Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Sick of Complaining?


An anonymous commenter wrote the following in my last post. She wrote a lot, so I will respond to each point in the "Fisk" style.

A woman who is sick of you complaining said...

I'm sorry but I feel the need to comment on this whole "regulated sex" shit. I've been reading the MRA blogs for the past few weeks, while most of the men post very valuable commentary, and make great points about feminism and how women act today, I can't understand why men don't understand where feminism came from.


If you've been reading MRA blogs for a few weeks, may I suggest you do even more reading? Perhaps you may actually educate yourself as to where feminism REALLY came from.

It is NOT some reaction to historical oppression of one gender by another as the revisionist feminists and Women's Study professors have brainwashed society into believing.

Feminism is the purposeful and deliberate indoctrination of an entire generation of females intended to break up the very foundation of society - the nuclear family.

Feminism has put forth the LIE that the Patriarchal model for ordering families as the building blocks of society is nothing more than men selfishly "oppressing" females for their own benefit.

In short, feminism was started by communist/marxist agent provacateurs that infiltrated the institutions of academia and the mass media to further a globalist, de-population agenda that involves evicting Father's from the homes to create as many single mother households as possible that are dependent on the State for subsistence.

Here are some quotations from prominent feminists, courtesy of the MRA blog, No Ma'am:

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

Heretical Sex also offers excellent insight into the Feminist motivation to destroy the nuclear family: Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

Are you all idiots. Have you ever wondered why women began to feel oppressed? Probably not, because you are men and you think to methodically and with no emotion at all. The idea that men should regulate the sexual activities of a woman is as stupid as women regulating male sexuality. No one is ever the property of anyone else, and as soon as men come to terms with this notion, the sooner the sexes will stop being at war. Women are just trying to break free from being owned as property. Just like a piece of land, men feel they can dispose of us at anytime, or trade up.


You poor, pitiful, brainwashed fool. The "Oppression" of the Patriarchal system was not that men OWNED women. It is the agreement between Men and Women for the benefit of the CHILDREN that are the product of their union. Here's some more reading for you if you are truly interested in understanding how feminism has tricked women such as you into believing that traditional marriage was "oppression."

Marriage is Fraud

Not to mention, before Feminism, men had no problem keeping a wife and having numorous affair. Women saw this made a consious decision to act against this, which is competely understandable. For every action there is a reaction, and the male population is totally ingoring this!
Don't you understand that women were just reacting to the way they were being treated....like property. As a survior of sexual abuse by numorous males, the notion that any one owns my body and should have access to it and any time he pleases is rupulsive and is probably why I have yet to be married at the age of 29. I am no man's property. I have a mind of my own. I think for myself and don't need a man to do it for me. Men are unable to get past the sex, because that's all they are programed to want. It has been stated by many MRA bloggers.


All of these things that you write, are answered in that last link I posted. But if you don't bother to read it, at least read this much from Rob Fedder's post at No Ma'am:

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”


Marriage was a contract in which a woman traded her sexual reproductive ability for a man's economic labor ability. Marriage was NEVER a man "owning" a woman, lock. stock and barrel. He did NOT have carte blanche to do as he pleased or treat her as a slave.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

---

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!


Perhaps now you can understand exactly what the institution of marriage was all about, and how the feminists have purposely subverted it by negating women's responsibilities to abide by the terms of it, while still holding men to it.

See, in today's divorce culture, Men are STILL held to the terms of exchange - they still have to provide economic labor in the forms of alimony and child support, while women can freely violate the marriage contract without losing that economic labor...yet the courts regularly take away what the man was SUPPOSED to gain in the economic contract of marriage - his children.


Men don't give a shit about what women think or do, just the pussy, and how to get it. And you males wonder why women have abandoned marriage and other conventional "wisdoms".


Actually, women by and large have not abandoned marriage the institution. They abandon "marriages" to specific males (to the tune of 70% of all divorces instigated by women...many times through no specific fault of the man's...only under the claim that she is "bored" or "not in love" or "unfulfilled" and she needs to "find herself.")

