>
 |
| 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 āno questions askedā 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 canāt 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 canāt 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 couldnāt 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 āboostingā the economy, the worker who canāt be bribed to vote appropriately because he doesnāt 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.
>Thank you, Elizabeth, for illustrating the reason why the MRM exists in the first place. As for your libelous accusation that I belittled depressed women, either put up the evidence or you will demonstrate yourself to be another ass-talker.
>I've already dismissed you as someone not worth my time, so your threat of dismissing me as a fanatic holds no water. Besides, I will gladly assume the mantle of 'fanatic for equality.'Then why make what you thought were brilliant counter-points to me in the first place? How come it's only after I demolished them that you decided you needed an excuse to stop responding?
>Most suicide attempts are expressions of extreme distress, not harmless bids for attention. A person who appears suicidal should not be left alone and needs immediate mental-health treatment.You know what that quote has in common with the one about 95 percent of suicide attempts being cries for attention? Neither of them have a source.
>This is also a complicated question. They are both unacceptable ways to treat people, especially one's spouse. However, the punch violates bodily autonomy (the right to not get hit), so I'm going to say its slightly worse. There are also many other options open to the man – he could leave, for one, either leaving the room or ending his marriage. He could take up boxing or martial arts as a way to channel his energy somewhere else. But then again, if I'm being emotionally abusive, I'm probably not happy about something, either in my life or my marriage. It's also incumbent upon me to find more productive ways to get what I want – marriage counseling, therapy or learning to just let shit go. Basically, in that scenario, I would be a terrible person for being emotionally abusive; but the husband would also be physically abusive, too. Neither person gets a pass in that situation.
>Also, you imply that poorly educated people are more prone to violence, when I have to disagree. There's intellectual intelligence (such as being literate) and emotional intelligence (knowing how to deal with your emotions and the emotions of others). The two aren't necessarily inclusive of each other, you can have one without the other. The problem isn't that your hypothetical husband is semi-literate, it's that no one ever taught him a useful way to deal with anger other than by bottling it up until he lashed out with physical violence.
>That was a good response. Ok, lets say you are married and for several years you verbally and emotionally accost your husband. He is not a very literate man and has a hard time expressing his anger with words and to get it out so it doesnt hurt him in the long run he punches you in the face. In your world who is more guilty?They're both guilty. I don't see why it matters who's "more guilty."I spent my entire childhood being emotionally abused by my mother, so I'm aware (as are feminists in general) that women can be abusive, and I take emotional abuse very seriously. So yes, the wife in this situation is very guilty.But that doesn't absolve the man in this situation of guilt. If he can't cope with the situation himself or communicate sufficiently with his wife, he should look for help and support elsewhere. Instead of doing that he hits his wife. He shouldn't get a free pass.But I did notice how you tried to stack the deck in his favor. He hits her "to get it out so it doesn't hurt him in the long run"? Quite a copout. Is your hypothetical just a hypothetical, or are you implying, as many MRAs claim, that a significant number of physically violent husbands are just responding to emotionally abusive wives? Because that would be apologistic bullshit. If that's what you're implying. If you're not, I apologize.More to the point, why does his right to be protected from being emotionally "hurt in the long run" trump her right to not get punched in the face? They both seem like equally valid rights to me.
>So in your world the woman should be held accountable for her actions just as the man should. Agreed. The problem with chronic abuse is it erodes away at the person's decision making ability and leaving is not an option(as evidenced by women who return to their abusive husbands). So in your world do you not think it is important to hear and then protect the men that have been "beaten" down by long term abuse? Afterall, if is equality we seek then we need to change the system because it seems to me the feminists are having just as hard of a time listening as the MRA's are. The loud, angry voices seem to be drowning out the cries for help.
>because it seems to me the feminists are having just as hard of a time listening as the MRA's are.And it seems to me that you're a pig-ignorant concern troll. Feminists take male abuse victims very seriously. But we also don't tolerate MRAs who continually claim that a) male-on-female physical abuse is not a widespread problem, and b) women are just as likely to be abusive as men are. Concern-trolling voices of faux-moderation such as yourself tend to lean heavily on b, but it just isn't true. It's not that women are inherently better people, it's just that men get far encouragement and tacit permission from society to be abusive than women do. Patriarchy, etc.
