>
 |
| A “Wacky Package by Tom Bunk. |
We have spoken here before about the imminent threat to civilization posed by misogynistic douchebags “going Galt,” shrugging like Atlas and depriving society of their hard work and staggering genius. Indeed, in the comments of this very blog, one of our own resident MGTOWers, Cold, explained how he was sticking it to The Man — er, The Woman — by not paying taxes on some of his earnings, thus becoming what economists call a “free rider”on government services, and what the rest of us taxpayers call a “tax cheat.”
He’s not the only manosphere dude who has concluded that the best way to screw over all those evil wimminz who are leeching off the government tit is to, er, leech off the government tit themselves. The guy calling himself AfOR — a prolific commenter and one-time contributor to the False Rape Society blog — explained his similar strategy in a comment on angry-dude megasite The Spearhead:
The wimminz are always directly dependent upon “no questions asked” money, usually from the public purse, and even those in industry only get away with it because the way is lead by the public purse.
Starve them of cash and you starve them of oxygen, they will literally die of starvation, and raise blue murder screaming to their last breath.
The only way to starve them of cash is to starve the State of cash, fuck the State, it can’t be fixed any other way and is now the enemy.
So how does one go about starving the state (metaphorically) and hopefully some actual women (literally)? With some slackery and/or tax fraud!
The only way to starve the State of cash is either live off welfare or work self employed and keep two sets of books, run the black / cash economy for what you can, and good accounting for what you can’t where everything is a deductible expense.
If you pay into the State, you are paying into the wimminz defence fund.
Since AfOR only rarely gets to see his kids, he figures it doesn’t matter if his brand of slacktivism destroys the economy — and possibly leads to them getting killed.
I couldn’t have less contact with my kids if we had had TOTAL economic meltdown and they had died in the ensuing chaos, so frankly speaking total economic meltdown holds nothing very scary for me, I have a set of skills that will always be in demand (a brain, two hands and a mechanical aptitude)
Nope! He’s footloose and fancy free!
Freed from needing to cater to the ex bitch and freed (prevented by force of Law actually) from any obligation towards my kids I can go live in my fucking car, it provides 12 VDC to power my laptop and charge my smartphone, and I can tether my smartphone to my laptop and get internet access anywhere I can get a phone signal.
In siding with the wimminz the State has made me the very thing it fears the most, the worker who can go anywhere on a whim, the worker who can work in the black (cash) economy, the worker who is very hard to track and profile … the worker who has no interest in taking on a debt burden or otherwise “boosting” the economy, the worker who can’t be bribed to vote appropriately because he doesn’t have a McMansion, corporate job, mortgage, etc etc. …
I guess Ayn Rand would be … proud?
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>CaptainThanks for the concern, but were good. Lots of challenge helped me become a better communicator with my daughter and stepson. Reading most of these comments makes me hope they can do a better job in regards to our diffirences. MRA's/feminists have lots of good points that totally get lost behind the vitriol they spew.
>Elizabeth wrote:women suffer from depression at a much higher rate than men, they would seem to be at higher risk for suicide. Men are less likely to make an effort to get treatment then women are. So their rates tend to be higher.My understanding is that women attempt suicide more often than men, whereas men complete suicide more often than women. Men are also more likely to act out as a result of untreated depression–through alcohol and drug use, violence, rage, etc. Women, by contrast, are more likely to manifest "classic" depression–sadness, hopelessness, lethargy, etc.To be fair, part of men refusing to seek treatment is the stigma that's still attached to mental health treatment, especially for men. Of course, this stigma is in no way the fault of feminists, but rather due to the persistence of patriarchy and the idea that real men don't go in for that bullshit. There's a great book on male depression by Terrance Real, called, aptly, I Don't Want to Talk About It. Well worth a read.