But you women all STILL want to get married. It is men going their own way and pursuing the eternal bachelor lifestyle who are abandoning the institution of marriage. That is because feminist-minded women such as yourself have decided that marriage is "oppression," and that you should all be free to use your sexuality in anyway you please, without penalty.

If that is what you believe is your ultimate definition of "freedom," than what is in it for a man to get married? If the marriage does not guarantee that a woman does not have to "oppress" her sexuality and sleep around at her will, than what's in it for us men to bind our economic productivity to a contract that you females won't keep, but we are forced to by the law?

Let me ask you males a question. What if someone owned you as property, and made all your choices for you, what if you were alienated and isolated because of children, husband and had no social interaction. Can you imagine a life like this? If you can, you are probably a woman. If you can't you're a man. So don't blame the feminist. They are only reacting to the confinment of the male establishment of the last hundred or so years. Come on guys, how long did you think women would be ok with being treated like shit? And don't give me that crap about women were treated well and already had power. Lies, lies, lies! I'm so sick of men complaining, now you finally know what it is like to be a woman and you hate it. You hate it because you know it's how women have been treated. Because to let yourself feel the emotion that women feel would be emasculating and lord know that you men can't have that, heaven forbid you have emotions. It would also force you to recognize that patriarchy is just as bad as matriarchy and you would fall from from your golden thrown and and land your ass on your pointy crown. What a sight that would be!


Look at all your bitterness and anger...it is all misdirected towards men and the institution of Patriarchy. Your indoctrination has been thorough.

Keep reading MRA blogs, and then perhaps you can de-program yourself and realize that the gender war you are so invested in has been the deliberate manipulations of people that do NOT want men and women to happily raise the next generation of children in happy homes...but only want to have control of the minds of society so they can consolidate and expand their power into the most personal sphere of anyone's life, the family.

15 comments:

Christianj said...

She appears to be another fembot. another sycophant of the male-haters. Another product of those misandric "wimmin's studies" hate session that they unsuccessfully refer to as education..

Good effort trying to convince another troll on the error of her ways..

It will fall on deaf ears..

SellCivilizationShort said...

"Men don't give a shit about what women think or do, just the pussy, and how to get it."

The above comment over-estimates the attractiveness of vaginal orgasm and under-estimates the willingness of modern man to masturbate.

"What if someone owned you as property, and made all your choices for you, what if you were alienated and isolated because of children, husband and had no social interaction. Can you imagine a life like this?"

I can certainly recall the history of male serfs and chattel slaves who rioted and rebelled against the upper classes. Because I have actually read the history, I don't have to argue on the basis of speculation. "Can you imagine" opens the door to speculation, not empathy.

" I'm so sick of men complaining, now you finally know what it is like to be a woman and you hate it. You hate it because you know it's how women have been treated."

I still don't know what it is like to be a woman. I could quote the philosophers at length about the difficulty of truly knowing what someone else experiences.

sick of it said...

"She appears to be another fembot. another sycophant of the male-haters. Another product of those misandric "wimmin's studies" hate session that they unsuccessfully refer to as education..

Good effort trying to convince another troll on the error of her ways..

It will fall on deaf ears.."

Gimme a break Christianj, you are lame and very methodical. First of all....I don't hate men. Just because I disagree with the crap some of these men post, doesn't mean I'm a male basher or a feminish. Please get that right when you refer to me. Secondly, most of the shit that women are doing I disagree with and I am disgraced by their actions. Thirdly,I have never taken a course on WOMEN'S studies. Fourthly, I already hear what these men are saying, and agree with most of it. And my last but not least point. I hate women just as much as you do if not more, I have my reasons, but I'll keep that to myself. But as a woman, the idea that someone owns my uterus, and can purchase it by contract is obsurd and out dated. Let's be real here, both men and women get a shitty deal when it comes to marriage. Women don't benefit any more than a man does. Oh and by the way gentlmen...I've done some research, and there has never in history been a Matriarchal rule. So you can squash that shit. Oh and Christian, I can honestly see that you are a miserable person. I honestly in my heart can see that it has nothing to do with women...it has to do with the way you see life. You have given in and have chose to live life hating women and I feel sorry for you. Again this is your choice. Life is not the experiences that make us, life is how we react to the experiences that we have. Remember that every day of your life and maybe you can stop your misery.

sick of it said...

