Friday, September 28, 2007

More MRA Reading: The War Against Patriarchy

When I first began this blog, I had been inspired by a number of MRA readings, and probably the most influential was Dr. Daniel Amneus' two books, The Garbage Generation and The Case For Father Custody.

At that time, I did a little more searching for other writings by Amneus, and found references to an article called "The War Against Patriarchy." However, whenever I tried to find it, any links or references I found for it never connected to the article itself.

After awhile, I forgot about it.

However, reading Rob Fedder's No Ma'am blog and his review of "The Case for Father Custody" the other day, I remembered that I never found that article, so I did another search for it today, and voila!

After reading it, I'm sure glad I found it! It offers the perfect synopsis of the main arguments he expounds upon in greater detail in The Garbage Generation and The Case For Father Custody. It can be read relatively quickly (compared to the two previously mentioned books -- it is a long article) and contains the main points, and is a great "introductory" reading to share with other people who are ignorant of what the MRA movement is all about.

I won't excerpt too much here...because if you haven't by now, you should definitely read the whole thing. Nevertheless, here's one cut that sums up the entire basis for Amneus' arguments:

The woman's primary contribution to the marriage is her willingness to share her reproductive life with a man and thereby enable him to have a family. The woman's willingness to make this offer and the man's willingness to make the complementary offer to love, honor, protect and provide for the resulting family are what make civilization and social stability possible. The condition of the ghettos shows what happens when the marriage contract becomes meaningless or irrelevant. The new law makes the woman's offer to share her reproductive life meaningless by declaring that she may renege on her offer at any time she chooses. It makes her a moral minor who cannot enter into a stable and enforceable contract upon which a man--and society--can depend. Granting the woman the right to renege on her contract makes the contract worthless and deprives the woman of most of her bargaining power in the marriage marketplace. It is hard to imagine anything more damaging to society--or to women.

Of course, those of us who are aware of the consequences like social chaos, generational poverty and increased crime and social pathology, correctly look at the state of affairs and realize that what Amneus writes is truth.

Then never forget that the feminists look at the casualties of the war against patriarchy -- the millions of divorces, broken homes, emotionally scarred children, alienated fathers, rampant promiscuousness, millions of aborted fetuses and a society coarsened and cheapened with rampant sexualization of our mothers, sisters and daughters -- and they call it "progress."

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Nancy Levant's Rage Against the Machine

When I first began reading up in the MRA blogosphere, I came across the Cultural Devastation of American Women column from Nancy Levant, thanks to the in-depth book reviews Outcast Superstar did awhile ago.

Today, I finally got around to doing something I intended to do after having read her column and Outcast's reviews...I went to Nancy's archives at the News With Views site and checked out her past columns where I found some pretty intense and thought provoking columns!

I think it's safe to say Nancy is quite furious with feminism.

Not recklessly emotional, or out-of-control...but brimming with righteous indignation at feminists and what they have done to the modern American Female mindset. Witness her literary lashing as she seeks to disabuse feminists of the notion that the feminist movement is responsible for making women free...

From her column, The Dictatorship and Dialectic of Feminism

At the very top of my list of despicable leadership is the political feminist lobbying groups and organizations. Their use of dialectic manipulations of American women is diabolical. They polluted the very essence of liberation for women. For women to be liberated by feminism, they have to agree with all aspects and agendas of feminist doctrine and missions. If you disagree with them, you are believed to be flawed and damaged, ignorant, and enslaved.

Let me give the feminist political organizations a clue – American women ARE liberated, and we ARE liberated thanks to American men who recognized the value of liberated women in a sovereign REPUBLIC. For the feminist movement to claim that they freed American women is a lie. You were permitted to become feminists by virtue of righteous men. Let the men of this nation become too indignant or unrighteous, and see how long your self-proclaimed liberation lasts. Why don’t you ask the women of Afghanistan what happened to their liberation, which existed prior to the national radicalization of angry men with weapons?

I'll have to remember this choice nugget of wisdom the next time I read or hear another dimwitted, propaganda-addled feminist talk about how women are so oppressed in America by the so-called patriarchy...

