The 10 Harmful Things Single Mothers Do to Ruin Their Sons

From the SpearheadFiles
March 17, 2010

I recently came across a Black Christian Pastor by the name of Gills Tripplett, and he has written an article entitled 10 Harmful Things Single Mothers Do To Ruin Their Sons Lives. It is an excellent piece regarding what I consider to be the single greatest cause in perpetuating the so-called “cycle of poverty.” As pointed out by Kay Hymowitz in her seminal article, The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies, the Black American family was devastated en mass years before the same pathologies were spread to other racial groups in every country in considered “first” world. As many Spearhead contributors and bloggers alike have pointed out on numerous occasions, the subsidization of single mother households through tax redistribution schemes to fund entitlement programs is something that corrupts all communities and societies, regardless of race. The black family in America was simply the canary in the coal mine.

Well, much of society has ignored that canary’s reaction to the experiment of the “GREAT SOCIETY,” and we now see the same thing infecting all corners of our most-assuredly declining Western Civilization. Look in any white trailer park, or any other community across the country that is largely poverty stricken and is predominantly composed of single mother households on welfare, you will see the same pathologies of a matriarchal-modeled community. The same thing is apparent even here in Hawaii – the same kind of projects and ghettos can be seen amongst areas of the State that are welfare dependent ghettos. Wherever we see single mother households as the majority of “family” units, you will find the “Cycle of Poverty” is evident.

However, like most Christian-based articles concerning the travesty and tragedy of single mother households and it’s overall effect on society as a whole, there is certain elements in his piece that are certainly oblivious to the insights those of us who have studied Game and social hierarchy’s role in mating and dating…so here’s a “Fisking” of his article. While I agree wholeheartedly with the big picture, I believe there are few minor errors that needs to be corrected…

(Note that Pastor Tripplett provides plenty of links to back up his sources…visit the original article if you’re interested in following up on anything he cites.)

Raising Boys Wrong…
In the state of Georgia, as in most urban areas, two thirds of the Black children born, are born to unwed mothers. Most of those boys will grow up to be unproductive men in our society. For irrefutable proof one only needs to examine:

* The high school drop out rate amongst boys from single-family homes.
* The incarceration statistics for boys raised by single moms.
* The mass number of single mothers who have trained their boys to devalue and disrespect the entire female gender

Am I blaming society’s ills on single mothers? No! Am I attacking or demonizing single mothers? A thousand times no! 

Of course Tripplett needs to begin with a general disclaimer. This is a tacit admission that he at least understands the eternal solipsism of the female mind. I’m sure he wrote that first to preempt receiving numerous emails of protestations from single mothers who claim to be the exception to the rule. This was futile. He no doubt will get those anyways.

I am dealing with a critical issue that has devastated multiple generations. One that has not been properly dealt with for too long. I have watched this particular group of single mothers reek havoc and sow seeds of discord in the lives of countless children.

Amen, Pastor.

I had one incident in which a woman, (I’ll call Racine ) was dating a man, she got pregnant by him and they moved in together.

Like many women who give themselves to dishonorable men, Racine assumed that she could change him and that he would eventually marry her. She was so convinced of her abilities to alter his conduct, that she got pregnant, AGAIN! You should know that Racine was in the church while this disgraceful chain of events took place. After their second child, her live-in boyfriend just up and left. He coldly and calculatedly abandoned her and both of their kids.

Here’s the first bit of “So-Con” rationalization. See how he basically positions his example as simply a woman done wrong…her intentions were noble, she was trying to “save” her boyfriend, but this “cold and calculating” scum bag abandoned them.

Pastor, what we have here is a classic case of a CHURCH GOING WOMAN chasing a known “bad boy” and basically thinking with her ‘gina tingles instead of her head. Come now, give her an equal share of the responsibility here: she CHOSE an irresponsible guy to impregnate her, not once, but twice.  She is not a victim here. She is an active participant in perpetuating the cycle of poverty by creating yet another single mother household.

Her means of getting revenge against her ex was to physically abuse both their children. She would do things such as force them to sit outside in the freezing cold for hours at a time. She would choke her older son, ( I’ll call Joseph ) while swearing at him and cursing his father. Because of her physically and verbally abusive behavior, Joseph learned to hate females.

Because of how his mother abused him and his little brother, Joseph detests the female gender with an unforgiving passion.

Ah yes. Thanks to the society wide acceptance and subsidization of the single mother household, another Misogynist is born!

Like his mother had been drilling in his ears for years, he followed in the footsteps of his father. He got a female pregnant while in high school, but instead of abandoning her and baby like his dad, he married her. Not because he loved her, but to prove his mother wrong. Joseph had taken on the same vengeful and abusive spirit as his mom. In less than two weeks after saying, “I do!” he physically assaulted his new bride. He has been abusing her ever since. Even at my behest, his wife refused to file charges. She felt as though she could change him.

Pastor, pastor, pastor…”SHE FELT” is nothing more than the rationalization hamster wheel furiously churning in her brain. It’s how she justifies to herself why she stays involved with an abusive guy… because he makes her ‘gina tingle.

Their little girl will be 5-years-old in 2004 and Joseph has never held a conversation with her because of distrust and hatred of all females. The only things he has said to his daughter is, “Shut up! Didn’t I tell you… No! Sit down and, go get me a…”

Joseph kicked her across the room one night when she attempted to stop him from physically assaulting her mother. Did you comprehend what you just read? You just read how generational curses are started. Even worse, Joseph’s daughter is a likely candidate to believe that all men are dogs and become an angry Black female.

Depends. If Joseph and her mother stay together all throughout her childhood, she may instead grow up to actively seek out an abusive thug that makes her ‘gina tingle like her mom, and repeat the pattern of putting up with physical and mental abuse as long as she is excited by his thuggish behavior.

What you are reading are not aberrations. These incidents happen everyday. I could share with you so many other cases and incidents such as the large number of single mothers who for various reasons refuse to divulge to their kids who their true biological father are. These women don’t realize how their callous insensitivity has damaged their children.

Ah, but Pastor, you’re forgetting the number one response to pointing out any single instance of a woman behaving badly: Not All Women Are Like That!

Some of you will read this article and say, “What about the things the men are doing and why didn’t you mention how daughters are affected when they don’t have a dad?” I’ll deal with the dishonorable men, deadbeat dads and daughters in another session. I cannot cover all of life’s issues in one article. Right now, our focus is the ten harmful things certain single mothers do to ruin their son’s lives.

Save it, Pastor. There’s no need to go over how dastardly and dishonorable deadbeat dad’s are. We already live in a culture and society for which our mainstream media and entire cable TV channels are dedicated to never letting us forget how Men are the problem, and single mothers are heroic martyrs and paragons of self-sacrifice.

