The Crashing Waves of Feminism

Here’s a quick overview of the various waves of feminism:

1. First Wave – Women wanted the “right” to vote and to ban all alcohol.  The latter stance was probably because they had regrets the following morning.  The former has a direct correlation with ever increasing government.
2. Second Wave – Women wanted the “right” to murder their own children, to be able to enter the workforce, and the ability to divorce without consequence.  The first was unnecessary since birth control pills were already available by the time abortion became law.  The second has caused wages to stagnate as the increased supply of labor was faster than the demand.  The third turned marriage into a social dating contract and empowered women to financially rape their husbands when they aren’t happy.
3. Third Wave – Not really sure about this one honestly.  The best I can say is that this one is about sexual freedom, sexual harassment lawsuits, and the ability to acquire feminine products for free.  Many of the problems that are cited by third-wave feminists are the direct result of the previous waves.  In truth, I suspect this wave is more about complaining than any actual grievance, though the past grievances weren’t that big of a deal.
4. Fourth Wave – Supposedly, this is the new wave a feminism that is quickly approaching.  So far, it appears to entail things like sex is bad and video games are sexist.

You see a trend here.  It starts with politics, then goes to culture, then continues on to economics, then finally settles on simple pastimes.  Feminism is hell-bent on making the lives of everyone miserable.

Notice too that responsibility is constantly taken away from women and placed on men as the trends move forward.  At this point, much of our culture doesn’t even bother to call out women for their bad behavior and only in extreme cases are they given any kind of punishment.  Even then, others make excuses for them rather than accept the simple fact that women can be just as bad as men, just in different ways.

I think it’s high time we fought against these wicked women.  We must take away everything they have gained in the last century.

Of course, we don’t have to fight back.  Nature has a nasty habit of reasserting itself, often in violent ways.  Fighting back is the more compassionate option, in my opinion.

How To Avoid Being Brock Turner

Brock Turner is the unfortunate victim of what amounts to a feminist judicial system.  For those of you who don’t know, he was a Freshman college student who got drunk with a Senior girl, walked out with her to a dumpster, and fingered her.  He stopped when he realized she was passed out but that didn’t stop a couple of white knights from tackling him and calling the police.

The girl in question, who continues to remain anonymous to protect her honor and not get charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, immediately agreed she was raped in her drunken state when she woke up.  She had a boyfriend you see and she didn’t want to her reputation tarnished by a silly one night stand.  After all, slut-shaming is countered by rape accusations.

A judge decided that while Brock didn’t commit rape, he did employ poor judgment in his inebriated state and for the crime of not having too many inhibitions and being with what I assume is an attractive woman, he was sentenced to six months in prison.  He got out on parole in three for good behavior, having little access to alcohol or women.

Unfortunately, Brock is now a legal sex offender, which means he can’t go near children ever again, nevermind that the “victim” in this case was older than him.  I’ve known people who narrowly avoided getting on the sex offender list for simply urinating on their own lawn, so at this point such a list is probably a joke were it not backed by the full force and violence of the Federal government.

Is this unfair?  Yes.  Is it tragic?  Yes.  Should Brock Turner be punished for his entire life?  No.

But the sad fact is, there is nothing that can be done.  The legal system is thoroughly feminized and caters to women more often than not.  It is a wonder that all men are locked up right now with a select few let out periodically to be used a bulls in order to perpetuate the human race.  The SCUM Manifesto seems to be gradually being enacted in our nation.

But what can be done?

There are few things that you can do, besides voting for the most racist, bigoted, insane leader you can find, which can reverse these trends.

For one thing, don’t college if you don’t need to.  Unless you are seeking a major in Technology or Engineering, you are wasting your time and money.  Instead, either go out and find a job or go to a trade school.  Either way, you should have no trouble finding something that will pay well eventually and at the same time reward hard work.

But if you do find yourself going to college, I suggest you do the following:

• Don’t go out partying.
• Don’t consume alcohol while on campus or anywhere near one, even if you’re not a college student.
• Don’t host a party.
• Don’t join a fraternity.
• Don’t interact with any woman while on campus or nearby a college campus.  If you find that you have to, simply keep your answers simple and make no physical contact.  Record all interactions as well with your phone.
• Don’t trust the police or any other authority figure to do what is right and just.  Instead, keep your damn mouth shut and always demand a lawyer be present when dealing with any kind of legal wrangle, even a parking ticket.
• Be a creepy loner.  Nobody will notice you and nobody will want to be around you.

Will this make you a pariah?  Yes, but you have to understand that you already are a pariah, especially if you are a white, straight man.  Simply focus on your studies, view sex, drugs, and everything else that goes on as nothing more than mindless distractions you can’t be bothered with.  Get your degree and get out.

In the real world, you will have plenty of opportunity to employ Game techniques and get access to sex and women.  Because in the real world, drunken party sex isn’t considered a crime and women are treated a little less like spoiled girls with no free will of their own.

If employed correctly, young men will starve women of the attention many of these crazy chicks desire and make college an uninteresting and boring place for academic again.

We can only hope.

MGTOW, PUA, and Neomasculinity

Feminism is the communist version of applying State controls on the sexual marketplace.  I suppose that is one definition that most people don’t really understand, but it explains why a lot of women can go along with feminism despite not knowing what it is truly about.