Nancy continues her indictment:

American women are in dire straits. They have turned into cultural workhorses, both in homes and in the workplace, effectively performing 2 full-time jobs on a daily basis, and who are now forced to place their children into a daycare industry that damages the emotional security of their children. The feminist movement built the American daycare industry, which, in every state in the nation, is FULL OF MINIMUM WAGE FEMALE WORKERS, who perform the job of MOTHER to America’s children for MINIMUM WAGE.

Nancy would know, as the very basis for her point of view came from her own years spent as a daycare worker, raising the children of working mothers from all economic classes. It was this experience that gave her most of her material for her book, The Cultural Devestation of American Women.

Nancy than goes on to connect the dots and point to the underlying motive behind the modern day feminist movement
For decades, American women have been depressed, angry, unhappy, and exhausted due to the feminist demand that women leave the home to make money and to give up their children to social bureaucracies and corporations. Women are depressed, unhappy, and exhausted due to the mandates of the feminist movement, which first and foremost, is paid to forward population control - which in translation means the control over women, their bodies, and their choices. Feminism is simply another branch of dictatorship.
It's no accident that everywhere feminism has gained enormous cultural and legal influence, the birth rates have plummeted.

Nancy finishes up this excellent piece with a dire warning for modern American Women, and a plea to American Men...and it is a call that we in the West should definitely heed:

We have unalienable rights. All of the above are the weapons to destroy these rights – globally. And to American women, read, read, read The Cultural Devastation of American Women. We have been brutally wronged in this nation by insidious control mechanisms. If you don’t or can’t understand the enemy, you are doomed to exhaustion, anger and depression, to divorce, and to children who will never know who you really are as human beings. We have been bitterly and brutally deceived and used.

And to American men I say this – stand up and fight for your rights, for your states and nation, and for your families. This is your primary and single most important Constitutional duty as American men. Please, please save our freedom.

Tennessee Court's Common Sense Ruling

I think this sort of thing used to be a given in society...if a woman agreed to marry a man and accepted the engagement ring - than later broke it off, she returned the ring.

But my have the times's a story from The Tennessean:

Court: engagement rings must go back to giver

Staff Writer

Don’t hock that engagement ring just yet.

If you don’t get married, you’re not entitled to keep the ring, the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Monday.

In a ruling that appears to be the first appellate decision of its kind in the state, the court said that if the wedding is canceled, the person who gave the engagement ring is entitled to get it back.

“In summary, we hold that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of marriage, and as such, is impliedly a conditional gift,” the unanimous opinion, written by Judge Charles D. Susano, said.

If the marriage doesn’t take place, “the engagement ring goes back to the one who gave it.”

The decision stems from a legal battle over an engagement ring that began in a Knox County court. The ruling involves a woman who is a reporter for WSMV in Nashville.

On Christmas Day 2005, Jason Crippen placed an engagement ring on Catharyn Campbell’s finger and proposed marriage.

After the couple broke up, Crippen asked for the ring back; Campbell would not give it to him.

I can't believe this guy actually had to go to court and pay through the nose to get his ex-fiance to return a ring when she no longer wanted to marry him.

Regardless, he should be glad they broke up now, instead of marrying this obvious gold digger...because she could have taken him for A LOT more than just a few grand for a diamond engagement ring.

The MRA Blogroll

When I first began this blog, I pretty much only had MRA blogs on my blogroll who had me on their blogs as well.

But after reading through other MRA blog's and their extensive blogrolls, I've found quite a few blogs that are worthy of linkage.

If you are an MRA blogger, please feel free to add me to your blog roll at anytime. No need to ask permission or anything like that. And if you have an MRA blog, feel free to drop me a line and I'll add you at anytime.

I will also note that I make it a point to check every single blog on my blogroll, every single day, just to see the latest happenings in the MRA point-of-view. I hope many of you do the same.

MRA is truly a grassroots movement, and I believe we are slowly gaining let us all support each other - the more the merrier!

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

OSU Coach Gundy's Righteous Indignation

Here in America, female sports writer Jenni Carlson wrote an article that was critical of the OSU Quarterback, who the coaches did not let play last Saturday because he was injured.

Coach Gundy read the article after it was brought to his attention, and he used the post-game press conference to personally confront Ms. Carlson and rip her a new one...