Nevertheless, on with the list:

 

1. Do You Poison Your Son’s Mind Against His Biological Father?
Some women knowingly and intentionally perform this evil scheme. Others do it unintentionally. While boys are young, this vengeful act seems harmless, but as they grow older, they develop bitterness against their fathers.

Note: Women can do this to their children, even if their Father didn’t abandon them and still remains married and an able and competent provider in the home. This is what happens when you have a mother who doesn’t respect her husband – most likely because he’s an emasculated “herb” or “beta nice guy.”

 

2. Do You Instill In Your Son: “The All Men Are Dogs,” Mentality?
You may hate the father of your child. You may hate all men. You may feel justified in your malice because of how men have treated you. However, all men are not dogs! Good men do exist! A portion of the men who become dogs were trained to be that way by their disgruntled mothers. These boys listen to their moms speak hypercritically, denounce and condemn all men until they develop a disparaging complex about being a male.

Once those seeds are planted in their impressionable minds and hearts, these boys lose hope about being an honorable man. Their mother’s words become a prophetic utterance. Albeit a negative one. Single moms, you must find ways to encourage your son and put a stop to words and actions that dismantle his vision of being a decent man. All men are not dogs!

Amen! Unfortunately the next point comes right out of the So-Con playbook:

3. Do You Play The Dating Game?
As a single mother, you cannot afford to play the worldly dating game of love, sex and relationships. When you become a revolving door for hordes of males, you indoctrinate your son to systematically devalue and disrespect the female gender. By watching an assortment of males freely enter into and abruptly exit out of your life, your son learns firsthand how to become a playa player, pimp, baller and shot caller.

On the other hand, you’re simply giving your son a first hand view of what it means to be a slut.

As he witnesses your failed relationships, tears of regret from your manifold sexual liaisons and learns how you were dumped, played, dismissed and disgraced at the hands of detestable males, his conscience becomes desensitized to the well being of all women. As you play the dating game, you persuade your son that males were called to be pimps.

There’s probably a lot of truth to this.

As a single mother, if a man refuses to respect you as a woman and honor the fact that you have a child, he is not worthy of your companionship.

Whoa there Pastor! The fact that she already made the mistake of getting impregnated by an irresponsible thug already severely limits HER WORTHINESS of the companionship of a worthy man!

You need to know that a man should not date you if he is not prepared emotionally, psychological, physically and financially to take on the responsibility of raising your child.

This is true…but you need to add that a woman who actually does find a “good” man “worthy” of her companionship, she should also seek to avoid deceiving him into thinking being a single mother is easy, and that she should imply or deliberately deceive a man with the idea that she will put him first in any future relationship…than not do so once the sucker (oops, I meant “Man”) was actually foolish enough to commit to you.

It is an absolute waste of your time for you to date or court a man who:

* Doesn’t want children
* Doesn’t like children
* Is averse to raising another man’s child
* Is not interested in getting married
* Has it made clear that his objective is to dishonor you sexually

Sigh.

More So-Con pedestalization here. I agree with the rest of this list, but let’s be frank about this last one: Women have the choice, the control, and the responsibility of dishonoring their own sexuality! A man who makes it quite clear that he is not interested in a long term, committed relationship is NOT dishonoring her! He’s being honest! If she has sex with him anyways, in the hopes of “changing his mind,” SHE IS DISHONORING HERSELF AND HER SON.

As a single mother of a boy, you are largely responsible for how your son will treat the next generation of women. Take that charge serious. Don’t set your son up for sure relationship, marital and manhood meltdown. Set before him an example of honor, respect and virtue.

As important as it is for a single mother to avoid engaging in the cock carousel of thugs and bad boys in plain view of her son, she should also be aware of choosing a man who is NOT a pedestalizing, feminized mangina that she can manipulate and run roughshod all over either. That kind of role model will have it’s own set of issues and pathologies that will affect him when he is older…and in some cases, this can cause just as much psychological damage as having a string of abusive bad boys for his primary male role models.

 

4. Do You Engage In The Sleepover Trap?
Time and time again, I meet single mothers who allow men to spend the night, move-in or do long-term layovers. When boys see their moms engaging in such shameful activity, they become indoctrinated to see women as sex objects, booty calls and casual sex partners.

Don’t worry…even if you don’t do this, he’ll get plenty of that indoctrination from watching TV and going to school with all the other little boys whose mothers do it.

 

5. Have You Made Your Son The Man of The House?
As cute as it may seem, your son IS NOT the man of the house. He is your child! Most single mothers will never understand the psychological damage they cause by anointing their sons to be the man of the house. By falsely convincing their boys that they are men, these single moms pigeonhole their adolescents into a pressure-based environment God never intended for them to be in.

Many of these undeveloped boys feel such emotional duress, that they resort to doing the unthinkable to meet their mom’s fanatical demands of manhood. These teenage boys freely talk about selling drugs, robbing people, car jacking and committing other crimes to take care of their household.

Amen.

 

6. Are You Feminizing Your Son?
To feminize means to cause a male to assume feminine characteristics. The way single mothers feminize their sons is by doing things such as:

* Having him with them while they go shopping for women’s clothing
* Taking him to the beauty salons while they get their hair and nails done
* Having him in the bathroom and bedroom while they primp and pamper
* Buying him feminine toys such as girl’s bikes, dolls, etc.
* Providing him with feminine clothes, makeup or accessories
* Involving him in feminine activities
* Calling him cute, primping and pampering him
* Piercing his ears and giving him earrings
* Belittling or minimizing male-female gender differences
* Bringing feminine or homosexual males into his life or presence

Single mothers who allow or inspire their sons to engage in activities that cause him to be feminized are partly responsible for the mass number of passive and effeminate males in our society.

Don’t forget to add that young boys raised by a single mother also pattern their emotional responses to their mothers. This is why many young men from single mother households become violent and abusive criminals. They never learn to control and channel their aggression properly by a good masculine role model. Instead, the only role model they have is the emotional roller coaster of their mother’s hormonal mood swings. When his body changes, you will have a young man full of testosterone and aggression, but no self control of his emotions.

 

7. Are You Training Him To Be a Man?
Get this irrefutable truth engrained into your mind and heart as expediently as possible. A woman cannot train a boy to be a man any more than a man can train a girl to become a virtuous woman. A man has his limits when it comes to raising and training girls.

While I’m sure there are plenty of problems men have when it comes to raising girls, I don’t think “virtuous” is one of them. A strong, protective Father most certainly can train a girl to be virtuous. I think the Pastor would have been better served to state any more than a man can train a girl to become a feminine woman.