Ever since the lines of communication and travel were expanded in the last century, the dating market has expanded.  Beyond that, the modern Western society has done away with arranged marriages at all levels.  In the old days, you usually ended up marrying a local, usually at the behest of your parents.  The dating culture is a new phenomenon, largely created within the last century or so.

Because dating became the predominant form of courtship, it essentially opened up the sexual marketplace to a much broader range of choices, primarily for women.  As more and more laws were passed that benefitted married women, as well as traditions in marriage cast aside, we see marriage as nothing more than a social dating contract.

This is what feminists have done with the dating market.  They have applied market controls to something in order to determine the price and supply of a common good for men: women themselves.  And with these controls there is scarcity, more so than before, with proper women.

And so we see the rise of the MGTOW, the PUA, and the neomasculinist.  With the MGTOW, they’ve given up on society.  With the PUA, we see men who are taking advantage of the glut of the sexual marketplace and pumping and dumping as many women as they can.  And finally, we have the neomasculinist, who are a group dedicated to reclaiming manhood and forging out a way for all of us to benefit from the past lessons of patriarchy and the current culture of social media.

One thing that I’ve noticed among women is their open disdain for pornography.  And many men jump on board, with even Christian men calling men who look at porn to be adulterers.  I personally prefer it to be considered a failure to fuck your wife, but that’s besides the point.

What women do not understand is that pornography does not provide men with sexual satisfaction, only sexual release.  It is an advanced form of cuckolding that seeks to only provide a relief to our baser urges.  Any man who has had sex with a woman and used pornography can attest to the difference between release and satisfaction.

Now, I’m not saying that pornography is a moral thing.  I don’t believe it is and it definitely damages men with lust.  At the same time, however, it is the alternative to dealing with women.

What women need to understand is that the sexual marketplace is a market.  When men are finding themselves facing a growing trend of unattractive women whose personalities are even disgusting, we see more men turning to other sources for release.  And while satisfaction is preferable to release, satisfaction is increasingly risky and scarce while release is quick and practically free.

Feminism has created this environment.  And men are adjusting their behavior accordingly, either by checking out (MGTOW), taking advantage (PUA), or fighting back (neomasculinist).

My suggestion is to fight back.

On Feminism

Feminism is that which seeks to redefine women as men and treats men as either extremely aggressive or simpering wimps.  It is a philosophy of contradictions that hides behind the crowd of all women claiming to speak for all of them when in truth it merely the loudest sub-group of idiots among them.

In truth, it seeks to destroy civilization, knowingly or not, because it inverts the proper roles of men and women and thus changes how civilizations thrive.  A civilization needs mothers to nurture children and fathers to teach them right from wrong.  It needs wives to be submissive to their husbands and husbands to love their wives.

Instead it fosters resentment between the sexes because the typical feminist is an unhappy harpy who would rather see everyone else unhappy.  It is easier to destroy rather than to create.  And creating personal happiness is the greatest obstacle that perpetually offended people have.

Think about it.  If you were offended by just about everything, would you be a happy person?  I know I wouldn’t be.  I would be constantly angry and depressed and always looking to accuse others of making me feel bad when in reality, all my bad feelings are of my own creation.

But they aren’t offended by what you do or say.  They are offended by your very existence.  If you are not of their sex, race, sexual preference, or any other “oppressed” group they can come up with, then you offend them by existing.

And when dealing with something like that, there is no point in debating or apologizing.  The only option is to shut down the conversation before they gain the upper hand and the crowd sides with them.

Despite their self-hatred and assortment of mental illnesses (usually BPD or NPD), they tend to be very good rhetoricians.  Their calls for equality out of a sense of fairness or justice are nothing more than pleas for good vibes from foolish men.  Have you ever considered why equality was so great in the first place or why it is something we should strive for?

No really ever asks that question or seriously considers it.  Equality must happen because it has to.  Never mind that each individual human being is no more equal to the next in any capacity.  At best, I could argue that we all have an equal right to life, provided we do nothing to exterminate the life of a fellow human being.

But feminist abandons that notion.  When it comes to the equality of the fetus, it is nothing more than a tissue mass, a parasite to be terminate on a whim.  And so while we are supposed to accept that men and women are equal, forgetting that not even all men are equal to each other, it doesn’t count when said man or woman still remains in the womb.

In truth, feminism is really just about absolving women of the consequences of their actions while simultaneously blaming men for all the bad things that happen.  And while men as a collective group are dangerous and destructive, we are also caring and creative.  And if we were so aggressive and destructive, why would a woman seek to poke that sleeping bear anyway?

Logic escapes them.  They should not be taken seriously but unfortunately a few sociopathic elite Alpha males decided that their sex lives would be easier if women were liberated.  And they felt like knocking the Beta schleps down a notch too.

And so the current mainstream narrative is that women are just as good at men in everything except child bearing, which is solely a woman’s domain.

Is that really equality or just a matriarchy?

On the Responses to ‘Rape’ on ‘Game of Thrones’

Apparently Game of Thrones has crossed the line.  A popular female character was “raped” on screen by an ugly male character with a eunuch watching.  I put the word “raped” in quotes because number 1) it was a staged scene in a television show and 2) technically the characters were already married so it isn’t rape as consent was given via marital vows.

The outrage is so extreme that even Senator Claire McCaskill has said she’s done with the show.  I don’t know what is more stupid, the fact that she’s obviously lying or the fact that a U.S. Senator actually watches the show.