SellCivilizationShort said:"The above comment over-estimates the attractiveness of vaginal orgasm and under-estimates the willingness of modern man to masturbate."

Please. You don't fool me for one second. As a woman whom just happens to be attrative, my experiences have been that men can't keep their hands off of me. Why is it that I can't sleep in the same bed with a man for more than a week without having sex, and he goes nuts. Seriously...I don't believe that statement one, bit. Also, if masturbating is better then why does the prostitution industry bring in milions of dollars annually. It's because you and I know, that for a man there is nothing like a woman.

Hawaiian Libertarian said...

Let's be real here, both men and women get a shitty deal when it comes to marriage. Women don't benefit any more than a man does.

Thus, you demonstrate your absolute ignorance and all that I wrote and posted in response to you went right over your head -- or you didn't bother to read most of it or the links I provided in the first place.

Marriage was traditionally the merging of a man and a woman into a single entity - to benefit THE CHILDREN.

It is the modern secular/humanist point of view that seeks to promote selfishness and contention between husband and wife that have caused the current state of affairs, the breakdown in the family and all of the attendant pathologies that arise from the epidemic of broken homes.

When a man and a woman have kids, they are SUPPOSED to sacrifice their own selfish needs, wants and desires to ensure their offspring thrive and survive.

Focusing only on what marriage provides for Men OR Women and ignoring the original purpose for the institution in the first place is exactly why you are not married, and as you have already admitted probably never will. Given your attitudes that you present, this is good, because a marriage to someone like you that has displayed such a self-centered, what's-in-it-for-me mentality is surely going to end in divorce.

Oekedulleke said...

Sick of it said...
"if masturbating is better then why does the prostitution industry bring in milions of dollars annually..."

Its not that its better, but its good enough. And risk free.

Anonymous said...

"Thus, you demonstrate your absolute ignorance and all that I wrote and posted in response to you went right over your head -- or you didn't bother to read most of it or the links I provided in the first place.

Marriage was traditionally the merging of a man and a woman into a single entity - to benefit THE CHILDREN."

I'm not ingnorant, and I have already read what you posted. That WAS the way marriage use to be, and now it's different. I just believe that picking up my husband's skidmark underwear, and dealing with being controled, and manipulated because I can't make any money, because I'm watching the kids isn't' a way to live. Do you know how many of my friends are miserable because their husbands control what they do? "If you don't behave like "this" I'm not going to give you any money." Thus the control that men, have over women, thus the view that women are enslaved. Most of my friends just want to be social and have some friends over, not go nuts at a club. Also, these same men have said to my friends, "if I didn't have you and the kids, I could do what I want". It never occured to them that their wives felt the same way, hence the reason why both of my friends are in the process of divorce. Oh and you can quit with the "good thing you're not married, cuz it would end in divorce" I thought I already made it clear that I have no interest, so there is no need to endlessly remark on that. After viewing the male blogs, and the experience I've had with men, and watching my friends misery. I have no interest. I'm sure you'll mention how horrible divorce is for men, reading these blogs have made me wonder what the men did to deserve such treatment. I don't believe that they did "nothing", it's a two way street, maybe these men should have treated their wives differently during the marriage, instead of as just a vagina and uterus...oh and good luck on that second marriage buddy....a whopping 60% of second marriages end in divorce.

R said...

Well it doesn't matter how they treated their wives the courts forces them to pay pay pay or face prison with some real hardcore criminals regardless of what happened in the marriage, its called no fault divorce for a reason

As for the second marriages comment, see blogs like these are here to warn man not to get married in the first place. I do agree with you that if a person believes that marriage will bring them misery best to remain single and free.

Anonymous said...

R said...
Well it doesn't matter how they treated their wives the courts forces them to pay pay pay or face prison with some real hardcore criminals regardless of what happened in the marriage, its called no fault divorce for a reason

As for the second marriages comment, see blogs like these are here to warn man not to get married in the first place. I do agree with you that if a person believes that marriage will bring them misery best to remain single and free.