He can read a thousand books and attend countless lectures, but he will never be able to fully understand or explain to a girl what PMS is, a woman’s hormones or what to expect when she gets pregnant. Most men won’t even attempt to broach subjects such as a woman’s broad range of emotions and feelings, her weight or looks, tampons or why women break out and cry at certain events and situations. It takes a woman to talk to a girl about those critical facets of her life.

Agreed. THIS is what Men cannot adequately do in raising girls…but none of that has to do with virtue.

In the same token, as a woman, there is only so much that you can instill in or teach a boy. Accept that fact and do not try to cross your boundaries. There are certain things that boys need psychologically, spiritually, mentally and emotionally, that you as a woman will never be able to impart to them. You will never understand or be able to help your son understand:

* Masculinity
* Testosterone
* The male ego
* A man’s penis
* Why men are territorial
* Why men love a good battle
* A man’s need to conquer
* A boy’s rites of passage

Like most females, you will spend an eternity scratching your head trying to understand why men gravitate towards brute competition. Since you will never comprehend these masculine things, you will never be able to properly communicate them to any male. Including your son!

SO STOP TRYING!

Leave the manhood training to the men!

Hallelujah!

 

8. Are You Emasculating Your Son?
Some single mothers ruin their sons by emasculating them. To emasculate means: 1. To castrate. 2. To deprive of strength or vigor and to weaken. These single moms accomplish this catastrophic emasculation process by:

* Impeding the boy’s natural gravitation towards things that boys love to do, (i.e. rough sports and aggressive play)
* By constantly scolding, condemning, yelling and screaming at him. This commonly used tactic erodes a boy’s self-confidence
* By being a domineering or overbearing mother. These single moms not only bruise their son’s male ego, but they mutilate his male identity and condition him to be a cowardly passive male
* Constantly seeing his mother crying or throwing temper tantrums. When a boy sees these seemingly harmless emotional outbursts, he becomes conditioned to respond to the issues and pressures of life in the same manner as his mom.

Excellent advice. Once again, Amen, Pastor.

I also cannot find any fault with his last two points as well…

…well, almost anything:

 

9. Have You Made Your Son Into a Momma’s Boy?
I constantly meet single mothers who delight in the fact that they are raising momma’s boys. Let me put things into proper perspective by first defining what a momma’s boy is. He has been raised and taken care of by his mother. She has dressed him, cooked his meals, did his laundry, put a roof over his head, babied and spoiled him since birth and still does so… although he is a grown man.

She has come to his rescue, fought his battles, spoken up for him, lied for him, blamed others for his sins and protected him from harm and still does so… although he is a grown man. She has bought his shoes and socks, paid his bills, bought his groceries and got him out of jail and other jams and still does so… although he is a grown man.

In their strange and contorted mother-son relationship, neither of one them is willing cut their now grotesque umbilical cord. By the way their mothers have raised them, these males have been indoctrinated to believe that women exist for the sole purpose of serving and taking care of men. 

They have no problem with moving in with a female and sitting at home, watching television while their wives, girlfriends and baby’s mothers work two and three jobs to pay the bills.

Their understanding is, “What’s the problem? That’s what my mom did and that’s what women are supposed to do!” When it comes to marriage and relationships, I advise all women to avoid momma’s boys. One way or another, these males are going to cause you heartache. Especially if you attempt to snip their umbilical cord. Single mothers who truly care about their son’s future will not raise their sons to be momma’s boys!

10. Do You Avoid Finding Strong Male Role Models For Your Son?
By having no strong male role models in their lives, boys are prone to gravitate towards:

* Having a distorted sense of self-worth
* Feeling irrelevant in our society
* Rebelling against authority
* Being passive males
* Having a deep sense of vulnerability
* Wondering about their legacy
* Not respecting the female gender

This is our Brave New World molded and fashioned by a feminist movement and a sexually libertine culture promoting Matriarchal values and unleashed female sexuality. Teaching a boy to “respect the female gender” is another way of teaching him to pedestalize women, as a gender. Teach him to respect only those men and women that have earned it! No woman deserves respect simply because she has female plumbing.

* Not understanding, respecting or embracing manhood
* Not understanding, respecting or embracing marriage

Heh. If he understands marriage…more specifically Marriage 2.0, he certainly should NOT embrace marriage…

* Not understanding, respecting or embracing fatherhood

As they reach adulthood, these harmful traits make men become societal undesirables. As a single mom, you must make seeking out strong godly male role models for your son a top priority. Start with your child’s father. The only reasons you should keep your son away from his biological father is because his dad:

* Is an alcoholic, drug user or drug dealer
* Is wanted by the police or other authorities
* Has harmful mental or other psychological issues
* Is a thug or is involved in other criminal activity
* Is an abuser, molester or perpetrator of domestic violence
* Has threatened physical harm or violence
* Poses a safety threat to you or child in some other fashion

Barring none of the above, you should not prevent your child’s from interacting with his dad. After the child’s biological father, look at the men in your family, church, after school programs and organizations that are passionate about raising boys. Be clear on this irrefutable fact: your son needs honorable men in his life if he is going to properly transition from boyhood to manhood.

If he has no godly strong male role models, your son will go from boyhood to adulthood, while skipping manhood. Don’t deceive yourself into believing that you can raise your son without men, you cannot.

Overall, I really don’t have too much quibble with this article. It would probably be better for society if more boys in single mother homes were raised to be pedestalizing doormats for women when they get older than violent, anti-social and emotionally out control adults…but still, the better answer would be to prevent the promulgation of the ubiquity of single mother households in the first place.

As long as we have a welfare and family court system defining any “family” as a mother and children, and subsidizing and/or forcefully removing men from their families and their roles as Patriarchs, the “cycle of poverty” will continue to escalate and hasten the decline of our declining civilization.

 

Notable Commentary from the Original Post

Migu March 17, 2010 at 10:24

The pastor forgot one thing. Modern marriage castrates the husband legally. If the wife puts her foot down, the man faces enslavement or imprisonment. Not a good role model. Even an honorable man is three numbers away from a felony rapsheet if he is married.

A virtuous women can make the mistake of dialing those numbers once, and even if she admits it was a power play and mistake, the state’s social army will remand her to psychiatric care in order to nullify all dissent for the coming destruction of the man she used those numbers against in a moment of weakness. Those numbers are 911.



krauser March 17, 2010 at 11:50

Yeah good stuff. I think the answer is not “cultural” in the sense of jawboning, moralising and so on. The answer is economic – cut these bitches off from all social safety nets and alimony. Let them starve in the streets if necessary.

The moment the glass floor is removed, women shape up very very quickly.


mgtow March 17, 2010 at 14:22

True, single mothers harm their sons.