>Tit said:"walk a mile in another person's shoes,"It seems to me both the feminists and MRA's missed that class.And then triplanetary said:Bullshit. Every oppressed group in history has been told that they should see things from their oppressors point of view, and have some sympathy for their oppressors, and try to be patient with their oppressors. People like Martin Luther King said "fuck that" and got results.For the past century women – the oppressed – have been told that they're not giving due consideration to their oppressors. Damn right, because there's no reason they should. Their oppressors already have plenty going for them. I'm fucking sick of hearing men whine about how our lives are hard too. Of course they are; nobody said they weren't. Your life is hard because you're human. Deal with it. Womens' lives are harder because they're female humans. Once we eliminate that distinction I'll have all the sympathy in the world for my fellow men, on par with my sympathy for my fellow women of course."Until then, suck it up.Hmm, missed the boat by a few hours wrt a response. I would say that it's both the men and women finding themselves oppressed by a patriarchal system: women because they are seen as possessions and men because they are supposed to aspire to an ideal of masculinity. Some dudes really do have it pretty rough. The focus is on improving the lives of everybody, of equalizing men and women as well as different kinds of men or women across their gender groups. I'm not only a feminist: I'm also pro gay rights and pro self expression and pro human rights and all that good stuff. Basically, I just think people should be allowed to live in such a manner as does not cause harm to others, free of stigma and free of fear. Idealistic dreams, obviously. We'll never have that but it's worth trying to have. And Martin Luther King seems like someone who had sympathy for those who were perceived as the oppressors, namely the whites. He emphasized the humanity of each side, and that's why he was so successful. Individuals may play a part in oppression but the main oppressor is the culture. One of the perceptions of feminism is that it blames the men. Men are mostly blameless as an amorphous mass. Tradition is guilty as fuck.
>Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are better at succeeding (women tend to use poison/drugs, which makes it easier to save them as opposed to a man, who tends to use a gun). And there are also some good points about women being more comfortable with finding help than a man who cannot admit any sort of weakness or that he might feel sad sometimes. You know who wants to preserve a culture in which men are derided for feeling sad and admitting they need help? People who support the patriarchy. You know who wants to disrupt that culture and replace it with one where everyone gets to freely express emotions and ask for help without being judged for it? Feminists. Yeah, I agree – it's awful that anyone chooses to commit suicide. It's awful that the U.S. has one of the highest rates of incarceration, a significant percentage of which are bullshit drug charges. It's awful that there are people full of despair who have difficulty getting help. But that's not the fault of feminism. From what I've read, and gathered in discussions with many MRAs, they have a long list of complaints and how they feel oppressed. Fair enough, I won't begrudge someone else their feelings. But MRAs look at the wrong target – they want to lay all the blame with feminism, when both feminists and MRAs seem to want to agitate for the same cultural change. It's a shame that MRAs can't see that they have more in common with feminism than not.
>Off topic, but is that picture drawn by Tom Bunk? Is it from a 90s MAD Magazine?
>But MRAs look at the wrong target – they want to lay all the blame with feminism, when both feminists and MRAs seem to want to agitate for the same cultural change(Lady Vic)You might not want to call it the Patriarchal system then(insinuating all men). Afterall, what is the difference between that and laying blame on feminists??
>Mercedes Lackey has an excellent series on The Tradition as seen through the eyes of people having to live with Fairy Tales.Now I have to go oppress Cold for not having a vejay jay.
>Tit for Tat–Obviously, as has been explained approximately 3,072,482,391 times before, "the patriarchal system" is a non-human system (hint: non-human means it does not possess gender attributes) which holds men as superior and women as inferior. It is enforced by BOTH WOMEN AND MEN. It is also opposed by BOTH WOMEN AND MEN. The women and men who oppose it and seek to supplant it with a more egalitarian system are called "feminists." Among other things, of course.And, as has been mentioned approximately 4,328,094 times before, this is quite similar to opposing "white supremacy" without also hating all white people.Or are you convinced that MLK Jr. was a terrible racist because of his passionate opposition to white supremacy?People who think that "The patriarchy is to blame" means "All men are to blame and all women are blameless" are simply demonstrating their own stupidity and/or laziness.
>On King (exerpt from Letter from a Birmingham Jail):"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured….I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. "MLK was not half the push over that modern white media portrays him as and he was not even half the hardass that A Phillip Randolph and some of the others leaders in the movement were.