In a show where a woman was sold as a sex slave to a savage, where good men and women are brutally murdered, where a child was pushed out of a window to cover up incest, and where a fetal child was stabbed to death over an insult, this is what crosses the line for feminists.

And the great part in all this is that George R. R. Martin is not a stranger to feminism.  He embraces it and has openly sought to condemn this year’s effort by outsiders to infiltrate the Hugo awards in order to reverse the tidal wave of stupid fiction written by preachy whiners (aka Social Justice Warriors).

So what have we learned about feminism in all this?

For one thing, they are not happy people.  No matter how much you claim to be on their side and no matter what you do to curry favor with them, they will stab you in the front and go for the genitals.  They cannot be appeased and they will not compromise.  They are not interested in cutting deals, they are interested in cutting dicks.

Another thing is that their outrage is selective.  I don’t know much about the show or the books, but I suspect that the “rape” victim was a feminist hero of some kind and the “rapist” was a typical male psychopath.  What this demonstrates is that they are only concerned with their own kind and don’t give a flying rat’s butt about anyone else outside of their own clique.

In other words, feminists are tribal.  And in this post-post-modern world, your tribe is strongly tied into your ideology.  Going slightly off the reservation means you are exiled, as Mr. Martin (and Mr. Wheedon) are just now hopefully realizing.

The bottom line here is that feminism is not a ideology you want to get yourself tangled up in.  Eventually, all feminists do is end up feasting on their own.  Looking as you Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Unrestrained Feminism in Christianity

When I was a brief missionary in Uganda (didn’t spread the Word, just built simple solar-powered lighting systems in rural areas), my team came to a village where most of the parents were dead due to AIDS.  What was left were children and teenagers all guided by the local clergy.

Our team had with us a retired bishop of Uganda, a man who had witnessed the tyrannical regime of Idi Amin including the deaths of fellow clergymen and congregants.  He was appalled by the village and how the children were behaving.  He took time during the celebration to push for them to clean up their act and get their town in order.  It is a shame that he could not stay and guide them.

We could not speak up ourselves really.  We were just the white people from a foreign land coming to install electrical lighting.  But he could.  He could convict them to turn their lives around and not make the mistakes that their parents made.

In what was once Western Christendom, we have an entirely different story, especially when it comes to matters of marriage, romance, and sex.  We have abandoned Biblical principles when it comes to these matters and instead tried to adopt the misguided standards of the post-modern elite.

Just today I come across an article written in Christianity Today that encouraged people to re-think Margaret Sanger.  For those who don’t know, Margaret Sanger pioneered birth control, family planning, and eugenics.  Her non-profit organization, Planned Parenthood, is much more notorious for promoting abortion, posting record profits, and getting subsided by the US Federal government.

But that is neither here nor there.  In the article mentioned, the writer talks about how Sanger didn’t promote abortion in her lifetime and instead sought out a way for women to gain greater access to contraceptives, especially poor women.

The article blathers on about her own experiences in the third world where girls as young as 13 were getting pregnant and some women were giving birth to defective children due to STDs, among other things.  The writer, who is female, naturally assumes that all of these things could be avoided if women had more contraceptives.

So, according to this writer’s logic, all we have to do in order to stop unwanted pregnancies is to not encourage girls and boys to make responsible decisions but instead give them the means to which they can freely engage in even more fornication.  To young teenage girls, no less.

I am actually appalled that an outfit like Christianity Today would allow such an article to be posted.  But I suppose it is not altogether surprising.  Modern Christianity has fully embraced feminism, whether it knows it or not, and declared that women are not accountable for their actions when it comes to sex.

The overall message of the article was not to encourage churches to push for reforms in their society that seek to make sex a sacred part of the marriage sacrament, but to allow people to more freely engage in it and not be burdened with the consequences.

I am not personally opposed to contraception.  I would argue that if your daughter is going to college, she needs to be on the pill, especially if it is a liberal arts college or realm of study.  I would also argue that we are failing our daughters when it comes to teaching them to be feminine and that we are instead encouraging them to behave like teenage boys well into adulthood.

If we are to save Western Christendom, or restore it, we need to start encouraging our daughters to not go to college and waste their prime fertile years fucking 20% of the guys they meet and instead prepare them for suitable lifestyles that most women want to live.  And most women would rather be at home with their children.

Civilization wasn’t built on contraception.  It was built by people who were willing to make a better life for the many children that they had.  Contraception is the result of civilization, not the foundation of it.  If you want the third world to grow and become a better world, you cannot give them the means to permanently destroy themselves.

Contraception does not save lives; it merely prevents lives from being created in the first place.  Very few people go to their graves wishing they had less children.

But this is part in parcel with the fight against feminism and restoring the virtues (both feminine and masculine) which maintain Christendom.  Feminism is female sexuality unrestrained while restraining male sexuality as much as possible.  Always remember that and whenever you see one, the other is sure to follow.  Condemn those amongst your own Christian groups who encourage such destructive behavior.

Marvel’s Agent Carter is Misandrist Garbage

I watched the first half of Marvel’s Agent Carter yesterday and I probably won’t bother to follow-up with it.  The whole mini-series seems to be written by Gamma males who do not know how to write about women protagonists.  This is surprising because these are same guys who wrote both Captain America movies.  In both cases, they told a good solid story, but since the protagonists were men with women serving in side roles, I suppose it was easier.