Now THIS is a class A lecture to a person who badly needs it.

However, I'm quite irritated by the mainstream media's portrayal of this justifiable rebuke...first, when you watch the video, you will see that the entirety of Gundy's rebuke is much different than the clips and soundbytes the mainstream media has been playing around the clock for the past two days. The MSM simply edited it to play the parts that ONLY show him raising his voice and gesturing dramatically...however, when one views his entire rebuke, one can easily see that the most powerful parts of his rebukes are when he speaks quietly between the sections where he raised his voice and gestured emphatically.

And of course, the so-called "The Association for Women in Sports Media" issued a press release in response to Coach Gundy's well spoken rebuke:

"The Association for Women in Sports Media (AWSM) is alarmed at the unprofessional manner in which Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy chose to take exception with a column written by AWSM member Jenni Carlson of The Oklahoman. Gundy has the right to express his opinion, just as Carlson has the right to express hers. But his decision to air his objections in the form of a personal attack shows a lack of respect for all journalists."

Don't you just love how feminist organizations like the AWSM immediately go the "he was personally attacking me" route...there default defense is to immediately claim Ms. Carlson is a victim, and Coach Gundy is just another aggressive male oppressing a helpless women.

Also note that this is the perfect example of the feminization of overall society. A genuine display of righteous male indignation and anger is portrayed as "an attack" or an act of hostile aggression; the most commonly used phrase to describe the press conference was that it was a "TIRADE."

To paraphrase coach Gundy...Jenni Carlson and the The Association for Women in Sports Media are garbage, and they make me want to puke.

Captain Zarmband Returns!

Thanks to Davout for bringing this to my attention...

It appears that the good Captain is back in business, this time with his own website:

Captain says he's got an interesting and amazing story about why he suddenly quit his blogger account, deleted all the archives and "disappeared" for a bit.

Can't wait to find out why...and perhaps he will give us some insight as to why he and a few other UK based MRA bloggers seemed to go offline around the same period of time this past summer.

Welcome Back Captain!

Friday, September 21, 2007

What if the Genders Were Reversed?

The following news story almost seems like joke...but it is not.

Now what do you think would have happened in this case, had the Gender of the assailant and the victim been reversed?

Des Moines Police Investigate Attack By Onion

A Des Moines man went to jail Wednesday afternoon for allegedly throwing an onion at his wife.

The police report begins: "(The victim) states her husband had been drinking and they got into an argument."

James Izzolena, 54, of 3515 Sheridan Ave., was charged with domestic assault causing injury. Police said he became upset with his wife, Nicole Izzolena, 27, and tossed an onion at her, striking her in the back of the head.

She told police it made her head hurt. James Izzolena admitted throwing the onion, police said, but he claimed he did not intend to hit her with it. He was being held without bond pending a court appearance today.

This story is comical on it's face...but troubling when you play the "What if the Genders Were Reversed" game. Because we all know EXACTLY what would have happened had a husband called the police and reported that a wife had thrown an onion at her husband...

Monday, September 17, 2007

Marriage = the Non-Commital Commitment

Here's another example of the proliferation of feminist attitudes held in common by Western Women that is destroying marriage as an institution.

From The Starter Husband, from Marie Claire Magazine.

The Starter Husband You’d never buy a car without test-driving it first, right? So why settle into a lifelong marriage before trying one on for size?

"I’m just really not ready to be committed like this.” That’s what Andi said to Tucker, her husband of 11 months, after she came home from a crazy day at work two years ago with an overwhelming urge to quit her marriage. Today. Right now. “This just isn’t for me.”

She spoke stoically — no tears, no histrionics. She had been imagining this moment since she moved out of their condo a few months earlier, but she wanted to ease him into the inevitable — to somehow tiptoe her way through the minefield of Tucker’s emotions. But now, having scored a direct hit with those crushing words, she watched Tucker crumple against the dining-room table. “I don’t understand,” he said, over and over. “We’re married.”