Well at least we can agree on something right? I also beleive that if a man is going to get married and he fears that he might loose his financial stability, then by all means he should have a pre-nuptual agreement....included in that pre-nup will also be the woman's request, such as sex once a month is just fine, and completely exceptable.LOL But seriously, if she doesn't sign it then don't get married.

Anonymous said...

I noted today that Burt Ward who played Robin in the Batman TV Series has been married four times. I guess some of us just don't get it. My Son and Nephew does. Both refuse to ever marry in the US. And I advised my Youngest Son not to marry here either. AS the the Laws and public policy reward Women who break their Marriage Contract.

I note that 85% of Consumer purchase decisions are made by Women. That Men are 94% of those who die on the Job. That Men take their lives at least 4 times more frequently than Women. That Men live a shorter lifespan in the US. That Three times as much of our Tax Dollars are spent on Breast Cancer than Prostate Cancer.

That Women are demanding to be whined and dined. Despite the Fact that More Women graduate from College than Men. And this is just the tip of the Iceberg.

Men overwhelmingly die in War. But Hilliary complained about the suffering of the Women in the War in Bosnia. And said nothing about the Men and Boys were murdered by thousands by the Serbs. Typical myopia of a Feminist. Feminism is another name for Malignant Narcissism.

Khankrumthebulgar

mandy said...

"Because to let yourself feel the emotion that women feel would be emasculating and lord know that you men can't have that"

It sounds like she thinks emasculating men is a good thing. Yikes. Anyhow men do feel emotion they are just less likely to make a show out of it.

Anyhow, marriage was, until around the 19th century seen as a union of two families, not of two individuals. It was not a socially isolating situation. Before TV, subdivisions, cars, etc people interacted socially much more frequently. Life in medieval villages for example was all about social interaction and standing.

Which brings me to the next point:
in addition to being about children as opposed to adults involved, marriage was viewed as the union of two families not of two individuals. Hence arranged marriage were based on how good someone's family was, not how either partner felt about. Surely, there were equal numbers of disappointed men and women in such a situation.

This whole victimology is just rubbish. Men and women are different, like it or not, have different strengths and weaknesses and bring different things to a marriage. Each has a proper role and place. Anything else just breed chaos and contempt.

A related though, arranged marriages to this day are among the longest lasting and spouses report learning to love each other based on long time support and respect vs infatuation. Food for thought anyhow.


"Men don't give a shit about what women think or do, just the pussy, and how to get it"


If this were true then they would never good married, they would just use women for sex and take off after.

Anonymous said...

>>by all means he should have a pre-nuptual agreement


No, no, a thousand times, no. Who on earth told you a pre-nup was worth the paper it is written on? Almost every state has a very specific law which says a judge can toss out a pre-nup if he/she thinks it is injust. Judges feel real important giving someone else's money to women. So, they routinely toss out perfectly good pre-nups.

Lawyers will tell you differently, because they know few men really know the laws and courts. Thus, they get paid to make a pre-nup, and then when the divorce comes, they get paid a lot more money to attempt to defend it when they know it is a lost cause.

PRE-NUPS ARE NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON IF YOU HAVE MONEY AND SHE DOES NOT.

Anonymous age 66

Davout said...

sick of it,

You are projecting your perceptions of women onto men but for this to be a valid argument, men must be the same as women (which they are not).

Since the premise of your argument is false, one cannot accept your argument(s).

tba said...

WELL DONE HL

Anonymous said...

Here's something that never comes up when Feminism & Women's Liberation were bursting out...

Aaron Russo (RIP) explained in a video interview (available on YOUTUBE) that he had a conversation with one of the Rockefellers. He told Russo "Do you know who funded the women's rights movement? WE did."
And Russo said "Well, that was good of you, women should have equal rights."
The Rockefeller said "No, it was NEVER about equal rights...it was because we couldn't TAX only HALF of the population, if the other half only stayed home and did housework. We needed women to get jobs to pay more taxes."

(I'm aware that this conversation can't be PROVEN, and that Russo was considered very eccentric by many, but still, this idea makes perfect sense.)