The first problem I have is that most of the men who aren’t villains are portrayed as either a caricature of an Alpha male or total Beta loser.  Guess which ones behave sexist?

For one thing, most Alpha males are not sexist, at least not in the absolute definition.  They simply are able to make themselves attractive to women much more easily than other men.  That is natural selection, not sexism.

Beyond that, there are two minor Beta male characters in the show who help Carter out.  The first one is a crippled WW2 vet who stands up for Carter against the sexism of the other agents.  Instead of thanking him for his chivalry, Peggy Carter berates stating she can take care of herself.  Sadly, this is probably the only thing the writers got right: women can’t stand it when white knights stand up for them.

The other Beta male is Edwin Jarvis who seems to have dedicated his life to cleaning up Howard Stark’s various flings and troublesome women while at the same time cooking for his wife when he’s not working for Stark.  I didn’t even see Jarvis’ wife in the half that I watched, but it would not surprise me if his “wife” was a guy.  Because the modern stereotype of British gentlemen is that they are actually gay.  Also he seemed disturbed by having to deal with Howard Stark’s many flings.

On top of this, any side male characters are portrayed as outright sexist.  From some random guy in a diner harassing a waitress (in a show of hypocrisy, Carter stands up for her after berating the cripple for doing the same), to the various men in the office where she works who keep on treating her like a secretary.

This is how modern entertainment dubs the decades long past.  Men are ineffective misogynists who require the help of a woman working secretly in order to fix their blunders.  That is the gist of the story that I was watching.

Never mind that the men of yester-year built skyscrapers, massive interstate roads, telecommunications networks, cars, ships, airplanes, trains, bridges, etc.  When you see many of these impressive structures and think that a man oversaw and had these structures built and then immediately regard him as sexist, you are deranged.

As for the plot of the mini-series, it’s fairly forgettable.  Some organization has stolen super-weapons from Howard Stark and Agent Carter has to get them back while avoiding the men who run the agency she works for, even though many of them might actually be competent and know how to handle themselves in combat.

I have no problems with strong female characters.  I watch Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD and that has plenty of strong female characters to throw around.  But the male characters are more complex than just type Alpha and type Beta.  In this case, it is more openly misandrist.

You don’t have to bring men down to raise up a woman and vice-versa.  But I suppose that is too much to ask in this post-post-modern age of Social Justice Warriors who enjoy drinking their own semen or cutting their own balls off in order to claim victimhood.

In short, I didn’t like Agent Carter.  The story was boring, the characters were cookie-cutter, and the overall presentation was openly misandrist.  I think I’ll just read for an hour while I wait for Agents of SHIELD to start up again.

Checking My White Cismale Privilege

I am a white cismale and I am privileged.  Behold my list of privileges and cower before me:

• I was unable to qualify for any of the scholarships made available due to my gender and race and only above average intelligence.  I had the privilege of working for higher education both during and after college.
• I have the privilege of approaching women and pursuing them romantically, provided I demonstrate the appropriate level submissiveness to her demands which include free drinks, free dinner, a free movie, and any other thing she wants to do in exchange for the possibility of a kiss on the lips at the end of the date.
• I have the privilege of seeing my hard-earned money being taken out of my paycheck and sent off to help self-entitled welfare recipients, many of whom wouldn’t give me the time of day should I cross paths with them.
• I have the privilege of being arrested should my wife beat me and I call the cops on her.
• I have the privilege of going into debt in order to own an overpriced house.
• I have the privilege of voting only to see myself be outvoted by the ever increasing numbers of single women who will continue to vote away my income to themselves.
• I have the privilege of being designated as a slave to the military from age 18 to 25, despite slavery being illegal in the US for over a hundreds years now.
• I have the privilege of being unable to say certain words without being labeled with equally offensive words.
• I have the privilege of automatically being considered a child molester within law enforcement, community organizations, churches, and in the justice system.
• I have the privilege of being told I am a child for enjoying video games while seeing my manhood questioned for not being interested in football or other competitive sports.
• I have the privilege of having my manhood questioned all the time while criticizing the credentials of vaginas or skin color is considered to be bigoted.
• I have the privilege of losing my children to my wife, along with significant portions of my income, if she decides to divorce me, even if she abuses the children and/or committed adultery, or even if she is in jail.
• I have the privilege of not being taken seriously if I am raped by a man.
• I have the privilege of being laughed at if I am raped by a woman.
• I have the privilege of being blamed for shit that went down decades before I was born.
• I have the privilege of being automatically labeled a rapist should any woman choose to levy that accusation against me.
• I have the privilege of seeing fathers and husbands on television and in movies be portrayed as complete and utter morons or depicted as corrupt, evil sexual deviants.
• I have the privilege of seeing women stand up for people like me because for me to stand up for me is misogynist, racist, homophobic, and just bigoted in general.
• I have the privilege of being told to remain silent and endure the insults, the vile taunts, and the insanity of those who oppose me.
• I have the privilege of not having to worry about my reproductive rights.
• I have the privilege of being assumed to be beating my child, despite statistics showing that mothers are far more likely to beat their children than fathers.
• I have the privilege of being assumed to be beating my wife, despite statistics showing that women are just as likely to beat their significant others and are more likely to send them to the hospital.
• I have the privilege to be told to “man up” if I express dissatisfaction with the quality of romantic partners in the sexual marketplace.

If any woman or minority wishes to have any of these privileges, feel free to have them.