“Look, we can do this now, or we can do this five years from now when it’s a lot messier,” Andi said, softening her voice but not her position. “I want a divorce.” The guy didn’t really do anything to deserve this, she thought, looking at Tucker’s ashen face. He must think I’m a monster. Watching her husband shuffle to the door of her temporary apartment, Andi felt awful. But mostly, she felt unbelievably relieved.

This is the perfect example of how feminists have indoctrinated modern women to be self-centered and entitled...and how their agenda of no-fault divorce have absolutely gutted the institution of marriage by pandering to women's base desires.

This selfish women is the perfect example of why more and more Western Men are choosing to forgo marriage altogether and either go their own way or become non-committal pick up artists sport fucking as many sluts as possible.

Within months of promising to love and honor and cherish Tucker forever, she knew she had made a huge mistake. The problem? He was boring.

Isn't that just perfect?

This is EXACTLY why marriage as the building block of society, is crumbling at it's very foundation.

The proliferation of feminist attitudes and norms have now led us to a state where women look at marriage as no big commitment, something to easily get out fact it is something that benefits the woman, until she gets "bored," at which point she gets to cash out, gutting her poor, unsuspecting husband, cleaning out his house, bank account and heart.

"He must think I'm a monster."

That's because, my dear, you are.

Prior to "No-Fault Divorce" women knew that getting married was a lifelong commitment...and it was one that they weighed much more seriously before saying "I do." And even when they did "take the plunge," it took a lot more than just being "bored" before she even THOUGHT about destroying her husband's (and children's) lives to "feel relieved."

The seriousness of the marriage commitment has been abrogated by our laws...laws passed by the feminists. It appears that the prevailing attitude of Western women today is that commitment to marriage is not serious, because marriage has become the non-commital commitment.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Why They Hate Us

In the last 3 years of war, the Western World has been embroiled in an ideological civil war between the pro-war and the anti-war sphere's of thought. One of the talking points of the Bush Administration whenever they publicly speak about the war is to claim that "They Hate Us For Our Freedom."

The Anti-War/Anti-Bush faction scoff at this statement as a ridiculous notion and yet another piece of evidence that George Bush is a moron.

The problem here is that George Bush is exactly right (at least in THIS case...he's done PLENTY wrong in the past 6 years).

They hate us because of the freedom our culture promotes...the freedom of females to be sexually promiscuous, provocative, licentious and exhibitionist.

The typical Islamic Father watches the feminist inspired filth that makes up our mass media and entertainment culture, and the thought of his own daughters being polluted and corrupted by it is enough to inspire the kind of fanaticism we see expressed in such acts as suicide bombing and hijacking planes and flying them into our buildings.

The latest example? Go to the following, Terrorists Threaten to Kill Britney and Madonna?!,
and have a listen to the audio file.

WorldNetDaily gives a more detailed description of the threat as outlined in a new book, Schmoozing with Terrorists.

"Muslim terrorist leaders threatened to forcibly convert Britney Spears and Madonna to Islam and warned if they resist, their heads would be cut off for "spreading Satanic culture," according to a new book released today."

"If I meet these whores I will have the honor – I repeat, I will have the honor – to be the first one to cut the heads off Madonna and Britney Spears if they will keep spreading their satanic culture against Islam," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, spokesman and senior leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror organization.

Abu Abdullah, a senior member of Hamas' so-called "military wing" is quoted in "Schmoozing" describing what his group would do with Madonna and Spears if jihad groups took over the U.S.:

"At the beginning, we will try to convince Madonna and Britney Spears to follow Allah's way. But I honestly don't think they will follow. If they persist with their whoring music, we will prevent them by force. I don't think that I can be in the same place with these singers. They might be killed if they do not respect our laws."

The Committees' Abdel-Al accused Madonna and Spears of "spreading this culture by the Americans as part of the war against Islam."

"If these two prostitutes [Madonna and Spears] keep doing what they are doing, we of course will punish them. First we will call them to join Islam. But if they keep what they are doing ... we can stone them or even we can kill them if they keep ... tempting men in order to put them far from Islam. ... A prostitute woman must be stoned or must be eighty times hit with a belt."

Abdel-Al said even before Islam takes over America he would personally kill Madonna and Spears if he ran into them. He boasted he would "be the first one to cut the heads of Madonna and Britney Spears."