But I’ll be damned if money were siphoned from me to rectify the situation.

Let them turn feral and devour one another. See if I care.

‘Single’ mothers do not happen by chance, they are the consequence of poor choices made in life: spreading legs indicriminately, not using birth control, not aborting or giving kid up for adoption when you are penniless etc etc. Therefore, you have better luck squeezing blood from a piece of rock than to strain an ounce of sympathy from me.


GlobalMan March 17, 2010 at 15:44

@ Migu March 17, 2010 at 10:24

Migu is correct. The damage done to my children seeing their father dragged out of his house for addressing the lies he was being told by their mother was quite severe, in my opinion. It demonstrated to the children that the man of the house could be arrested based on lies by the woman of the house.

My eldest son said to me ‘Afte seeing how you and my father were treated by my mother I will never get married because I might get a woman like my mother’.

Well done mamma!!! You taught your boy that you are such a bitch that to be saddled with the likes of you would be a disaster. Women willing to emasculate and abuse their husbands tell the boys all they need to know. Stay away from cunts like this.


Rebel March 17, 2010 at 15:56

I think the biggest single cause of fatherlessness is the government’s criminalization of fatherhood.

I don’t believe there’s any coming back.

It’s over and done.


J@bberw0cky March 17, 2010 at 16:06

In my case, my mom divorced my high achieving Beta dad for a low achieving Alpha cad, but then turned around and raised me to be Beta?

What the fuck and why?

I think I know the reason, and that is because women are hypocritcally-irrational. Whatever reasoning suites the moment, no matter how flawed, is the reasoning they will use. They can’t even be consistently irrational. Nature played a horrible trick on them by connecting their logical-cognitive processes directly to the emotional core of their brain, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into both processes. They are emotional for no logical reason, and incapable of logic for emotional reasons. Evolution designed them this way for a reason. Nature made them irrationally selfish, as they are indivdually, biologically more important than individual men, yet often physically and mentally inferior, especially to outlier men. Evolution countered this real world imbalance by giving women a couple aces up their sleeves: sexual power and selfishness. Men on the other hand are irrationally confident, despite being biologically less important, even when not outliers, because nature needs men to take risks and battle it out on the hierarchy for the benefit of the tribe/species at the consequence of the individual. Even highly successful men work themselves into an early grave.

The old “I don’t need to go see a doctor.” complex.

Fighting feminism is basically fighting nature.

But so is building a house to protect you from the weather, or planting crops so you don’t have to hunt in the dangerous wild, or inventing governments and laws to create order.

As Kurt Cobain said, “Nature is a whore.” She’s also a selfish bitch.

The only time women aren’t completey selfish is when they are biochemically/psychologically addicted to their children through the gestation and birthing process, and even this trick of nature doesn’t seem to hold back their selfish ways consistently or for very long.

Keep in mind, cartoons are cute because cartoon characters look like babies, which means things that look like babies are considered cute by human minds. We evolved this way to keep us from killing our crying babies or eating them when we are hungry. Both males and females are designed to process “cuteness”. Young women look more like babies than men. More unfair advantages given to them by nature. I’m sure you all have read how I have a baby face. No cheek bones and not jaw line. I look very non-threatening. I believe this helped me get away with all sorts of trouble in school. I was a complete smart ass, but because I was cute and harmless looking, teachers let it slide. Women also found my cuteness very non-alpha, despite being a notorious fighter. I didn’t look the part. This is why I know women are just as shallow as men when it comes to looks, even though if we have enough other stuff to offer they will ignore looks. The reason men primarily rely on looks more than women is because women rarely have anything else to offer us, or are willing to give us. I would have married a rich 5 who would have taken care of me financially while I pursued art. I was never offered. A rich 5 still wants an Alpha or at least another rich man. NO chick will support a creative Beta no matter what his potential is. He has to be established. Potential doesn’t count to women who have money or looks, only to women trying to make the best play with their limited leverage.

This turned into a rant. Off to lunch.




the universe March 17, 2010 at 17:11

Yes, HL, good analysis in this article. And the links to other resourses are just as valuable.

Much of the regular media perusing public apparantly may not be ready to comprehend this article, what I and many others would perceive, as being sensible. Well, there is always the osmosis effect for the long run. (Trouble is, we, our culture that is, may not have that amount of time to be on the same page as much of the thinking expressed here).

I do wish to add something to the quality of your work. Your statement to the quote immediately below here:

“Her means of getting revenge against her ex was to physically abuse both their children. She would do things such as force them to sit outside in the freezing cold for hours at a time. She would choke her older son, ( I’ll call Joseph ) while swearing at him and cursing his father. Because of her physically and verbally abusive behavior, Joseph learned to hate females.

Because of how his mother abused him and his little brother, Joseph detests the female gender with an unforgiving passion."

Ah yes. Thanks to the society wide acceptance and subsidization of the single mother household, "another Misogynist is born!” is well noted.

What I wish to add to you comment about another misogynist being born is this: perhaps another misanthrope may be born from this social arrangement. The young children, especially the boys, may grow into a later contempt for all people which may manifest itself into all kinds of miscreant and even violent behaviors. This possiblity to be violent will usually spill over onto the usual targets of public abuse – the everyman. We all know the statistics on who is the most likely to be assaulted.

Anyway,I believe that most people who read and write here see well beyond what is only good for women. There’s the rest of humanity to be concerned over. Sure, damaged people may come out of this ‘family’ dynamic and perpetuate the same indefinately and that is the whole point of the pastor’s words and your analysis. This good article is but a snowflake in a world full of ideas, but with the right conditions – us and who we send this article to – will a larger momentum come about.


Firepower March 17, 2010 at 17:20

The most hurtful thing
black mothers do to their sons
is have 14 of them


Common Monster March 17, 2010 at 17:58

While I’m all for Making the Most of a Bad Situation, something tells me the pastor’s advice is way over the heads of most of his intended audience. Maybe in retrospect they can see its soundness, but by then it’s too late.

Maybe it’s an academic concern, but what I don’t get is how The Church, as the epitome of The Patriarchy, ever allowed things to devolve to such an extent that they’re now in Full Out Damage Control mode.

Since the topic of “role models” was raised, I feel compelled to introduce readers here to an idea from the branch of social psychology known as transactional analysis, namely something called script theory.

The crucial idea is that every child is scripted, and this scripting is done by the parent of the opposite sex. Thus, a boy is scripted by his mom. What’s her prime, default example of what a man should be like? A: Her father. If she didn’t know him, she’s gonna be at almost a total loss here unless she can come up with good role models for herself.