Female Scientist Blames Porn For Bad Dating Culture

So I read through this article last week, which highlights the Female Imperative beautifully:

Men who regularly watch pornography are more likely to depend on it to stay aroused but are less likely to enjoy sex with a real-life partner, a new study says.

The “media scripts” that men absorb when they view pornography can play a role in their sexual activities, said Arkansas psychologist Ana Bridges and other academics in New York and Virginia.

After studying 487 male college students, the researchers found that the more men used pornography, the more likely they were to try to act out the same scenes and rely on pornography-inspired fantasies to engage in sex.

I am not going to dispute the softcore science in this article because I don’t think the “science” was properly reported.  At best, I can only say that they had too small a sample and focused on a single group of men.

But I’m not a social softcore scientist.

Now, I’m not going to say that pornography is good and there is nothing wrong with it.  There is plenty of things that are wrong with it.  I consider my own past usage of pornography (mostly Lesbian porn) to be a vice that I need to overcome.  I make no excuses for it nor do I consider such behavior normal.

So, yes, I consider pornography to be damaging for men in how they relate to women.

But that is not the point of this article.  The point is to shame men.  Here’s why:

• At no point were the effects of pornography on women ever even considered.  Women use pornography almost as much as men these days and I am certain that it damages their own relational attitudes toward men.
• A woman’s primary vice is envy.  With that in mind, I consider the study, which was run by a female softcore scientist, to be based in envy.
• The reasons for studying the effects of pornography on men is because women don’t like competition.  Within Western society, more and more men are finding themselves unable to relate to women because they are wasting their younger, attractive years on ALPHA (non-committed) men and leaving the stable BETAs for when they are about to hit the wall.  So more and more men are turning to porn because they are tired of dealing with women who are more interested in higher grade men for a quick fuck (I know, it’s crude, but it is reality).

I don’t like men turning to pornography either.  But just as a wife who withholds sex from her husband bears some responsibility for his porn viewing (note the some part of the sentence), women bear some responsibility for the rampant porn usage by men.

I am not asking for women to become pornstars with their partners and spouses.  I am not justifying men who demand that their ladies become their own private pornstars (although there is nothing wrong with asking for something more than missionary).  I am merely pointing out that the reality of dating only benefits 20% of all men, many of whom are only interested in a notch in their belt.  It also spoils women for their future husbands as the median number of past sexual partners for women before marriage is ~4, which increases the likelihood of divorce.

America is supposedly a Christian nation.  I know, many churches consider all other churches to be not true Christians, but you have to accept that 82% of Americans consider themselves to be a Christian.  With that in mind, we have to look at Biblical marriage, which is an institution for pursuing romantic love, not a social contract for monogamous dating.

But that won’t change any time soon.  We can blame pornography for men’s indifference to female attention all we want, but the fact is that dating has become the ALPHA’s game and most men are left with their dicks in their hands.

Marriage, the Church, and the Pride of Women

With the rise of no fault divorce in this country, there has been a huge shift in how the Christian church has handled troubled marriages.  Because of no fault divorce laws, the divorce rate skyrocketed as a result, with many women initiating the divorce proceedings against their husbands.

In light of this simple fact, the Church (that is, the general collection of denominations that make up Christianity) shifted focus away from telling people that they must stay married and instead focused on how to keep married couples together.  This in conjunction with the rise of feminism created a new standard of marriage within the Church.

Unfortunately, this new standard, dubbed by many as Marriage 2.0, took away the husband's headship in favor of promoting the idea that a husband’s primary job is to keep his wife happy.  While the strategy didn’t specifically call for an end to the headship of husbands, as outlined in the Bible since before the Fall, it was the logical result of pushing for appeasing the wives.

Across the country, pastors and priests taught how husbands were worthless without their wives.  That men were the primary cause of strife in marriage and that men need to come to God and humble themselves before their wives.

Granted, men do tend to be more prone to aggression and violence as is in our nature.  And while women can be just as violent, they are physically weaker than men and thus refrain from it most of the time.  However, studies have shown that women are just as likely to engage in domestic physical abuse as men are and are even more likely to strike their own children.

So the Church took a more feminist approach to fixing the divorce problem.  Instead of condemning women for divorcing their husbands for any reason besides adultery, as the Bible clearly indicates is the only legitimate reason for divorce, it instead focused on the husbands not providing the support their wives need.

This was also coupled with more and more women needlessly entering the workforce.  When a married woman works in a career, she will wonder if she really needs her husband and will seriously consider leaving her husband.  This is because the sense of independence she feels can often outweigh the need for companionship.  Add to that the frustrations of dealing with domestic affairs at home and you have a serious and potentially volatile situation.

Currently, the divorce rate has not dropped in the several decades since men were first told they were the problem in the marriage by the Church.  Instead we receive a lot of spin and even more ridiculous advice like “vacuuming is foreplay” or other such nonsense which has no bearing on the central issue at hand.

The Apostle Paul welcomed women into the growing Church back in his time.  But he specifically forbid them from taking up positions of leadership.  While modern interpretations often declare that this is because of his traditional Jewish background and that our society has evolved beyond the need for such advice, I am not so sure myself.