Islamic extremists are an honor based culture, where the ultimate fear is not of death, but of shame and dishonor befalling the family name...and the sexual dishonor of a female family member is the highest possible act of shame that can be done to dishonor the family name. This is why Islamic Fundamentalist culture insists on suppressing women's visual appeal (mandatory burka's and veils), and why honor killings occur, even in the case of a faultless female who is raped is considered a deep shame to her family, and only killing her will restore the family honor.

Islamic-based Patriarchy recognizes the threat that female sexuality poses to an orderly, Patriarchal structured society.

So while we Western people that have opened our eyes to the havoc that the feminists have caused by working to institute Matriarchy, and we don't like it...the Islamic Fundamentalists positively SEETHE with hatred for the open sexual freedom that is flaunted and celebrated in our current culture of decadence and licentiousness fostered by the feminist movement.

Feminism has screwed up our modern world both directly and indirectly...from the millions of babies aborted in the name of choice, to the millions more born and raised without ever knowing the love and support of a inspiring the rage of an enemy that has committed horrible atrocities in reaction to what they have caused.

Perhaps in a few hundred years, mankind will look back on our era, and revile the Betty Friedan's, the Gloria Steinem's and their vile ilk of female supremacists for the chaos and havoc they wreaked upon mankind the same way in which we now look upon Hitler and the Nazi's crimes against humanity.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Monday, September 10, 2007

End Paternity Fraud: Mandatory DNA Testing for All Live Births

One of the greatest injustices that regularly happens in the United States of Matriarchal America (USMA), is Paternity Fraud. Reading Angry Harry today brought me to this article written by Lea Anna Cooper in the American Chronicle, Paternity Fraud Will Punish the Blameless.

What kind of a country or judicial system can condone deception, trickery, betrayal, unfaithfulness, adultery and all within the sanctity of marriage?

The kind of country in which misandrist feminists have lobbied successfully for 30+ years to codify and legislate favorable treatment for one gender.

The kind of country in which lawyers and members of the Family Court system make entire careers, thriving off of the bitter fruits of broken families.

The kind of country that enforces contracts and penalizes parties for breeching their contractual agreements...except for the most fundamental of all contracts, the marriage contract.

So what's the solution to this particularly egregious act of fraud and deceit?

I would propose a congressional bill to be brought forward in Washington, D.C., which would take affect immediately upon passing. I believe it would be fair for ‘mandatory DNA testing’ with all new births. It would prove to be less expensive and far less explosive in the long term.

Though I am fundamentally a Libertarian in political philosophy, and having mandatory DNA tests for all live births strikes me as another hall mark of an overbearing, intrusive government, it might be one of the few short term measures that could be realistically passed and work to immediately aid in preventing the kind of fraud regularly committed by conniving women on unsuspecting innocent men.

The current system of divorce, family court custodial rulings, child support agencies and law enforcement have grown into a behemoth of bureaucracy that acts as a cancer on the state of the American Family, and it is a behemoth that is always seeking more men to feed on to continue to grow. Of course, this is achieved by the continual perpetuation of the "single mother-as-martyr"stereotype, victimized by the "deadbeat father" caricature.

As Cooper points out in her excellent article,

What justice is there for a man, when women are provided with ‘free counsel’ to obtain a financial reward for ‘fraud?’

Friday, September 7, 2007

First Oprah; up Next: Multi-Million $$ Book Deal...

Murderess Mary Winkler to Appear on Oprah

Mary Winkler chose The Oprah Winfrey Show as the venue for her first interview ever because she has a message to share with the public about abuse, her attorney said Thursday.

Oprah will air a one-on-one interview Wednesday with Winkler, 33, who was convicted in April in the shotgun slaying of her minister husband.

Winkler will talk about abuse within her marriage, reveal details from the day her husband died and share why she's decided to speak out now, a news release on Oprah's Web site said.

What a bunch of absolute bullshit.

She'll break down in tears on Oprah, and millions of women watching will empathize with the minds of the Oprah-watcing masses, this poor woman merely did what any of them would do to that evil, bad man she was married to.

Welcome to the USMA...the Unites States of Matriarchal America.