At the risk of being accused of pedestalizing, girls are even more directly impacted by fatherless since they entirely lack the parent of the opposite sex in the first place to properly (or improperly) script them. This perhaps explains the directionlessness of the daughters of single moms.

Anyway, I think people miss out on an important dimension when thinking soley in terms of “role models”, who by definition are of the same sex.


GlobalMan March 17, 2010 at 18:29

A bit off topic. I was watching a youtube where a woman who was way too fat for it was learning to pole dance. She fell. No surprise there. Then she git up and started abusing the instructor for ‘letting her fall’. I just laughed and thought to myself “sweetie, it’s called gravity, and it’s been around a while now.” Then again. Maybe dropping a few women on their head will knock some sense into them?


tsurupettan March 17, 2010 at 20:20

The Good Pastor also has an excellent piece on avoiding accidental fatherhood.


Carnivore March 18, 2010 at 00:55

tsurupettan wrote:The Good Pastor also has an excellent piece on avoiding accidental fatherhood.

And he’s got an even better one here: Have Modern Day Women Lost Their Minds?

"Many of today’s women have had sex with Tom, Dick, Harry, Skeet and Pimp Daddy. They are depressed, confused, angry at their ex’s, in need of crises counseling and have multiple children by multiple men. They are on Prozac, have had one or more abortions, crave therapy and are stressed out. They have chosen men who are jerks and have been dumped, played, pimped, tricked and dismissed. Now they are mad at God, bitter towards all men and are going off!

These women not only have bizarre beliefs about men, love, sex and matrimony, they also harbor alarming issues that make them unsuitable mates for any good man. Forget baggage, these females bring the entire store into a relationship or marriage. And it doesn’t matter if they attend church or not. Same story… lost in space! The question begs, “Have modern day women lost their minds?” Keep reading brethren…

Once a woman thrusts a man into this den of vicious thieves, her to-do list and the agenda of the blood sucking divorce court becomes crystal clear! Tear him down. Strip him of his manhood. Leave him penniless, suicidal and sink him into despair! Many honorable men have been unfairly evicted out of their homes, ruined financially and their children permanently ripped out of their lives. All because they chose one of these modern day females who had lost her mind!

I realize this is unsettling news for some men, but the reality is: YOU BETTER WAKE UP MY BROTHER! Between gold-diggers, paternity fraud predators, females shopping for disposable dads, angry bitter females, nut cakes and the females who have become combatants in the highly volatile gender war, you’ve got to be on high alert."

slwerner March 18, 2010 at 01:01

Joseph – “Yeah, and we also have evidence of women who make good choices, but it’s the exception, not the rule.”

Joseph,

I was attempting to be ironic by bringing up Levi Johnston. I apologize if my effort missed the mark.

What I had hoped would be the obvious point is that Levi Johnston does not make $105k annually. He had one year of pseudo-celebrity enhanced income-but his “15 minutes” are coming to an end, and he’ll be making a fraction of that.

But, he will be on the hook for $1750/mo. – even if he’s only making $750/mo. – by court order, for the next 17-20 years.

In a way, his (single) mother has screwed him up, and helped screw him over. Without a good male role model he has made some terrible choices (which are typical for young men raised by single mothers), and is continuing to make them. That he seems not to understand that his brush with fame will not endure, and he will not be getting big bucks just for making a fool of himself. He seems not to have made the argument to the court that his child-support (er, Bristol-support) should not be calculated on his one-year, one-time income – something that a father might have helped him to understand.


Sean MacCloud March 18, 2010 at 01:08

Niko wrote:Its the equivalent of saying protons are more atomically valuable than neutrons, like seriously wtf.

(As I said no. But)

A good example of the absurdity that comes from spinning biology into "nature as female empowerment display" is "females come before males".

Nonsense. A-sexual organisms come first; then hermaphrodites; then dim sex. One can not have "females" or "males" without the other–absurd. (Dim Sex formed a couple separate times through parallelism.)

They concoct this from the fact that A-sexual organisms have parts that later become female parts.

Female lions pick mates. They observed females go to new brunette stuffed males more than new blond/red males. Fine. But how blinded by political "relativism" does one need to be to not see male lions KILLING EACH OTHER IN WARS complete with coalition flanking and diversionary maneuvering!!? (Panzer Battalion strikes again! [It's actually Pz Abteilunge.])

Same with the elephant "matriarchy". Nonsense. Male elephants fight to the death and the winner male fucks his choice at his leisure. It is like claiming that a harem parlor –filled with lounging dames– is a matriarchy cause sometimes Sultan isn’t in there. _How blinded with bigotry does one have to be to not see a giant –no, a JUMBO– male elephant in must?_

(That is a main reason I ignore this "matriarchy/ patriarchy" blabber. It is all ill defined just so tales.)

A specifically human example of the absurdity that comes from trying to spin everything bio science into pro female display is "female open callosum" brain is better than male human single hemisphere brain". …Pigs, deers, horses, crocodiles etc all have open callosum brains. The male human has the single hemi focused brain and only the male human has left Erda. Coincidence?

Not to mention liberals are shameless hypocrites: One minute it is "we are all the same and biology isn’t real"; the next it is "biology is real and females are better –even if we gotta pound square pegs into round holes and shamelessly censor –and excommunicate those ‘in league with the devil’– to make it so".

There are tons of socio anthro babble [not really biology per se] matriarchy /patriarchy fem empowerment absurdities. (List some yourselves.)

We are definitely in a dark age when it comes to bio science — and especially gender bio science. You conservatives–most especially Americans– played your part in building that by being stubborn gits who couldn’t(and still can’t) get certain stuff. Liberals exploited accordingly until their citadel like control was complete. Now we are in a dark age. Sean MacCloud March 18, 2010 at 01:14

Carnivore wrote:And he’s got an even better one here: Have Modern Day Women Lost Their Minds?

"Many of today’s women have had sex with Tom, Dick, Harry, Skeet and Pimp Daddy. They are depressed, confused, angry at their ex’s, in need of crises counseling and have multiple children by multiple men. They are on Prozac, have had one or more abortions, crave therapy and are stressed out. They have chosen men who are jerks and have been dumped, played, pimped, tricked and dismissed. Now they are mad at God, bitter towards all men and are going off!

These women not only have bizarre beliefs about men, love, sex and matrimony, they also harbor alarming issues that make them unsuitable mates for any good man. Forget baggage, these females bring the entire store into a relationship or marriage. And it doesn’t matter if they attend church or not. Same story… lost in space! The question begs, “Have modern day women lost their minds?” Keep reading brethren…"

The "good pastor"is trying to stop feminism by attempting to evidence how it is bad for females.

I just got done addressing that here at the spear head recently.

