"You Go Girl!"

While reading Glenn Sack's blog today, I came across the following entry that was Glenn's take on an article Feminism may go too far in girls vs. boys. The author of the article writes about her experiences of watching a girls soccer team playing a boys soccer team, and how the girls used every physical tactic - including illegal and unsportsmanlike punching - possible while the boys appeared to hold back and not retaliate or play as physical as they would normally.

Glenn relates his own experiences with the following:

I had a vaguely similar experience playing against a girls' team when I was a kid. It was a soccer game between my team, probably consisting of 12 and 13-year-olds, against a girls' team from the next level up, probably 14 and 15-year-olds. I played goalkeeper, and with a few minutes left in the game their team broke through and a girl had the ball maybe about 20 feet in front of our goal.

I certainly wasn't the most athletic of goalkeepers. However, I was sure-handed and I knew how to position myself and break up plays from having played fullback/defense for many years. Normally in this situation I would charge and slide-tackle the opposing forward and knock the ball away. This time I rushed out to do it and, as I was about to slide into her, my guy programming kicked in and instead I slid off to the side, allowing her to score.

We lost the game by a goal and had to endure a bunch of "girl power/we beat the boys"-type celebrating. I've always been a pretty good sport about losing, but I remember watching this and thinking "Are you kidding me? Didn't you see me give away that goal?" I thought about saying something but realized that it would immediately be seen as boy-as-sore-loser-to-girls type sour grapes.

I experienced the exact same thing when I was a new student in my Kenpo self-defense class...

My first experience was learning a judo throw, the tomoe-nage. While serving as the "throwee" for a female student (who was higher ranked than I, I was a white belt that had just started training for only a month or so), and given that I had learned gymnastics when I was a young boy, I followed my natural instinct and "went" along with her attempt to apply the throw, and I literally used my own push off to somersault myself as she made her attempt to throw me. The result was I did a dramatic mid-air flip that made it look like she had thrown me with spectacular ease.

It looked even more dramatic when the other students training at the time did not have the advantage of such a willing (and capable) partner. Everyone else in the class, men and women alike, struggled with attempting this new technique. Had I simply relaxed and played the role of "dead weight" as the other partners did, her technique would not have looked anywhere near the results that happened when I "helped."

Yet the entire class and my instructor all gasped in amazement, and everyone began to congratulate her on her proficiency, and she literally basked in her false sense of achievement. And looking at her in the eyes, I know she knew I helped her...yet she ate up the praise and took all the credit.

A few months later, we had sparring training, where we would engage in "restrained-contact" kick boxing in full padded gear. This same girl asked if she could fight me. At that time, she was a green belt, which in our system, is a full 3 grades of skill level higher than a white belt...but when I stepped into the ring with her all geared up and we began to spar, I was tentative and psychologically inhibited by my misguided sense of chivalry....and I basically held back and half-heartedly engaged her.

She, on the other hand, opened up her entire arsenal of attacks and was easily declared the "winner" by my instructor afterwards.

A few months later, while our class was having an after-training party where we were all having drinks and socializing, she made some kind of comment about how she would beat me up again if I wised off to her. At THAT point, I made up my mind that the next time I was her partner, I would NOT make it easy for her, and if we were to ever spar again, I would forget the fact that she was a female and just let it go.

A short while later, my instructor set us up for another sparring session...except this time I went all out and unloaded on her at will. I absolutely outclassed her, despite the fact that she had been training for years while I was still a comparative newbie...the only difference was that I no longer held back. Her arrogant pride and condescension over having "beat" me previously overrode my chivalrous programming, and I beat her to tears...literally. She began crying after a few minutes in which I blocked and countered all of her attacks with ease. Now, it was "restrained" contact, so I never struck her with even 50% of my potential power, so I didn't physically hurt her. She was crying I think because here I was, a white belt newbie for which she had received her share of "YOU GO GIRL!" from our classmates and instructor because I had held back in our training and made her look far more effective than she really was. The thing is, she began to believe her own bullshit.

But when she faced me again, and I no longer felt obligated to be chivalrous, I quite simply destroyed her delusions with my naturally superior athletic ability and physical power.