>Hey, John Kilian, sorry you had such bad experiences with marriage. I'm sure your kids appreciate having you in their lives more than they can really express. You're doing a great thing by making sure they know you love them.
>The one thing that almost all male feminists have in common is that they will get the opposite of what they are hoping to get, whatever that may be.I'm not in this for personal gain. I'm a feminist because that's where my sense of fairness and justice led me.And Martin Luther King seems like someone who had sympathy for those who were perceived as the oppressors, namely the whites. He emphasized the humanity of each side, and that's why he was so successful.Of course that's true. It's also not my point. King's activism rattled a lot of white people's chains. Many of them said that they sympathized with his cause but maybe he should tone it down and stop with the agitating and just patiently wait for civil rights. These white people all expected pats on the back for paying lip service to civil rights while opposing any active methods of actually obtaining them. King rightly refused to regard them as allies, and he didn't placate them with any "oh it's not your fault as an individual white person" nonsense either.No individual man created the patriarchal system we live in today, but individual men benefit from it. And individual men are actively defending it, whether explicitly or by denying that it actually exists. Those men deserve blame.From what I've read, and gathered in discussions with many MRAs, they have a long list of complaints and how they feel oppressed. Fair enough, I won't begrudge someone else their feelingsI don't see why not. When some white people complain about how they're oppressed by affirmative action and black scholarships and BET, I don't take them seriously. I see no need to take MRAs seriously either.You might not want to call it the Patriarchal system then(insinuating all men). Afterall, what is the difference between that and laying blame on feminists??See, this is what I'm talking about. Oh dear, we'd better sugarcoat the truth, lest we hurt the feelings of those poor men. Nobody gives them a break, after all.
>T4T:I think this is another place where the MRAs and feminists have a serious breakdown in communication. When an MRA hears a feminist talking about the patriarchy, he thinks she's talking about 'all men,' when that's not the case, any more than 'feminism' means 'all women'. Feminists are kind of nerds about language, and if they meant that 'all men' were culpable, they'd say 'all men.' The patriarchy isn't based on gender, it's a system of cultural and social constructions which pigeonhole people based on race, gender, class, ableism and other factors. It's as possible to be a woman who supports the patriarchy (by believing, among other things, that men shouldn't cry, women shouldn't disagree with a man and homosexuality is wrong) as it is possible to be a male feminist. Both men and women enforce patriarchial norms on each other. I come from a very Christian extended family, where the women are all taught that their highest aspiration is to be a wife and mother and that they should rely on their husbands for financial support. These aren't feminist women, and they'd be shocked and possibly insulted if you suggested they were. They believe wholeheartedly in the patriarchy, despite being women, because that's how they've been taught. And even when it comes to patriarchial men – feminism doesn't believe that patriarchy is inborn. So if a man has patriarchial attitudes, it's not because he was born male; but because he was born into this particular culture and absorbed the cultural values of patriarchy.
>From what I've read, and gathered in discussions with many MRAs, they have a long list of complaints and how they feel oppressed. Fair enough, I won't begrudge someone else their feelingsI don't see why not. When some white people complain about how they're oppressed by affirmative action and black scholarships and BET, I don't take them seriously. I see no need to take MRAs seriously either.Honestly, I can empathize with some of the complaints of the MRA movement, since, as I said, they're complaining more about the patriarchy than what real feminism supports.
>Lady Vic wrote:You know who wants to preserve a culture in which men are derided for feeling sad and admitting they need help? People who support the patriarchy.You know who wants to disrupt that culture and replace it with one where everyone gets to freely express emotions and ask for help without being judged for it? Feminists.Exactly.
>::: My understanding is that women attempt suicide more often than men, whereas men complete suicide more often than women. Men are also more likely to act out as a result of untreated depression–through alcohol and drug use, violence, rage, etc. Women, by contrast, are more likely to manifest "classic" depression–sadness, hopelessness, lethargy, etc. :::It's my understanding that men succeed at suicide more often than women because a preponderance of men use a gun. Guns have much less margin for error and generally produce injuries that are not easy to recover from in such situations where death is not immediate.