I ain’t give no fuck if female ‘empowahment hurts females.

Even if that worked at stopping this phase of feminism, the situation created would be the perfect condition for feminism to start up again anew even more virulently.


Tarl March 18, 2010 at 02:35

My mom divorced an alpha cad when I was very young, and never remarried.

1. Do You Poison Your Son’s Mind Against His Biological Father?

Absolutely, and it was intentional.

2. Do You Instill In Your Son: “The All Men Are Dogs,” Mentality?

Absolutely. Mostly unintentional – if I’d ever challenged it, I’m sure she would have said, “Oh, I don’t mean you, son!”

3. Do You Play The Dating Game? 4. Do You Engage In The Sleepover Trap?

To her credit she did not. But that reinforced the “all men are worthless, who needs them?” message, which was not good for me.

5. Have You Made Your Son The Man of The House?

Nope. But I see a problem with the opposite approach, too. A single mom who makes herself the man of the house sends a confusing and damaging message as well. What is the boy supposed to do? How can he model himself on a “the man of the house” who is a woman?

6. Are You Feminizing Your Son?

Not in the sense he means here. The main feminizing my mom did was when she stamped on me hard for displaying any normal masculine characteristics like dominance, confidence, aggression, and risk-taking. Anything like that was called “acting like your father” and was a big no-no.

To her credit she sent me to martial arts school to learn to control and channel a lot of the normal aggression.

7. Are You Training Him To Be a Man?

Nope. How could she? She hated men, and particularly alphas. Thus if I got any training it was in how to be a beta.

8. Are You Emasculating Your Son?

Yup! She did everything on his list: impeded my interest in rough sports and aggressive play, constantly scolded, condemned, and yelled at me, was domineering and overbearing, and displayed emotional outbursts in my presence.

9. Have You Made Your Son Into a Momma’s Boy?

To some extent – but being incredibly busy put some limits on her ability to do this. She did fight a lot of battles for me that she should have let me fight myself.

10. Do You Avoid Finding Strong Male Role Models For Your Son?

She did. In fact, I know she broke up with some men she dated because she thought they would be “too strong” of a role model.

The ultimate outcome of all this, though, was not that I became an alcoholic thug and a lawbreaker. Instead I became a pedestaling beta mangina with entirely the wrong attitudes and ideas about women, men, and the sexual roles of each.

“It would probably be better for society if more boys in single mother homes were raised to be pedestalizing doormats for women when they get older than violent, anti-social and emotionally out control adults.”

That is exactly what happened to me – pedestaling doormat!


3DShooter March 18, 2010 at 05:20

“The black family in America was simply the canary in the coal mine.”

I would offer that a more apt metaphor might be that “the black family in amerika was simply the Tuskegee experiment for all families in in our failed country.”

The ‘canary in the coal mine’ was a warning indicator, the Tuskegee experiment was deliberate . . .


Migu March 18, 2010 at 07:24

Deliberate is the correct word. This didn’t just happen due the proggesive god. This is just another failed attempt at a centrally planned society. People ought to just give it up. Centrally planning the lives of disparate groups homogenizes them through death. People do well when they aren’t being coerced. Give it up power mongers,


Amateur Strategist March 18, 2010 at 11:46

Tarl, can you tell us more about what woke you up from being a mangina? I hate to think anyone here ever was, but it’s an important life lesson and it may help in bringing more Men to their senses.


J@bberw0cky March 18, 2010 at 14:27

If there was a tribe of 98 men and 2 women, and over the mountain there was another tribe of 98 women and 2 men, which is better suited for survival. They are not concerned with each other yet, as they both have enough resources currently. Fast forward two generations, or just 40 years. The tribe with 98 men and 2 women has now become 98 feeble old men, 2 infertile women, and each women had 4 daughters and 4 sons, and those four daughters had 4 daughters and four sons. This tribe now has 100 useless, really resource draining elders, and 8 mature adults, and 32 young adults, 16 of which are fertile women.

That is 100 useless elders

20 males soldiers

16 fertile breeders

4 matriarchs running house

Lets look at the 98 women and 2 men tribe. Two generations in, 40 years about, and their are 98 x 4 x 4 fertile women and 98 x 4 x 4 soldier males. We’ll avearage to 1,500 of each.

That is 100 useless elders

1,900 male soldiers

1,500 fertile breeders

400 matriarchs running house

That is a lot of people, and now resources are getting scarce, so this tribe needs to conquer new land. Are they going to have much trouble taking out the other tribe? No.

One way it can get tricky is because the first tribe, instead of sitting around and trying to repopulate with its two women might decide while male numbers are to their advantage to cross the mountain and conquer the other tribe to take their women, but even in this scenerio it is women for whom all this risk was taken, again pointing to the value of being a reproductive asset. Women are inherently more valuable because they can make more women and men, with the help of only a handful of men. Men can only make more women and men very slowly with the help of a handful of women. So its just a numbers game, and in tribal war, numbers more than often win out. Several Alpha males, who can strategically utilize their limited resources to compensate for numbers, like say, the 300 Spartans of Thermopalye (sic) are more important individually than an individual female, biologically speaking, but these are rare men, and I’m talking average female to average male. Keep in mind, even the Alpha Spartans recognized the importance of fertility. You got buried without a gravestone unless you died in combat as a male, or died in childbirth as a female. They placed females giving birth as equal in value to males fighting in combat. Without women, you don’t have new soldiers, but without soldiers, you still have plenty of new women (well, as long as there is at least one soldier whose little soldier, and its little amphibious soldiers, are up to the task of Operation Repopulation)

Water is not better than food, but it is biologically more important (vital).

Women are not better than men, but they are biologcally more important (vital).

I’m sure a physicist could explain why protons are more important to maintaining a stable physical reality compared to neutrons (or is it vice versa?), but that’s not my area of expertise, and I’m speculating. Generally, rarity increases value, but does not solely determine value. If I had to choose between just water or just gold, you’d choose the less valuable water because it is more vital. Women are like water, and men are like gold. In the case of breeding, when something made up of multiple but even components is inherently valuable, like babies to a tribe, the rarer of the componenets, gametes, will be more valuable. (See Seans bottle neck example) Of course, if I’m stuck on gilligans Island, I’d throw all the bitches to the sharks if that meant I could keep the professor alive, my one hope for survival and rescue. His Alpha nature in this particular environment is more important than baby production.

So lets recap:

Individual average female biologically more important than individual average male in terms of long term tribal survival. Emphasis on long term, ie. multiple generations and average.