>LOL, triplanetary continues to talk out of his ass, making huge generalizations without supplying one iota of evidence. A white knight with a paper sword if there ever was one.
>The problem is that it's easy to pass laws against physical violence, but less easy (or even morally acceptable) to pass laws against emotional violence. What I am in favor of is including relationship education with comprehensive sex education for teenagers and preteens. Everyone, of all genders, needs to be equipped with a few basic tools for negotiation and compromise in a relationship without resorting to abuse of any kind. People need to be able to articulate what they are feeling and express that to their romantic partner without being derided. I also think that relationship counseling should be strongly encouraged for people about to get married. Here's one of the problems I have with MRAs when it comes to the issue of male victims of domestic abuse – they take their own bad experience and extrapolate that to all women. My heart goes out to men who feel trapped in bad relationships and unhappy marriages – I was in an emotionally abusive relationship, too, and it took me about five years to recognize and admit what it was. However, I didn't let that relationship color my opinions of men or relationships in general, and MRAs shouldn't do that, either. Also, MRAs seem to be demanding that feminists stop what they are doing to construct shelters and programs for male victims of domestic abuse. That's not how it works. I'm sure that there are some anti-domestic violence advocates who would be more than happy to give interested people the tools and resources they need to start their own advocacy programs. But this is a problem that MRAs will have to fix themselves, with people they can persuade to give up their own time and resources to the cause. It's not fair to demand that women stop what they are doing to come help the men. It's not that women/feminists/DV advocates don't care, it's that they've already committed their careers and resources to this particular cause, and it's unfair to demand that they suddenly shift focus. It's like demanding that Animal Rights Advocates immediately stop what they are doing because climate change is also a concern. They're both problems, but it's up to the people worried about climate change to fix it, not the animal rights advocates to abandon their cause for it.
>But I did notice how you tried to stack the deck in his favor. He hits her "to get it out so it doesn't hurt him in the long run"? Quite a copout(Trip)That was in response to Lady vic's earlier comment:"Denying anger or suppressing anger can be damaging in the long run, and I think our culture lacks good methods for dealing with anger, both in ourselves and in others"Trip or would you prefer Stephen or Chad?I see where you get your violent streak. You still havnt resolved your Mommy issues. š
>I see where you get your violent streak. You still havnt resolved your Mommy issuesDude, that's not helping anything.
>Cold: Where is the proof that more women than men suffer from depression? Oh right, there is none….Oh, so THAT'S why feminists mocked me and told me to stop whining when I expressed the fact that I was deeply depressed. That was before I became an MRA, by the way.You claim that women are not more depressed then men because there is "no evidence" despite there being evidence and then say when "I had something bad happen to me…feminists were mean! Be nice to me because I was hurting!"*cue claims of strawman, logical fallacy and whatever other claims you make to satisfy your need to always be right and never be wrong.*The basic fact is-you were depressed at one time, have apparently recovered and that is a good thing. But that does not give you the right to claim women are not depressed in greater numbers then men when it is shown that women are more likely to be depressed then men are (and my link shows that it is probably more due to hormonal fluctuations that men simply do not have.)As for showing you to be right-sure, if that is what you want to believe. Not like anyone could convince Mr. I know it all he is wrong.
>Lady V-you have eloquently stated what I try to state with that part on why feminists should not be expected to change gears to focus on men.
>Lady VicI appreciate your well thought out responses and concur with much of what you say. My challenge(so far) is that most times I have tried to present certain ideas on both MRA and Feminist sites the loud, angry radicals tend to jump in and try to stuff their malicious anger down your throat. Reminds of road rage drivers, really tough when they are behind the wheel. Totally polite when out of the car.
>What you need to realize is that it's all been done before. If you want to start agitating for anti-DV programs focusing on male victims, feminists aren't going to stop you. Some might even want to help. But you can't *demand* that help, you can only persuade people to give it. The women (and men) who are involved in anti-DV advocacy focusing on female victims have collected and published stories, they've accumulated statistics, they've persuaded both private and government donors that this is a problem, and they've set up hot lines, educational programs and shelters for their cause. This was a lot of work, done for a given goal, and while you can't ask them to change their own goal, you can certainly ask them how they did it so you can do it yourself. If you can start raising awareness of the issue without conveying 'all women are abusive to men!' or 'feminists are being mean by not helping!', then you'll start to see some real traction.