Women are fickle in the sense that they are often times ruled by their own emotions.  This is not a weakness on its own, especially when used in the proper context.  But when applied to positions of leadership, you get into situations where common sense and rational thinking are overtaken by hysteria and compassion.  Compassion doesn’t get the house built or the food from the ground.  It requires the ability to ignore or suppress emotions in favor of pragmatic action, something that men are much better at doing than women on the whole.

Paul wrote that women should not be permitted to teach men in the Church.  At least he stated that he does not allow it.  He also stated that wives (and husbands) should not deny each other sexually.  That last part becomes vitally important in the context of marriage.

Biblical marriage is essentially the agreement to share romantic love with a person of the opposite sex for life.  It is a way to channel the romantic passions of individuals into another person without damning yourself to hedonism.

These days, we see Christian wives denying their husbands sexually and it is considered to be a normal, healthy thing in a marriage.  I even had one pastor tell his congregation about a woman who couldn’t stand having sex with her husband or, presumably, anyone else again and that this was all right.  What he failed to realize is that it was unbiblical, considering Paul’s own words I have paraphrased previously.

Marriage without sex is not marriage, baring any physical barriers that occurred after the vows were completed (paralysis, impotence, etc.).  If a person denies his or her spouse’s sexual advances, you are breaking the martial covenant.  You are breaking your oath that you swore before God on you wedding day.

A woman who denies her husband sexually is also openly rebelling against her husband and against God.  Wives are to submit to their husbands.  That is the agreement they entered into when they exchanged rings at the altar.  For a wife to deny her husband sexually is probably the ultimate act of asserting her headship over him and a grave sin.

The Church, by and large, has remained silent on this issue, instead encouraging men to keep their wives happy, citing Paul’s command to love your wives, while refusing to address the other half of the problem.  I don’t blame them for doing so as these days women make up the majority of congregates and to declare this to them would be seen as an attack on Team Women.  And thus their money would dry up.

But by remaining silent, by not convicting women to “woman up” and submit to their husbands, even if their husbands are a sore stain on humanity, they have effectively shut out men and, worse, maintain the atmosphere where divorces occur.

Laying the blame of divorce entirely on women is unfair of course, but that is not the point of this post.  The point is to highlight the Church’s response to the high divorce rate as being inadequate and unbiblical.

So what should the focus be instead?  The answer is quite simple: tell the good Christians to not even consider divorce as an option in resolving their marital problems.  Studies have shown that married couples who do not even consider divorce as an option are ultimately happier couples overall in comparison with those who do.  While correlation is not necessarily causation here, we can discern that this means that couples who think this also try and find a way to make things work.

The Church should flat out tell their congregation that divorce is adultery unless adultery has already been committed.  And that in doing so, they are sinning against their spouse and, more importantly, against God for breaking the oaths they swore at the altar as the pastor declared them to be husband and wife.  It should also encourage men to take up the leadership role in the marriage and that the wife should submit to him, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it seems to her.

For while it is the pride of men to rule over the Earth as gods, it is the pride of women to rule over men as their lords and masters.

Sweet, Sweet Irony

Talk about unintended consequences:

An Augusta County woman faces a misdemeanor charge under Virginia's new revenge pornography law.

Waynesboro police tell media outlets that 28-year-old Rachel Lynn Craig is accused of posting a nude photograph of another woman on Facebook.

The law went into effect July 1. It makes it illegal to distribute a sexually explicit image of others without their permission. The phenomenon is called "revenge porn."

Police Sgt. Brian Edwards says the 22-year-old victim told police that Craig took the photograph from a cell phone belonging to the woman's boyfriend and posted the image on Facebook. The woman says she had taken the photograph of herself and sent it to her boyfriend's cell phone.

I opposed the revenge porn law personally because I believed it was meant to punish men who get sexually explicit images from their girlfriends/wives.  I think that women shouldn’t do that to begin with because it is uncouth and that the only way to resolve that is to allow women to face the consequences of their stupidity.

Now it appears that the law is being applied equally, regardless of gender.  I don’t know the backstory behind all this (my guess is it was a lover spurned or something), but it is refreshing to see a law clearly biased against men being applied appropriately.

I still don’t support this law as it is backwards and will only cause more government overreach, especially if it is made into a Federal law.  We’ve already had a case in Virginia where an underage kid was being coerced into having a picture taken of his erect penis for comparison with a sext his girlfriend got.  That would be considered child porn in any other circle.

So I shudder to think how this law will be applied and if it will be applied fairly in the future.  I doubt it will and there will probably be some overzealous prosecutor or police officer who will take things too far.  And then get away with it because they are the government after all.

Consensual Contracts For Dummies

California recently passed a law that requires some kind of written or recorded consent for college students to engage in sexual relations.  While the law is probably gender neutral as well as sexual preference neutral, it is a law designed to target heterosexual white men.  They are devils, if you believe what Leftists believe.  Except for the white, heterosexual, cisgender men who share Leftist ideals.

And really, are they men or just human beings who happen to be male?

This new law is just one more step toward government-directed reproduction with the feminists and other assorted assholes at the helm.  In other words, it is an incremental step toward eugenics and population control (emphasis on the control part).

The biggest problem with implementing the Eugenics agenda is primarily the male sex drive.  Without the male sex drive, our species would have died off centuries ago or there would be less than one million people on the planet.  You see, when a woman submits to her husbands sexual advances whenever he asks, she tends to have more children.  Enough children to grow civilization actually.

So by limiting the male sex drive, the world elite can abandon their responsibilities of leadership and instead live a life of luxury with their boot on the throats of the few who remain.  A large population is hard to control, after all.