Individual Alpha male biologically more important than individual average male and individual average female in terms of long term tribal survival. His ability to maximize resources, both physical resources and his genetic resources, would make him more valuable than possibly dozens of men and women, depending on how extraordinary he is. A tribe of 50 Alexander the Greats and Spartacus’s doesn’t have much to fear from a tribe of 500 inner city thugs and baby mamma’s.


J@bberw0cky March 18, 2010 at 15:03

“(*female as stunted creature by nature is massively suppressed fact of our evolution _by all sides._) ”

Yep. The Y chomosome provides the extra tweaking and specialization needed for males to be the ultra-competitive, task oriented, hard chargers that we are (of course, the education system beats that out of us best it can). Its also fertile ground for nature to experiment, because one generations ultra strong caveman alpha, may be the next generations omega living in a world of computer hackers. Thats why we have more men at both sides of the bell curve. Nature can’t predict what will work as the environment continues to change. It just throws everything and the kitchen sink at it, and see what sticks. Women are doing the same shit they have always done: make babies, talk a lot so babies learn to talk, use men to acquire the bulk of their resources, and act selfish, I mean “gather”. Men went from hunting, to farming, to industrialization, to paper shuffling, to computer manipulating, in a matter of 10,000 years. The last four of the five in just the last 300 years. Men adapt, women make babies.


Comment_Whatever March 18, 2010 at 17:42

People like to talk about how incredibly important the women’s ability to have kids is.

Do any of you actually believe women’s capacity to have children is the limiting factor on population growth? I mean REALLY. Let’s keep it real simple. Since you somehow have failed to figure this out yourself.

About half of people are women. Let’s say each of them manages to have 4 kids, with births at an average age of 25.

How long does it take a population of 100 men and women to grow to the entire population of the world today?

650 years. That’s it. It’s pretty clear that we’ve operated significantly below “maximum reproductive capacity” during almost the entire history of the world. Way, way below the maximum reproductive rate. Like way.


J@bberw0cky March 18, 2010 at 20:44

“How long does it take a population of 100 men and women to grow to the entire population of the world today?

650 years. That’s it. It’s pretty clear that we’ve operated significantly below “maximum reproductive capacity” during almost the entire history of the world. Way, way below the maximum reproductive rate. Like way.”

Yes. A really good argument, good, because its true. However (you didn’t think I was going to end it there) we have tried to operate at maximum reproductive capacity during most of the history of the world. We just had a lot of casualities and complications (lack of doctors and sabertooth tigers). We have only actively tried to operate below maximum capacity since maybe the start of the agricultural revolution, roughly 10,000 years ago. Families could outgrow the fields and the flocks, so to speak, so delays in marraige and reproduction probably started around then. For much of human evolution we made babies as fast as we could, and even after agriculture, I’d bet we were churning them out almost as fast as we could up until about the industrial revolution. (Then stuff gets weird) Shit be rough out there. Many babies never got the chance to make their own babies. War, plague, childbirth deaths, infertility, violent crime, work accidents: all these and more made it necessary to have 8 kids, on the chance half of them would make it to have their own kids. But what is more important to remember is that we all have this psychological baggage left over from our hunter-gather days. Even though its not as important in modern times to maximize the output of our baby making machines, we still have the evolved psychological traits that naturally predispose men to protect women at the expense of themselves because of their baby making capabilities. Pedastalizing is as much ev0-psych as it is cultural. It is culturally reinforced evo-psych. So yes, you are one hundred percent correct, a womens ability to bear children isn’t anywhere as valuable as it was 10,000 years ago when you needed to have 10 kids to ensure the survival of your family line, but we still have the psychological and cultural residue left over from the reality of the times when it was, and it still benefits women to this day.


J@bberw0cky March 18, 2010 at 20:56

Plus, I think people underestimate the importance of demographic trends at their own peril. I wonder how the Amish will portray the MRM long after the collapse of traditional western society, as women cock hop from PUA to PUA, and men ghost the hell out their way, until their inadvertent infertility creates a society of childless spinsters and virginal X-Box masters who care little as the population nose dives, preventing the entitlement-tax-base-economy to implode onto itself making way for Sharia law. Will the Amish forsake their disdain of technology in order to pick up the predator remote with attached tactical nuke to fight off the Jihad invasion, or will they to die to the brown skinned patriarchal society of Mohammad. Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!


Tarl March 19, 2010 at 03:16

Tarl, can you tell us more about what woke you up from being a mangina? I hate to think anyone here ever was, but it’s an important life lesson and it may help in bringing more Men to their senses.

Two different things.

Firstly, I started seeing a shrink for reasons unrelated to being a mangina, and inevitably childhood history came up. He obviously thought this was a valuable line of inquiry, and no doubt it almost always is. He brought to the forefront of my attention that my mom had poisoned my mind against my father (and against men in general), had tried to emasculate me as per point 8, and had generally turned me into a pedestaling doormat. Moreover, this guy told me that she was wrong to do that, and I had a right to be angry at her that she had. He had to push this pretty hard, because initially I resisted it (the programming went deep!). In retrospect I am sorta surprised that he took this line, because he was by no means an alpha himself. Older guy, SWPL liberal, I would have expected him to say that being a pedestaling doormat was just the thing to do.

Secondly, I had a series of women who begged me to dominate them. After number three, I started thinking hmmmm, they don’t want to be put on pedestals so maybe I shouldn’t do that, and maybe in the future I should act the way they asked me to without being asked.

I would definitely have woken up a lot sooner if I’d known about Game. I’m kicking myself now because when I was a young punk I knew several guys who were “naturals”. I thought their success was specific to being who they were, and could not be transferred to me. It never occurred to me that most of their techniques were something all men – including me – could use. If only I’d known! (smacks forehead)


TrollKing March 19, 2010 at 04:26

I can tell you what brought me to the dark side. My mother is/was a radical feminist…just not as radical as some. She’s got two boys so it has humbled her some, but not much. I used to be a white knight but really a man can only put up with so many women and the bullshit that they cause. There has to be some quantitative upper limit where most men just shut off from women/come to understand the true nature of females v. the alpha/ beta dynamic.

Anyways, As a teen I would say I was Alpha in appearance and Beta in action. But I still managed to get laid. I was the typical white night pedelistizing women and believing in all their bullshit. Im not sure what snapped me out of it. It probably has alot to do with college and a long term relationship that ended at 21, see im 27 now. But I always had a inkling about the double standards and female nature. I used to walk around in a state of perpetual cognitive disassociation. See, women market their sexuality very well, they always say the same shit and talk like women are the pure lil snowflakes that can do no wrong(herd behavior) while they categorize men into a social heirarchy…mankind is one giant breeding experiment(it becomes quite visible in matriarchial single mommy by choice families) where women are the control group, playing passive aggressive spectator to the artificially created male social heirarchy. Thats where most men are today I think. Walking around believing what women say about themselves(female sexual marketing/herding) while simultaneously scratching their head and saying a collective “WTF does she ACTUALLY want????”