The Language of Victimology

No Ma'am & Exposing Feminism have got me thinking further about the manipulation of language by the feminists to implement their agenda by controlling thought with language. As Rob points out in his post Nihilistic Newspeaking Nitwits

The most important institution which the Cultural Marxist PC Idiots have attacked is our language. The language controls our thoughts as a society. Of course, Orwell spoke of this in 1984, refering to it as "Newspeak."

Reading Rob's post and than the piece on Word Manipulation by Exposing Feminism got me thinking about another aspect of word manipulation that has become probably THE most powerful tool of ideological manipulation of the masses: the use of
"WE" to instill a sense of inclusiveness to create a cult of victimology to recruit and control the useful idiots complicit in implementing the feminist (or any other "-ist") agenda.

Rob's post linking to to make his point about the manipulation of the definition of domestic violence to indict men and excuse women provides the perfect example of what I'm talking about here....from one of the's commenters:

BY WARMAIDEN AT 08/28/07 06:59 PM

*snicker* It's okay, ladies. They can just consider it payback for binding our feet, shoving our chunklet asses into corsets, leaving chick babies on mountaintops, droolin over size 0 asses, and generally making us miserable for centuries.

So tell me "Warmaiden," what was the man's name who forced you to bind your feet? When did he force you to wear a corset? And how have you managed to live "for centuries" to experience so much misery at the hands of men?

When one takes a step back and looks a the bigger picture, we can see that in fact it is merely a mind control tactic to make people believe they are included in a larger group of victims, despite they themselves never actually being victimized. Indeed, the most useful of all useful idiots are the ones who believe themselves to be victims when they in fact have not experienced any real victimization.

Just as the modern black American who has never been enslaved fights for reparations, to the feminist who is free to work in any job she chooses - who in fact receives preferential treatment in the hiring process do to "equality" laws, she still identifies herself as part of the group of "WE the OPPRESSED FEMALE VICTIMS."

It is mind control, and it is one of the easiest, yet most successful means in which to motivate and control people. Here's another example of one of these "ladies" justifying female domestic violence because she is female, and females have been raped:

Image of ThaKadinskyPapers BY THAKADINSKYPAPERS AT 08/29/07 11:23 AM @KurticusMaximus: You're right. Violence is violence. And violence is usually wrong. But I can tell you that I don't feel one ounce of shame for what these women have written for the simple fact that too many of us have experienced the soul shattering fear that comes when you realize a man is evil enough to want to rape you.

So because some women, somewhere, "has experienced the soul shattering fear that comes when you realize a man is evil enough to WANT to rape you," (the evil deed does not even have to be committed...just the THOUGHT that he might) is justification for these other women to attack men's genitals, throw objects at them and threaten to kill them.

Promoting the cult of victim is indeed a powerful tool to get people to justify anything in pursuit of the goals of the extremist agenda.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Plundering the MRA Archives

More and more we're seeing new MRA blogs pop up all over the Internet. The message is getting out and it's great to see more and more people opening their eyes to the reality of how corrupted Western society has become due to the influence of feminist ideology.

I think now is a good time to take a little trip down memory lane and highlight some of the more memorable MRA blog posts of the recent past for all of the new people to the movement...these are what I would call "Essential Readings of the MRA Blogosphere."

Without further ado, we'll start with the classics, who for whatever reason, are no longer blogging:

This a classic post from the late, great MRA Blogger, Duncan Idaho, the Eternal Bachelor - the Poster Child for MGTOW. "The Great Protector of Women Nay More" speaks to how the majority of we men feel about women when we are young, naive, and infatuated with the opposite sex, entranced by the raging hormones that render us blind to any negative attributes women may possess.

Anyway, the point is, I actually used to give a fuck about females, would feel an instinctive desire to not only protect them from harm but would feel that my ability and willingness to protect them from harm was a virtue, a measure of manliness or other…but now I don’t.

Since his archives have been removed, even from's archives, we're left with the last Q&A I posted a couple of months ago...but it reflects perfectly on Fred's rebellious attitude while dealing with the daily struggles of life in the Matriarchy-dominated UK.

There is nothing extreme about me, or about any blogger I link to.

The Men's Movement is a movement based on fairness and is just in its cause.