>sallystrangeOk, I see you had cornflakes with Triplanetary this morning. I am new to this site and just recently have started talking about these points, so excuse me for not knowing 'contextual' meaning for Patriarchal and Feminism. I would imagine most people would get the fact that they both imply gender. But if you say not then far be it for me to point that out.Lady VicThanks for your response. I think that because these are hot button topics maybe it would prudent to develop new verbiage that has no relation to gender whatsoever. It may help diffuse much of the anger from both sides before any meaningful dialogue begins.
>Sam, just checked the site I got that picture at, and it was indeed by Tom Bunk. But it was a WackyPackage, not from Mad. Actually, it was supposed to be a WackyPackage, but apparently was dropped. All the details:http://www.wackypackages2007.com/ans3/wacky-packages-2006-ans3/slacker-jack.htmI'll put a link on the post.
>excuse me for not knowing 'contextual' meaning for Patriarchal and Feminism. That's not the "contextual" meaning I was referencing. I was talking about the actual, dictionary definitions of the words. Why should I excuse you from knowing the actual definitions of words that are key to a discussion you joined voluntarily? Do you have a good excuse? Did the dog eat your vocabulary sheet?I would imagine most people would get the fact that they both imply gender.Most people are idiots. Try not to be like them. Neither of these words "imply" gender. "Imply" means to cause an inference to be drawn without directly stating the argument. They both reference gender directly. However, neither definition contains any sex-specific requirements. You really have trouble with this whole "meaning of words" thing, don't you? I suppose you're not used to this level of precision in the use of language. If you don't like it there's a whole big internet out there where nobody will give a flying fuck what the correct definitions of patriarchy and feminism.
>It's my understanding that men succeed at suicide more often than women because a preponderance of men use a gun. Guns have much less margin for error and generally produce injuries that are not easy to recover from in such situations where death is not immediate. Women who complete suicide are just as likely to use guns or other lethal means. One possibility for the discrepancy between completed suicides for men and women is that women who attempt often use the attempt as a "cry for help," not because they actually want to die, and thus use low lethality methods. By contrast, men who attempt suicide often mean business and are past the point where they want any help, if they ever did. When women reach that point, they are just as likely to use high lethality methods as men.This is not to trivialize or disparage women who attempt suicide as a "cry for help;" for my money, suicide is one area where it's good to fail. 🙂
>@T4T: I like the term 'hegemony' better, and Riane Eisler's word for an equitable system, 'gylany.' However, I'm not Arbiter of Feminist Language – and, really, it takes just a few minutes with Google to learn that feminists don't mean 'blame men' when they use the term 'patriarchy.' At some point, it behooves one to learn the terminology, no matter how inelegant you personally think it is. And after centuries of telling women that they had to be so conscious of what men thought and wanted that they had to ignore their own desires, I can understand why feminist philosophers would be reluctant to abandon a term solely 'because men might misunderstand it and get their feelings hurt' as the sole justification (I like the term 'hegemony' because I personally think its more accurate, as there are more qualifiers to status than just gender – for instance, in the old system, a rich married white woman was of more social value than poor black gay man). On that note, Riane Eisler's books definitely deserve to be read.
>So, T4T, you didn't answer my question. Do you think that opposing white supremacy makes you racist against white people?
>My other post had a couple of good links in it, I hope it shows up soon.
>@ SallyI think the analogy breaks down a bit. More white supremacists are willing and even proud to say that they are white supremacists; while few men with patriarchial attitudes are willing to do the same. Most patriarchial men deny that the patriarchy exists, all evidence to the contrary; but white supremacists are usually more than happy to tell you about their 'movement'.
>@ Lady Victoria: I believe the word of choice now in a lot of feminist blogs I read is "kyriarchy", from "kyros", Greek for master, which is meant to take into account a lot more than just sexism, but also racism, ableism, sizeism, heteronormativity, etc.http://www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/08/why-i-use-that-word-that-i-use.html <- good intro to "kyriarchy"
>Sally, your comment with the links is up now.