The funny thing is, here I am, 10 years later, and I now teach my own class, and I have women of all ages as students...and more than a few of them are indeed "feminist" minded. Yet, when I teach my class, I make it a distinct point to disabuse these women of any and all notions that they can go toe-to-toe with a physically stronger and/or larger man and prevail simply because they've trained in my school. Some will argue with me...at first. But I've found that a first hand demonstration is the fastest way to open these ladies eyes to the difference between reality and feminist-inspired fantasy.

An Irishman Against Feminism Hangs it Up

When I first discovered the MRA/MGTOW blogosphere, NHY's blog was one of the first ones I read...found from Duncan Idaho's original blog roll from the Eternal Bachelor.

He has now decided to hang it up, and he states his reasonings in his farewell post.

It's a frank admission by NHY, and one for which I commend him for having that much introspection into his own thoughts and motivations. Unlike him, I did not become an MRA blogger because of anger at the female gender...I became involved through witnessing how the feminist system has destroyed the families of both both friends and close family members.

And I could never be an active MGTOW, as I was already married for years upon discovering the MRA movement and what it was all about. Aside from that, one should be careful of embracing hatred and rage, lest it consume you the same way feminists have been consumed into their useful idiocy in destroying Patriarchal society.

But there is still much for which I have learned from the MRA/MGTOW movement, and I sought to share that with my farewell post to NHY at his blog...because it seems like he may regret his involvement in MRA/MGTOW blogging.

There is a certain satisfaction gained from indulging in MRA approved misogyny...but one could easily let it consume them to the point of becoming the inverse image of the zeitgeist of feminists irrational angst we seek to overturn in the first place.

However, the most important thing you should take away from your MRA experience is to never take ANY person, male or female (especially female) at face value...but to look at what they do, not what they say.

When I first discovered the MRA movement, I enjoyed the rantings of Duncan and Fred X as much as the next guy...but I never had trouble with dating females -- indeed I'm married and have been so for the past 10 years. In other words, the MRA movement is not dependent upon or driven solely by bitter men who have learned to hate the female gender because of the feminist movement. No, I found Fred's, Duncan's, your's and others rage to in fact be quite justified in the face of what the forces of feminism has done to Western Civilization...but I also recognized that letting yourself become obsessed with anger and rage is risking becoming that which caused that hate and rage in the first place.

But what I did get from discovering the world of the MRA and the MGTOW movements was recognition of the TRUTH. Why society is on the decline, and just how feminism has corrupted the building block of civilization: the nuclear family unit.

So though you may leave off your rage against the machine and sign off from your blog, you are still equipped with the ability to recognize feminist bullshit when you see it...because whether you are a MGYOW and shunning female relationships, or whether you take the risks and do get involved in them, the feminist influence is indeed ubiquitous. Recognizing it when it rears it's ugly head is necessary to cope with whatever challenges you encounter.

I used to cluelessly endure mindless misandry from my wife and her friends, thinking nothing of it. I too laughed at the caricatures of dumb men and laughed at misandrist jokes and most media manifestations of misandry.

Thanks to the MRA, I laugh no longer...because I now see that such things are REALLY NOT FUNNY.

They are designed to dehumanize the male gender and destroy the VERY NATURAL and BALANCED existence of the male/female relationship. I now confront the subversive influence whenever I encounter it...and it has made my relationships with the females in my life much easier for me to deal with as result.

In short, one does not have to be a dedicated bachelor to oppose feminism. Indeed, the biggest blow you can strike against feminism and the modern Matriarchy is to find a female for which you can successfully create a Patriarchal family unit with.

Though you may never blog again, I'm quite sure that at the very least, you will be able to a much more discerning and cautious entrant into a male/female relationship because you have been enlightened about the modern dynamics of life under the matriarchal model.

Good luck NHY!

Equal Parenting Bike Trek 2008

The 2007 Equal Parenting Bike Trek was a smashing success! Review the complete media coverage of last year’s event.

Here are the 2007 Equal Parenting Bike Trek Pictures.

The 2008 Equal Parenting Bike Trek is already shaping up to be bigger and better than our 2007 event!

