolute.

Do not allow yourself to be used by your enemy. For example, you said that, “men don't appreciate it when feminists say that we as a sex are ‘responsible’ for the death and destruction of war.” But we are, John. Open your eyes to history, and see the truth. The fact is that such comments serve nothing but the enemy purpose of manipulating us into arguing against the truth. It then becomes trivial for them to dismiss our rightful complaints as unfounded.

What will you do? What do you think your enemy will do?

I will fight.

I AM saying that this particular individual should NOT be helped.

I say this simply because of her anatomy. She is my enemy. She is your enemy. While I am indeed capable and willing to render aid to someone in trouble, I will not offer aid and comfort to the enemy. Don’t you either. This is not “moral paralysis.” This is the first rule of war.

Henceforth, do not complain of such things as that we can’t expect our enemy to offer us the consideration of help if one of us were “being raped by thugs.” Such are the rules of war. It is good if your enemy fights amongst itself. Do not interfere. Our enemy is quite adept at understanding and applying such rules. We must be as well.

This is not a question of courage, for we are all good, courageous men. We fight the good fight. No, this is a question of loyalty. No man can serve two masters. Each of us must search his own soul, and each of us must choose a side if we are to be free. If you don’t, then you are already a slave.

So, whom will you serve? What will you do?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Gone Fishin’

Two recent posts concerning a lawsuit filed by a female against New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority caught my attention. The female, now 25, filed suit against the MTA, alleging that its employees were negligent in not coming to her aid when she was raped on a G train platform in Queens three years ago.

Coming straight to the point, Rex Patriarch fittingly asks, “Why Should Any Man Help You Now?”

Seemingly in answer, The Elusive Wapiti notes that this “World Without Men” is what feminists have long sought. Hence, he quite rightly finds it curious that feminists are offended that men did not risk their lives to run to the female’s rescue.

One clueless feminist commenter asked, “is violence against women THAT normalized??”

Here’s a clue: Why yes, yes it is. Violence against women has always been an integral part of every human culture. That is, until a couple of hundred years ago when a few good men of faith came to believe that such violence should not be tolerated. Of course, since then we’ve been excoriated for creating, building, and maintaining such a society so oppressive to women.

I find this comment particularly rich: “Anyone who can just stand and watch as a woman's taken off to be raped has a screwed up moral code.” You silly feminists spouting off to men about morality - really! Don’t you recall that you find men’s moral rules to be tyrannical and repressive?

Remember this?:
"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. " - Gloria Steinem

Well, we men have heard you. We’ve heard how you’re strong and independent. We listened when you told us that you didn’t need us. We believed you when you told us that we were irrelevant in your female life. As a matter of fact, all along we’ve heard your demands, and moreover, have given you everything you’ve asked for.

You now have everything you wanted.

I will no longer come to your rescue, and I implore my brothers in arms to do the same. I’m not running across the street to save you from a mugger. I’m not getting in a bar fight because some random thug accosts you. I am not your knight in shining armor, as you have so plainly let me know. Chivalry is dead, don’cha know.

Frankly, I will not even call the police to help you.

You see woman, I will no longer be so much as inconvenienced by your existence. You now offer me nothing, but have the gall to continue to demand everything. I suggest you begin practicing what you’ve been preaching all these years.

You’ve told me my entire life that you can handle anything. So handle it.

I have better things to do with my time. I have that 18 year old bottle of single malt to finish, good cigars to smoke, travel, a reading list as long as my arm, and, oh yes, hunting and fishing to do. That’s right, I smoke too much, drink too much, play my music too loud, drive a big truck, and kill tasty little woodland creatures for the grill. And lest I forget, I have dinner to cook, house cleaning, laundry, and shirts to iron. You see, I really can and do handle anything, including those little necessities of life you find so oppressive, but I find fulfilling.

Let me bottom-line it for you, sweetie: I will no longer be your friend, your colleague, your lover, your husband, or your savior.

I simply don’t need you. I just don’t care anymore.

I’ve gone fishing. And I’ll be away for the foreseeable future...

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

More Sand in the Machine: Posing as a Feminist and Using Title VII to Your Advantage

I’ll have much more to say about this at a later time, but for now let me just say that being a wolf in sheep’s clothing can be a very useful wartime technique...

Thirty-Six Stratagems - Stratagem 30:
Make the host and guest exchange roles.

Defeat the enemy from within by infiltrating the enemy’s camp under the guise of cooperation, surrender, or peace treaties. Usurp leadership in a situation where you are normally subordinate. Pretend to be a guest to be accepted, and when her guard is relaxed, strike directly at the source of her strength.

NOTE: The following is NOT legal advice (the application of information to an individual’s specific circumstances). This site does not provide legal services or legal advice. You should always consult an attorney to interpret and apply this information to your particular situation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) is the federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating against any person on the basis of the person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It applies to practically all conditions of employment, including hiring and firing, compensation and benefits, training, job assignments, and any other terms and conditions of employment. It not only prohibits behaviors that are intentionally discriminatory, but also behaviors that have the effect of being discriminatory.

By way of example, let us now primarily concern ourselves with sexual harassment as a particular type of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. More specifically, our interest is with conduct characterized as creating a “hostile work environment.” The elements of a hostile work environment are verbal or physical conduct that is, objectively and subjectively, sufficiently severe or pervasive to have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Objectively means that a reasonable person would find the conduct such, while subjectively means that you do (in other words, you do not welcome such conduct).

We’re certainly aware that this aspect of Title VII is routinely used and abused by feminists. But how can we use this to our advantage?

First, be aware that Title VII applies to men; the harasser need not be your supervisor, but may also be your coworker or other employees; the harasser may be of the same or different sex as you; and you do not have to suffer financial damage or be discharged. Your working environment can become hostile not only by overt sexual conduct but also by any conduct that is deprives you of opportunities because of your sex.

Of course, one route to take is to file harassment claims alleging that our female co-workers are creating a hostile work environment for men. Yeah, right; that always works. But there is another way...

Significantly, not only is discrimination prohibited, but any retaliation for filing, pursuing, or participating in a complaint, is also prohibited. Participation can be nothing more than offering a statement (supportive of the complaint or not) to the EEOC office investigating the complaint. Often, although the initial complaint is ultimately dismissed, subsequent retaliatory actions are found sufficient to warrant damages. A weak discrimination claim can indeed become a strong retaliation claim.

What does this mean?

It means that if a female employee lodges a complaint, and you come forward with support as a feminist pseudo-sympathizer, you can gain power.

How do you gain power?

Recall that you are protected against retaliation based on your participation in the complaint. A small participation allows you to gain the enormous power of the complaint. If you are retaliated against, you may be able to establish an independent claim for yourself.

If you offer critical supporting statements, your continued support or timely withdrawal of your support becomes a very potent weapon against the female complainant.

In addition, by providing support for a woman’s claim of discrimination, you arm yourself against others that may hold organizational power over you. This is particularly true of those male feminist colluders who have become nothing more than a thorn in you side. Remember that to a feminist, all men are irrelevant, even those who bow at the alter. Feminists have no pity for such a male. Don’t you either.

But most importantly, you will effectively dress yourself in sheep’s clothing. You will steal government provided power typically reserved solely for women. You will, in a feminist dominated environment, elevate yourself to their special, protected status. You will become trusted in the female hive-mind.

Carnage is sure to ensue...