I was that guy that would throw out the feminist lines and then one day I started actually reading/TROLLING the femisphere and had my eyes opened. Im not sure if I always had my eyes opened and just went along like and idiot, cause I remember questioning alot of things like mens reproductive options and others….It really is truly amazing how much game works, just looking back on previous encounters with women. One thing that definately woke me up and could be used for men is not only questioning chivalry, but questioning the “do not speak ill of any women” aspect of it. One thing that bugs me alot is that I have never laughed at a rape joke, but time and again I have seen women laugh at mutilating mens genitals. When you see your own mother laughing about castrating men, thats when you really start seeing the true nature of women.


TrollKing March 19, 2010 at 04:31

Tarl,

I understand what you mean. My mother is a huge feminist and incredibly conservative too, so I got both sides of it drilled into me. I Kinda don’t like the alpha/beta or omega distinction because they are vague. Alpha means different things from a mens perspective than it does a womans. But I do think that all men are natural alphas, its society and school and family that push us down to beta level. Afterall women market themselves as pure lil angels that fart rainbows and queef picie dust and us men absorb these messages from a very young age. just look at disney movies and the fact that most teachers/caregivers of young children are women.

-Peace


J@bberw0cky March 19, 2010 at 16:24

Scarcity x Vitalness = Value

The female gamete is no more vital than the male gamete, but it is more scarce, and both require the female womb, which adds additional value to the female side of reproduction.

And my wacked out scenerios where meant to show mathmatical realities. They were silly exagerations, but it is necessary to exagerate sometime to emphasize a more sublte reality that might not otherwise be obvious. I’ll accept that I might be wrong, but I’m not trying to bullshit. By breaking things down mathmatically, I am trying to eliminate the bias of bullshit.

I’m sorry you can’t affect that men’s value is derived more from what we do, and womens value is derived more from what they are.

No one said life was fair, it doesn’t mean we should ignore realities. That is what feminist do.


J@bberw0cky March 19, 2010 at 16:29

You even said nature is amoral, so why are you offended that on average, historically speaking, females are biologically more valuable than males.

We do have a population glut, which is a game changer and tilts the favor back to males, hence the China phenominon of wanting boy babies. But when their population shrinks back to sustainability over there, females will regain their natural value. It’s an interesting debate. It should continue. Everything I say is off the top of my head, based on my general understanding of these issues. I’m hardly infailable, and I spit this shit out quickly while at work, but you haven’t changed my mind yet.


Renee March 21, 2010 at 02:35

I thought China and Asian cultures in general have always favored boys, culturally speaking.


Sean MacCloud March 21, 2010 at 14:25

Renee wrote:I thought China and Asian cultures in general have always favored boys, culturally speaking.

That is a complexity issue that people always point to as another example of how non natural humans are –how above reality itself we are.

While I don’t have it figured out entirely it is something like this…

The fathers (and his top sons) are achieving and holding rank so that they can be as reproductively valuable as the females. (Note females do nothing but just show up and be healthy to be as valuable.) The way _those_ fathers hold rank is by having lots of mules that work and fight on behalf of him (and his number one son(s)) and the land needed to sustain that continuum. Those main ‘top dog’ genes are the main things making it through the bottle neck of fem sex value; the extra sons are a type of husk around the kernels.

This question and concern of your’s is way more valid than your last one about "self awareness"/ Why creatures are motivated to do what they do. (I explained that one. You were simply wrong there because wimmins are "too close" in their thinking; they lack big picture objectivity.) This ‘I want sons’ thing is a more important thing you have brought up.

There are other similar examples like that too. Wife immolation(healthy fem killed and buried with high rank man); dowry paid to boys family.

Like I said I don’t have this all figured out yet. But the dim sex premise I explained earlier is still valid and accurate. This "I am compelled to want sons" [compulsions are created by a chemical modules] is simply a "god of the gaps" issue. ("God of the gaps" = a profundity that hasn’t been figured out which doubters use to throw a monkey wrench into the premise.) It is a complexity issue that doesn’t negate the premise; it just muddies it.

Also the whole thing might be spandrels. A trait that is just going along for the ride –like ornaments on a cathedral.

(More later if I think of a better, smoother way of explaining this. Good shot dopey girl!)

(Just FYI note "culture" is some kind of expression of underlying natural reality.)


GlobalMan March 22, 2010 at 13:41

A good point about ‘reproduction’. Women bullshit on about how they can’t go to war because it’s their role to have the next generation.

A woman can pop out 10-15 babies in her life. If society organised itself so that the ‘breeding women’ were ring-fenced and the babies were cared for by men as soon as they were off breast feeding nine out of 10 women are not required to produce babies. They can be blown up on battle fields just like the men can. No problem. They can die in workplace accidents just like the men can.

If us men defeat the PTB and create a new society afterwards I would be surprised if men do not create one in which th ‘right’ of a woman to have a child is taken away and it becomes a ‘privilege’ to have a child and the child is the property of the man. I would be surprised if men do not create a class of ‘breeder women’ who pop out babies for the men to own. After all, the society where women own the babies has proven to be a massive disaster.


GlobalMan March 22, 2010 at 13:52

By the way….we are very close to artificial wombs. Once it is possible to create a baby via artifical wombs women will lose the one and only task for which they are better suited than men. Then? It will be ‘brave new world’ time and the only use of women will be as ‘play partners’ for men.

Brave New World did not depict babies being grown outside the womb and natural birthing as an ‘abhorence’ for no reason. That is what they intend to present to women in the future. It’s already starting.

Mangina in chief Obama has said “I do not want my daughters to be the victims of unwanted babies” or words to that effect. As a man who is 45 I can tell you that the idea that ANY baby could be ‘unwanted’ was simply not conceivable 30 years ago. Sure, women got accidentally pregnant at 16 on some occasions. I knew two. But I can tell you BOTH those women ’suffered’ terribly later in life over that pregnancy and subsequent adoption. Those two babies were very MUCH wanted.

In one case the boy was a close friend of mine whom I have kept in touch with. In our quiet moments over a few drinks he too reports that he very much wanted the baby. But he also admits that he and his girlfriend simply could not give the baby a decent chance since they were both only 16 at the time. They were kids themselves. These babies that came along as ‘accidents’ were wanted. But in most cases older and wiser heads prevailed and the best interests of the child were most usually served by adoption to a couple who could not have their own baby for whatever reason.

This whole notion of ‘unwanted babies’ is new. Part of the depopulation program is the notion that some babies are wanted and some are not.