If people think I'm extreme, then they're confusing extreme language with extreme message.

My message is clear: men's rights are a cause every man must fight for.

Many MRA bloggers have drawn the links between Communism, Socialism and their motives to wage cultural warfare on the West by using Feminism as the Trojan horse. Zarmband makes his case in this post, entitled "Stalin Would Be Proud."

This year marks the tenth anniversary of New labour coming to power in Britain. In those years the New Labour dream of Socialism by stealth has taken place and an new army of bureaucrats now prevail.


Labour has also created an army of single-mothers dependent on government benefits. It has done all it can to encourage divorce and erode family values. The only family unit not being encourage by government is the family consisting of mum, dad and their own children. Single-mothers, step-families, gay parents all get the official seal of approval.

These three MRA bloggers from the UK were very influential in the MRA blogosphere. There contributions are missed, but the movement goes on!

Now, on to the current MRA bloggers and there older, archived posts that have in one way or another inspired me or gave me a particular insight I've not thought of before...

It was reading this post by No Ma'am blogger, Rob Fedders, that gave me my "MRA Epiphany." It was Rob's post on the connections between Marxism and Feminism that opened my eyes to the roots of our cultural problems fostered by feminism, and the underlying motives for why the feminist movement is anti-family. A very long read in terms of a blog post...but well worth the time and effort!

It is interesting to read descriptions of modern day feminism. Many times you will read that feminism has now branched out in other areas of Civil Rights and that they champion the causes of Ethnic Diversity, Gay/Lesbian/Trans-sexual Rights and they combat Racism.

It all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? The Pink Proletariat is branching out and finally caring about others instead of their usual screeching of “ME, ME, ME!” We should applaud them… or should we?

Maybe we should have a look at the big picture.

Blogger Fidelbogen directly addressed feminists who may have been logging on and reading his and other MRA blogs with this post, For Feminist Readers: An Introduction to the Men's Movement.

When you systematically stir up hate toward a targeted population, and systematically enact laws and policies that could deprive this targeted population of wealth, health, happiness, security, a good name and other needful things, then you can expect this targeted population to "act out" in various ways, in token of its displeasure.

Kumogakure School was the rebirth of former MRA blog that had to go off line to maintain his anonymity. One of the first tasks he took on when he reopened his blog under the name Kumogakure School, was an excellent series of blog posts that reviews the book, the Tyranny of Tolerance, which is in Kumo's words, a must read for all MRA.

Is the full horror of the Cultural Marxist scheme becoming apparent yet?

Are you beginning to wake up from your daydream like existence, to see what is really happening all around you, every day?

Marx said that the first steps of glorious revolution were to abolish inheritance, and to destroy the family. And lo and behold, the family and inheritance has been all but utterly wiped out, save a few hyper rich families.

The family unit is still alive only through the great will and perseverance of those who still believe in it.

The government has long since withdrawn its support for these ancient ideals.

Pete Patriarch highlighted a news story last month that has largely been a non-story in terms of the national media...but he made a great point about this story that shows just how badly the feminists have screwed men with their misandrous child support, alimony and no-fault divorce laws, driving some to lash back with extreme behavior...

When a man controls his wife's finances, its domestic violence.

When a woman controls her husband's finances, its child support or alimony and it is business as usual.

Another blogger who was influential to me when I first began blogging myself, went by the name" Rebel Against the Feminazi Blitzkrieg." He has since changed his blog name to "Truth For Men." I liked his original name better though, which is why I never changed the name in my blog roll. :)

Anyhow, Rebel has been blogging about MRA issues for awhile now, but one of his posts that I always remembered was written shortly after Michael Noer caused a minor kerfluffle when he penned his article, Don't Marry A Career Woman. Rebel went on to make his own blog post, describing a host of other types of women men should avoid, should they consider risking their lives in the game of modern Russian Roulette we call "marriage."

First - let me restate a basic premise: Men, if you feel you must marry, do not marry a woman who places the marriage itself any lower then #1 on her list of priorities. Even as far as Children go, their needs should be the #1 focus of the marriage partnership - but the partnership needs to be preserved. Your children will grow up. Being their caregiver is temporary. After they are gone - what are you left with?