Media inquiries please contact Robert Pedersen 269-420-4688 or Angela Pedersen 269-420-3203

Click here to learn all of the details, to see pictures and video and go get further contact details.

Fathers, RIDE ON!

Defining Infidelity

The following is taken from a letter written to the Tom Leykis show, in which a supremely dissatisfied husband asks Tom to read it on the air during his radio show, so that his wife can hear it while they are in the car together. In it, he outlines the case for why he is about to divorce her.

The main point is a message that bears repeating for married women who wish to remain married:

Women of the world, heed this advice. Heed it good; and don't you ever think that you and your magic vagina are the exception to these few very simple rules: Take care of your man. Treat him right. Shower him with love and respect - and yes, I mean take care of his physical needs...satisfy him sexually. Wear him out. If you want to guarantee fidelity in your marriage, there is a simple way to achieve that: Never let your husband leave the house with a single drop of semen remaining in his body.

Trust me, if he is not dumping it at home, he is dumping it somewhere, unless he is hopelessly unattractive, beat-down loser. When you use sex for power and control, you do damage that can not be undone. When you withhold sex and affection from your husband, you drive a wedge between you and your man. Not only that - you drive him elsewhere to get his needs met.

It is that simple.

Ladies, it really IS that simple.

What's interesting is the idea that many women have nowadays that when they are married, they don't have to have sex with their husbands...that if they don't have to "feel like it," than that's just too bad for him, he should go take a cold shower or go masturbate.

But when a husband is cut off from sex by his wife, she may think she is wielding the power...but what she is really doing is fostering a deep resentment in him and she is planting the seeds of destruction for her own marriage.

Granted, this may very well be exactly what she may have in mind...to withhold sex until he is driven to the point of cheating. Than she can divorce him, and claim the mantle of moral superiority and get the pity and emotional support from friends and family because "He cheated!"

Prior to "his-fault" divorce -- how can we call it "no-fault" when the judgments almost always favor her? -- a woman who stopped having sex with her husband could be divorced with cause for "abandonment." Essentially, marriage has been re-defined to mean: Men have all the responsibilities, bear all consequences and women have no incentives or consequences to motivate her to live up to the terms of the marital contract.

In other words, the success of any marriage in a modern day, Western society is almost ENTIRELY dependent on whether or not SHE feels like making it work...because if she no longer wants it to, she holds all the cards in her favor.

Of course, I believe a husband cheating on his spouse is not justified - as the old saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right," however, this does not mean a negligent wife should be absolved of responsibility either. As the letter writer to Tom Leykis points out:

We need to stop defining infidelity as sexual only. Infidelity has many faces, and many manifestations. When you stop trying as a partner, or decide to renege on what you previously offered, you are in fact being disloyal, unfaithful and false to your partner. The idea that unfaithfulness is physical, via the sex act only is a semantic game we need to no longer play.

Infidelity is a betrayal of the marital contract...and a woman who binds a man to a contract in which he agrees to "forsake all others" certainly implies that she is responsible for making sure his needs are met so that he finds it easy to carry out his part of this agreement.

A woman that purposely cuts her man off from sex is just as culpable and responsible for the resulting infidelity as the spouse who finds affection in the arms of another.

After all has been said and done, it may surprise you all to know that, in my humble opinion, most men don't fool around because of sex itself - it's really about the validation - the feelings of being wanted and valued.

This is absolutely true. The idea that men only care about meaningless, casual sex, is just another feminist lie, promulgated to plant the seeds of discord to further the destruction of the nuclear family.

Women, if you want your man to seek his validation elsewhere, than you know exactly what to do.

Cut him off.

Final Judgement for McCartney Divorce

Here's the actual 58 page judgement written by the judge presiding over the Heather Mills & Paul McCartney's divorce.

I just spent a good portion of my morning reading the document in it's entirety, and I must say, it's quite instructive to read this and realize that the system of divorce in the UK is absolutely gender biased in favor of the female, and that females divorcing their husbands can act absolutely irresponsibly, unethically and dishonestly and still face no penalty for doing so.