More than that, this law was passed with the idea to curb rape.  But the premise is bad because it presumes that all rapes are committed against white, heterosexual, cisgender women by white, heterosexual, cisgender men.  The truth is, the feminist definition of rape (which expanded until it included 25% of all men) occurs equally among the sexes (I won’t go down the race route right now as it is irrelevant here).  Women are just as likely to rape men as men are to rape women.

There are plenty of stories of men who are sexually assaulted and humiliated by women.  In many cases, these are committed by women who don’t give a damn that a man did not give his consent and instead taunt him about his lack of manliness.  If a man demanded sex from a woman and called her a prude in the process while she refused consent, feminists would call that rape.

Of course, feminism isn’t about equality of the sexes.  It never was.

I suspect that this law will backfire.  What is more than likely going to happen is that women will become more and more selective in who they fuck.  There will be an elite few Alpha males who will enjoy the benefits of pussy while several men will be left to their own devices.  These men will either start reading up on the manosphere, look at a lot of porn, build sex robots, or, in rare cases, buy some guns and shoot up a sorority.

This is because women tend to pine for men who are way above their own attractiveness.  They can’t help it really.  They want the Alpha male whose good-looking, charming, and a natural bad boy.  They gush over that kind of thing.

What will probably happen is that many of these women will have pre-printed forms ready to be signed and will hand them out to men they wish to be fucked by.  It will probably list parameters too as to what can and can’t be done (oral, anal, vaginal, etc.).  It may even have checkboxes for such things.

Unfortunately for men, even this contract will ultimately not protect them from the perpetual victimhood culture of feminists.  What will happen, as with every relationship contract, is that the courts of both campus rape squads and the actual criminal courts will throw those consent contracts out.

How do I know this?  Well, a similar contract is established in all 50 states already: the marriage license.  And this contract can be tossed whenever either spouse feels like it (usually the wife when she’s not happy).  And given the State’s own track record with handling marriage, I doubt their handling of random flings will be much better.

Contrarian Busybodies

They exist in their own world where everything that anyone else does is wrong no matter what and they are here to fix things.  If they believed in God, they’d believe that God put them on Earth to fix what is wrong with the world.

They go by different names as the time goes by.  This is usually because the names they use become derogatory, despite being positive and uplifting.  Ever wonder why the term “progressive” in the US is now a negative term?  Or liberal?  Hell, even Social Justice Warrior is becoming derogatory.

The main principle behind the contrarian busybodies is that they must defy everything that is mainstream or viewed as widely accepted.  Take any topic and they will bash the overlords in charge of it for some reason or another.

For example, the US now has a black President (he’s half-white, but that half doesn’t count).  Given that the majority of the US is white (like 70% or more last I checked), you would think that this would be an end to the charge of racism against whites.  But that hasn’t stopped.  Instead we see racial divisions ramped up.  These black teens running rampant, robbing stores and beating random people (usually white), is indicative of a racially disenfranchised group.

Video games have come under attack lately.  Certain groups of people with a huge chip on their shoulder have complained about the portrayal of women in video games.  Now, video games have been largely a boy’s or man’s hobby.  Most of the games that women play are the simple puzzle games like Tetris or Bejeweled.  And while men play them too, they tend to go for more interactive and immersive games.

So naturally women aren’t always portrayed as strong, independent females as dictated by the ancient tenants of the Goddess.  Never mind that there are depictions of strong female warriors dating back to Metroid for Nintendo (or possibly even further).  That doesn’t matter.

The point is that contrarian busybodies will never be happy or satisfied.  This is because their entire life is consumed by pride and envy, which cripples their thinking patterns and causes them to not process reality in the same way that most people do.  This wouldn’t be a huge problem except that they also tend to get into positions of power with the drive to implement their delusional policies and force everyone to follow suit.

There is no compromise with them.  Do not make any attempt to appease them.  They view it as a weakness, not as a kindness.  They view every action you take through the lens of their own narrow vision.  They are incapable of recognizing acts of kindness from people who do not agree with them 100%.  They view it as an attack because that is exactly how they would behave if the roles were reversed.

So have nothing to do with them.  If you are an employer, fire anyone who acts up demanding equal pay or more minorities in the office.  If you are a business person, consider dropping clients who work toward such things.  And if there is one in your family, don’t let them watch your children or spend the night in your house.

You will find that life is so much better without these miserable miscreants.  And a lot quieter too.

Are You Ready For Some Politically Left FOOTBALL!?!

In yet more proof that American football is no longer the territory of masculinity, the Baltimore Ravens have dropped Ray Rice.  All for the crime of defending himself from being attacked by his then girlfriend (and now current wife).

I have long lost interest in football, beyond a passing one, as it no longer excites me.  And now that the NFL is literally telling people it is illegal to talk about the games without their consent and making their players wear pink to raise breast cancer awareness, I’ve found that my lost interest was not unjustified.

Modern football is nothing more than a cheap distraction to sell junk to gullible morons.  How does a one-hour game take three hours?  Could it have something to do with their “Sprint Halftime Reports” or their cuts to commercial breaks after just about every play?

And now in the latest in the soap opera that is the NFL, a player defended himself from a physically aggressive wife.  And the politically correct Leftists who run the NFL decided to make an example out of him and dropped him.