So despite the misinformation spread around Mr. Noer’s article, what he is saying is “Never marry a woman whose career is the most important thing in her life.”

So - what other types of women should men avoid?

Rebel goes on to list and profile the following types of toxic women to avoid: The Feminsit (obviously), The Sexual Neurotic, The Professional Dater, The Single Mother, The Cheater, The Post-Abortionette, The Biological Clock-Watcher, The Bi-Sexual, The Body Issue Babe, The Goddess Worshipper, Nitro-Women, and the Jockette.

Funny thing is, once you read through all of Rebel's profiles of toxic women, one realizes that it encompasses most modern western women of the day. In other words, finding a Western woman suitable for marriage is increasingly rare in this age of Matriarchy.

My final MRA Blogger I'd like to highlight is the Outcast Superstar. Outcast's blog is a virtual cornucopia of MRA-related resources. He's painstakingly written synopsis' of a wide variety of MRA related books...not just quick ones, but often chapter by chapter reviews of some great books. He's also created an archive for some of the more prolific MRA blog readers' comments...people like "Christopher in Oregon" and "Anonymous 65" who don't have their own blogs, but contribute to the MRA blogosphere with well thought out and comprehensive comments.

Outcast has recently started a website and forum called "Happy Bachelors" so he hasn't been blogging much lately...but his last blog post, Thank You American Women! I couldn't have done it without you! contains a brief history of how he came to be an MRA, and it also has links to all of the indexes of commentary and book chapter synopsis' he's done. are some other powerful reading materials I have read or wrote.

From Courtship to Courtroom (What Divorce Law is Doing to Marriage Index)

Cultural Devastation of American Women index

The Manipulated Man Index

Sex Ploytation (How Women Use Their Bodies to Extort Money from Men) Index

Predatory Female Index

Frauds and Scams Index

American/Western Women Behavior and Confessions Index


Misc/Other Index

Words of Wisdom from Anonymous 65 Index

Christopher from Oregon’s Comments Index

Each one of these entries in this post is, in it's own way, what I would consider to be "Essential Reading" for anyone who wants to learn all about what MRA is all about.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

The Greatest Single Cause of Evil

Townhall columnist and talk show radio host, Dennis Prager, has just published a column on in which he lists 10 reasons for why people commit evil deeds.

His number one reason perfectly fits in with MRA issues and the role of feminism in our society:

A lifelong study of good and evil has led to me conclude that the greatest single cause of evil is people perceiving of themselves or their group as victims.

This is a great point, and examples that come to mind are a few that Prager mentions:

Nazism arose from Germans' sense of victimhood -- as a result of the Versailles Treaty, of the "stab in the back" that led to Germany's loss in World War I and of a world Jewish conspiracy.

Communism was predicated on workers regarding themselves as victims of the bourgeoisie.

Much of Islamic evil today emanates from a belief that the Muslim world has been victimized by Christians and Jews.

Many prisoners, including those imprisoned for horrible crimes, regard themselves as victims of society or of their upbringing.

The list of those attributing their evil acts to their being victims is as long as the list of evildoers.

The victim mindset creates a condition for which any behavior can be condoned and justified, because it is done in the name of "justice" for the "victim."

The mother and wife that unjustly has her husband removed from the home and alienated from his children and put into dire financial straits feels justified in doing so because she is the "victim" of his anger.

The "feminist icon" that compared being a housewife to be equivalent to concentration camp prisoner, led an entire generation of people astray with her ideas that a housewife was a victim of "Patriarchal Oppression." Millions of broken homes, fatherless children and kids raised in dysfunction by daycare are now the results of women suckered into believing that being a wife and a mother was the same thing as being a victim.

If my belief is even partially correct, the preoccupation of much of America with telling whole groups that they are victims -- of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and classism, among other American sins -- can only increase cruelty and evil in America.
I believe Prager is quite correct, and it is with this in mind that I sound a warning to the MRA movement:

We must fight feminism and injustice done in the name of "gender equality," but we MUST avoid taking on the mantle of the "victim." It is this very mindset that has led us to where we are today.

It makes no sense to become that for which you've spent so much time and energy opposing in the first place.