In summary:

The judge writes that he basically believes that Heather Mills has repeatedly lied, exaggerated and slandered Paul McCartney in making false claims about their marriage, that he rejects most of her claims and accepts Paul's arguments for the most part in describing their marriage and it's eventual dissolution, and he basically calls her out for purposely spending Paul's money lavishly in an attempt to maximize the amount of money that could be ruled as her "accustomed lifestyle" award she was counting on in the pending divorce.

The judge essentially did everything but call her a gold digging liar.

The Judge expresses obvious disdain for Heather's conduct and motives, and directly disputes her lies...yet he STILL has to award her substantial alimony, properties, child support and assets to the tune of the widely reported 24+ million pounds.

TRANSLATION: Gold Digging is the official law of the land.

Like Flies to a Pile of...

Isn't the Matriarchal welfare state wonderful! The sense of entitlement that it promotes caters to the lowest common denominator of humanity and subsidizes the creation of more and more poor people dependent on the government for subsistence.

This is exactly what Matriarchy looks like!

Just look what happens when a Section 8 Housing Authority in Florida announced a government hand out for "housing subsidy vouchers" (translation: taking money via taxes from the producers of society, and giving it to non-producing single mothers who are raising the next generation of criminals, deadbeats and losers, perpetuating the vicious cycle of poverty.)

Then an official came out of the housing authority building and announced through a megaphone that disabled people should come forward.

Instead, the entire crowd surged forward. People fell down and were close to being trampled, witnesses said.

A more accurate sentence would have been:

"...disabled people should come forward.

Naturally, the entire crowd surged forward."

I say naturally, because ALL of these people shown in the slide show and video are ALL disabled by a mentality of entitlement, that they deserve to receive something for nothing, and that the Government has a responsibility to take care of their most basic needs.

These people are disabled because they are unable to be productive because they have learned no other behavior than the soul corrupting one of dependence.

They are disabled because they are unable to provide for themselves.

They are disabled because they have doomed themselves to a lifetime of poverty by following the collectivist mindset that is a primary feature of a Matriarchal society structure.

I came to this story via the Neal Boortz blog. Neal puts it best when he linked to it with the following comments:

They were handing out welfare housing vouchers in Palm Beach earlier this week. Take a look at this story from the Palm Beach Post...and be sure to click on the link for the "special video report". Watch the video. Look for a woman of normal weight. Look for a father. Have fun.

Societal Hypocrisy & Prostitution

The recent resignation of NY Governor Elliot Spitzer is quite the story, illustrating quite many of the issues the MRA and MGTOW movements are concerned with; issues such as the state of marriage, the principles of hypergamy, the motivation of women to use sex for economic advantage, and the so-called "victimization" of females that supposedly occurs in the prostitute/customer transaction.

The picture to the right is the alleged "escort girl," Ashley Dupre, that the Governor hired. Note, she is definitely an attractive looking female...while one can denounce her for being a whore, I say at least this woman is honest about using her looks to cash in. She is straight forward in using her beauty to get money, instead of playing manipulative games and acting as a parasite, latching on to a man and getting him to finance her lifestyle under the guise of "having a fulfilling relationship based on love and romance."

Nevertheless, it's quite instructive to look at this ladies background. From Spitzer's Call Girl Identified as Aspiring Singer

The call girl at the center of the prostitution scandal that prompted Gov. Eliot Spitzer to resign in disgrace has been identified as a 22-year-old aspiring musician who struggled in a broken home as a child.

A broken home? I'm shocked I tell you, just SHOCKED!

This poor lady is a VICTIM of an unscrupulous, rich, white, male politician taking advantage of her psychological problems stemming from a "broken" home! (translation: a single mother headed household.)

Hah.

As a former "Madam" of a high-end escort service similar to the one Ashley worked for writes in her Pajamas Media column, I've Seen My Share of Spitzers,

None of these girls was coerced into selling her body for money. Most of them came from middle-class backgrounds, and many had been accepted to universities. But they dropped out as soon as they discovered that they could make $20-30,000 a month as an escort.