Look, I’m not saying that Ray Rice is a saint.  But his woman isn’t an angel either.  She was dumb enough to attack a professional athlete without any thought to the repercussions.  I’m in good shape myself and I’m not that stupid.

The fact is, when it comes to domestic violence, men and women are equals except in one regard: women are more likely to send their men to the hospital than men are.  This is a statistical fact because more often than not, a man will not fight back except to maybe try and catch the hot frying pan that is heading for his head.

Janay Palmer may have thought that Ray Rice wouldn’t hit her back.  That was her mistake.  And she paid for it.  Many women do make that mistake when they get into an emotional fit and attack something stronger and faster than they will ever hope to be.

Because Leftism has infiltrated nearly every popular institution in the United States, we now have NFL owners dropping players because of alleged domestic abuse.  I know that the NFL can impose their own rules on their players regardless of the law.

But I can also impose my own rules on the NFL by not participating in their bullshit.  You should too.

The War on Husbands, Part II

The War on Husbands is taking a new low in the UK:

Husbands who keep their wives downtrodden could face prison under new plans set out by the Government today.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, published proposals for a new offence of “domestic abuse” that would criminalise men or women who bully, cause psychological harm or deny money to their partners.

The law would make the worst cases of non-violent “controlling behaviour” a jailable offence.

Exact terms of the offence are yet to be defined, but it could involve humiliating, frightening or intimidating a partner, keeping them away from friends or family or restricting their access to money.

As I have said before, the State, no matter what country or culture it is in, hates true husbands because they represent competition.  A true husband leads his family.

And this is an affront to most people in power, especially if they are women.  Women in power tend to create and pass laws that target husbands out of envy because they don’t like other women being lead by anyone but themselves.

Here’s the thing: does this law even bother to account for women who are seriously mentally ill?  A husband may be restricting her access to money because he doesn’t want her to spend all of his hard-earned money on garbage they don’t need.

As a resident of the United States, I am glad that so far nobody has created a law this insane.  But I know that it will be coming my way.  Hell, we have already outlawed “cyber rape” which is really just a slutty woman unhappy about how her ex-boyfriend used of her nude pictures.

Husbands are under attack and until the majority of them realize it, instead of watching their favorite NFL teams wear pink, we are going to more and more anti-civilization legislation such as this get passed.

I have agreed with Vox Day’s assertion that women ruin everything.  This is becoming more and more observably true with each passing day as more and more women infiltrate every single activity that men do and then criticize them for doing it wrong.

I know not all women are like that.  But at the same time, they don’t stop the crazy ones.  And men can’t do it because you women just think we’re teaming up against “Team Women”.  So either start policing your own properly or get used to wearing a burqua.

Feminism’s Equality Mask

So we have another major actor saying he is a feminist.  This time it is Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  Now, I like many of the movies he’s in, so I don’t hold that against him anymore than I hold it against Joss Whedon.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that most people who claim to be feminist either don’t understand what feminism is really about or are simply raked with misplaced guilt.  I don’t know what camp these Hollywood types fall into (my guess is stupidity), but I suppose it doesn’t matter.

The truth is, feminism is not about female empowerment, it is about establishing selective female rulers and male proxies by removing the societal responsibilities of womanhood while retaining all the benefits.  I know that is a bit of a wordy description, so I’ll elaborate further.

First of all, think about one of the most fundamental biological functions a woman can perform: having a baby.  Now, in the modern Western society, rightly or wrongly, a woman can give up her baby through various means, either through scrambling its brains while in the womb or just by abandoning it at a specific location or through a specific agency.  In these cases, no state institution compels the mother to be an actual mother.

Contrast that with the situation that men find themselves in.  If a man gets a blowjob from a woman and she preserves his sperm and impregnates herself with it using a turkey baster, then he will be on the hook for child support.  Men do not have a say in matter all.  The State compels him to play the part of a father without the benefits of actually raising said child.

So we see a definite pattern here: a woman has all the perks of motherhood and none of the responsibilities while the man has all the responsibilities of fatherhood but none of the perks.  All the choices are hers and hers alone while the men is left destitute as he gets carted off to jail for not being able to pay child support.  Or he simply immolates himself on the courthouse steps and nobody notices or really cares.  He was a deadbeat dad after all.

Look, I’m not trying to make this about equality or fairness.  I believe in neither because equality is a myth constructed by inferior moral busybodies to rule over us and if life were fair, we’d all get what we truly deserved (here’s a hint: we don’t deserve most of what we have).  This is about what the feminists claim they stand for versus what they actually stand for.  If feminists were about equality, then they wouldn’t support or encourage this nonsense in our court systems; they would fight against it.

The same can be said about alimony and child support in general.  Isn’t it a little degrading for a woman to have a court order to make her ex-husband support her and her child financially?  Shouldn’t she be independent and strong enough to support herself and her children without the financial aid of a man?

But you will never hear a feminist talk like that.  For the true feminist, alimony and child support are vengeance against the patriarchy.  Never mind that any sane and reasonable person would award custody to the parent who better provide for the basic needs of the child (food, clothing, and shelter require money last I checked).  Instead, it is about the emotional needs of the child rather than the physical needs.  Because good feelings are just as good as a full belly.

Feminism is all about suppressing men and taking vengeance against them.  It is about tearing down everything that men built out of envy for the things they cannot do.  Because feminism is the politicization of Envy and Envy is a deadly sin.