>I havnt once stated that I believed that all women are abusive or more abusive than men. In fact I dont believe that. I do believe it is more of an issue than we are lead to believe though. Which group dynamic do you think that most violence(physical) is perpetrated on?Male to femaleFemale to malefemale to femalemale to male
>I didn't mean to imply that you had said those things, I think my larger point was lost. What I meant was, a lot of MRAs who claim to be advocating for male DV shelters & programs have a penchant for blaming women/feminists for the lack of said shelters & programs. A lot of male DV advocates also have a tendency to say and do very misogynist things. That's what pisses off a lot of feminists and DV advocates, and is probably the source of a lot of the anger you've been experiencing. So if you really do wish to start programs for male victims of DV or emotional abuse, those are the two pit traps you want to be aware of. Then again, it's probably going to be less of a struggle to overcome those attitudes than for the early anti-DV advocates to overcome the idea that DV was a private matter or just the result of her being such a nagging harpy all the time.
>Most suicide attempts are expressions of extreme distress, not harmless bids for attention. A person who appears suicidal should not be left alone and needs immediate mental-health treatment.You know what that quote has in common with the one about 95 percent of suicide attempts being cries for attention? Neither of them have a source. Actually, Cold, the link directly beneath that quote provides the source.
>Unless, Cold, you're talking about the fact that the quote in not footnoted in the article, in which case disregard.
>Perhaps more women REPORT feeling depressed, but only a fool would jump from there to the conclusion that more women actually suffer from depression.Depression, like most psychiatric illnesses, is largely diagnosed by self-report of symptoms (subjective experience). People who report feeling depressed often are, by clinical definition, though there are also some objective signs of major depression–usually appetite disturbance, insomnia or hypersomnia, or psychomotor retardation (appearing to be physically slow in movements). There are other criteria in terms of duration (2 weeks) and frequency (nearly all day, nearly every day) of symptoms.There are also a variety of assessment tools used to diagnose depression, most notably the Beck's Depression Inventory. These rely entirely on patient self-report of symptoms, thoughts, and feelings. It is widely accepted in the mental health field that women report a higher incidence of symptoms that meet the DSM-IV TR criteria for Major Depressive Disorder. There are those, however, who argue that men manifest Major Depression differently from women and that depression in men is generally under diagnosed.
>Cold: on the study I mentioned, the source I gave is a site that summarizes the results of scientific research that has no reason to distort the findings of the study in question. The article also gave enough information to locate the actual study in approximately one google search. But here is the study itself, if you care to read it:http://www.springerlink.com/content/6163700x51t5r169/fulltext.pdf
>Cold, also, here (from earlier in this thread) are a couple of your comments that belittle women suffering from depression:Yeah women's lives are so much harder that they commit suicide 1/4th as often as men, http://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/sticking-it-to-woman.html?showComment=1300131170843#c3991747063027403097Where is the proof that more women than men suffer from depression? Oh right, there is none. Perhaps more women REPORT feeling depressed, but only a fool would jump from there to the conclusion that more women actually suffer from depression. … It's a cry for help/attention, not a serious effort to end one's life because one has lost all hope.http://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/sticking-it-to-woman.html?showComment=1300198988339#c6243734075252664783
>On the "why are men guilty of physcial abuse if women emotionally abuse them first" topic that TforT brought up, I'm reminded of the Anitole French quote ""The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges"The law forbids physical abuse. If a wife physically assaults her husband then she'll go to jail. (Yes, it happens. My father's second marriage ended with her in jail for abuse.) If a man is being emotionally abusive to his wife and she goes and hits him to vent her anger… does that make it acceptable? Of course not. Even if he is better at expressing himself emotionally and she's better physically?My question for you is: why do you assume that men can only express themselves physically while women are only able to do it emotionally. Isn't it more likely that people are either more prone to physical or emotional outbursts based on their own individual backgrounds instead of their gender?That's all that feminists want. For people to be recognized as individuals instead of being told that men are one way and women are the other. If any individual physically assaults another individual they should go to jail. If any individual emotionally harms another individual the victim should be empowered to leave them and to take care of themselves. Gender doesn't make a difference.
>Dave, want to bet that Cold takes what you say more seriously then what I said?