Then they got addicted to the money and the lifestyle. And then one day, usually between the ages of 25 and 28, once they’d developed that knowing, experienced look that clients instinctively disliked, they found that themselves in a classic bind: they were addicted to high living but could no longer pay for it; they had no marketable skills; and years of late nights and lazy days had left them with no self-discipline. What to do? The really smart ones pulled themselves together and, with the help of a sympathetic client, started some kind of a business. Others married rich, cynical, older men in a sort of paid-wife arrangement. Those were the most common stories. I did not inquire into the fate of the girls who sort of faded away. I did not want to hear about their loneliness and poverty.

So the value of the escorts declined rapidly as they aged. Meanwhile, the value of the clients increased because they accumulated more money and more power. I could not make my peace with the power imbalance, even though I understood intellectually that the men would always want to pay women for sex, and there would always be women who wanted to be paid for sex.

But as a modern woman brought up to believe in romance, intimacy, equality between the sexes and monogamy, I had a really hard time dealing with the dawning understanding that the very men I’d been taught to value — my peers, as it were — were pretty atavistic types. They seemed to prefer whores in the bedroom and ladies in the salon.

Even this lady, intimately involved with the inner workings of a prostitution ring and the girls that willingly sell their bodies for money - not because they HAVE to, but because they WANT to for the easy money, still struggles with the programming of our feminist corrupted society. Also note her tacit admission of women's expiration date of physical attraction versus men's increase in relationship value as he ages.


Anyhow, the main point remains: society is hypocritical when we have laws against the freely entered transaction between two consenting adults, where a man pays a woman for sex, and this is a "crime." But a woman that marries a man for money and than divorces him? She receives government assistance in basically stealing the money from a man and giving him nothing in return under the name "alimony."

Will such hypocrisy ever come to an end?

The Impending Death of Feminism?

The thought is certainly most appealing...but I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for it to happen...the cultural norms, political zeitgeist, and most importantly the behemoth of a system that has been developed to profit from feminist ideology is too large, too pervasive and too entrenched to be declaring the death of the movement anytime soon. It's going to take a cataclysmic event of epic proportions to deliver the wake up call that kills feminism...

Nevertheless, Townhall.com columnist, Kathryn Jean Lopez has written a pretty good article about Hillary Clinton and her gender-based campaign to become the first commander-in-chief. Though I disagree with her premise that Clinton's blatant sexism and radical feminist ideology being exposed in her national campaign is a precursor to the eventual death of feminism, she still has a lot of good points in her column:

Enough is enough. Hillary Clinton has made history already; she has shown us that a woman can be a major presidential candidate. But as we are here living history, I'd like it to now be history.

Simply put, I don't want a woman president. Not if she's running to be a "woman president" and not the leader of the United States.

Amen, Sister.

I'm deeply grateful to my junior senator. Her defeat this year would be a significant milestone for American women: The death of the feminist movement. It would mark the end of the silly-women-talk on the national political scene. The beginning of female candidates running as candidates, without a heavy serving of identity politics.

Well, I'm all with you on the defeat part, but as long as family courts continue to define the role of Fatherhood as nothing more than subsidizing the ex-wife in destroying her family; as long as "Women's Studies" continues as a major course of "higher" educational vocation; as long as the holocaust known as "CHOICE" continues to mercilessly slaughter millions of babies in the womb; as long as the media and popular culture continue to promote the "female good/male bad" stereotype, feminism will be far from dead.

But OF COURSE, that doesn't mean defeating Hillary Clinton would not be any less satisfying...

Despite disagreeing with Lopez's statement that a defeated Clinton would be the death knell for feminism in America, I whole-heartedly agree with the conclusion of her piece:

...I have the audacity to hope the next woman who runs will run because she's qualified to be commander in chief, not because she's a Uterine-American.

The Female Misogynist

Just a quick post...I check every MRA blog in my blogroll almost everyday, and I'm always happy to find out about new blogs dedicated to Men's Rights and/or against the feminist movement. thanks to the Counter-Feminist, I've found another interesting MRA/Anti-Feminist blogger I'm going to add to my blogroll, "Female Misogynist - How feminism and matriarchy are destroying civilization.."

Check it out, she is definitely worth the time to read!