>
 |
| 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.
>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 menHow is pointing out the fact that men kill themselves four times as often belittling anyone? If you go to the emergency room with a broken hand and are told to wait while they attend to someone with a broken ribcage, is that belittling your injury? Actually that's not even a suitable comparison to the reaction to what I said; a suitable comparison would be if, upon being told to wait, you insisted that you were in more pain and that your life was in more danger and then, after receiving some much-deserved harsh words from them and told to sit your ass down in the waiting room, you cried about how they were belittling your broken hand.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.pdfYou said before that if it didn't LINK to the original source then it was spam. Of course, one has to wonder why they wouldn't bother linking to it if it was so readily available. One possible clue as to why they didn't link to it is contained right in the methodology of the study, where they reveal that all of the participants were students of an introductory psychology course. That's hardly a representative sample; would you take seriously a study in which a bunch of engineering students were asked their opinion about whether or not there was enough government funding for the arts, and then concluded that the general population overwhelmingly regards the arts as being overfunded?It also appears that they asked extremely general questions about feminism. I doubt that most of the participants who expressed agreement with "I am a feminist" would have expressed agreement with "I currently live under a patriarchy" or "Men accused of rape should have their names made public while their accusers remain anonymous". This is really a shitty methodology and I can't take such a study seriously at all.
>Seriously? I mean, seriously?No, someone committing suicide because they were emotionally abused is not the same thing as being battered by an intimate partner. It's still a tragedy, particularly when it's a teenager, but it is NOT the same thing. You're arguing in bad faith with that claim, or being purposefully obtuse, or dramatically discounting the effect that battery has on women. Stop it. Emotional abuse is bad. Full stop. There should be programs so that men and women in abusive relationships can recognize what they are and get out of them. Full stop. I will even grant that there should be some programs geared towards the experience of an abused man in a heterosexual relationship (as well there should also be programs for abused gays and lesbians – abuse isn't solely a hetero thing). But you CANNOT equate an emotionally abusive relationship with battery or physical abuse. Especially because, as Sally pointed out above, it's damn near impossible to be in a physically abusive relationship without a paired component of emotional abuse. If you really want to focus on men's experience with emotionally abusive relationships, you will lose ground every time you try and compare it to a woman's experience with battery. Focus on the experience itself, how damaging it is and leave battered and abused women out of it. Otherwise, you come across as just another selfish misogynist who sees every resource going towards abused women as something being taken away from men.
>"The threat(emotional) of violence is much more powerful than the actual act. This is why torturers rotate the times that they physically beat their captives. They need to break them psychologically(emotional) first. Captives can learn to take the beatdown physically if it is consistent, but have much harder time with the mental aspect(the not knowing)."Torturers nevertheless DO apply physical torture, do they not? If the threat of violence was always more effective than the violence itself, then torture would never involve physical violence — would it? Torturers would just stand in front of the tortured and tell them to go fuck themselves — and then, the tortured, completely broken down by being told to go fuck themselves, would break down completely and sign those confessions, right?But that's not what happens. Physical violence is an integral part of classic torture. First there are threats, and the victim is shown the instruments of torture. Then there is physical torture, then the victim is left alone for a while, then there are more threats, then more torture, another reprieve, more threats, more torture, and so forth and so on. This is EXACTLY what happens in cases of physical abuse: first come the threats and swinging, then the blows, then some cooling off, then tension-building, more blows, etc. It's a well-known fact that physical abuse is cyclical. In both the case of torture and that of physical abuse, the degree of violence is escalated over time. You mischaracterize both physical abuse and torture when you attempt to separate physical violence from its role in inflicting emotional damage."Do you think its possible for a woman to break a man psychologically(emotional) without ever having to hit him?"Yes, I do think it's possible — but the problem is, you appear to define emotional abuse through highly subjective criteria which make the ostensible victim the sole arbiter of whether or not he is being abused; and ultimately, anything he doesn't like is "abuse" worthy of physical retaliation. Once again, answer this question: in an argument between a man and a woman, that makes both of them upset, who is abusing whom? I really want to hear your answer to this.
>You keep suggesting that I dont think that physical abuse has an emotional component to it. That is patently false, I have never made that statement. That is just you reading into my comments what you see, not what I say. You obviously are biased. No, I really don't think I am, because I said REPEATEDLY that although you were giving me that impression, it was somewhat ambiguous and I doubted that that was what you were trying to do. Which is why I was urging you to improve your communication skills. I still am, because apparently you still can't read my comments for comprehension.
>Told you he would be more serious with yours then mine Dave.He also claims to be right despite both plenty of evidence showing (including a later link explaining why men have less instances of depression then women do) that women are depressed in greater numbers then men and his complaints about his being treated poorly by "feminists" which I am starting to think matches what Nick thinks are feminists-a woman with a pulse.
>Although, upon reflection, it seems that the ambiguity sprang less from any lack of clarity on your part than from my inclination to give you the benefit of the doubt. You say, "I'm not trying to say that physical abuse has no component of emotional abuse," but then you go right ahead and make arguments that are simply nonsensical unless you assume that the two are somehow separable.
>No, someone committing suicide because they were emotionally abused is not the same thing as being battered by an intimate partner(Lady Vic)Explain to me why physical abuse is worse than emotional abuse that causes someone to take their own life? How is the pain worse?
>Once again, answer this question: in an argument between a man and a woman, that makes both of them upset, who is abusing whom? I really want to hear your answer to this.(amused)If they are both are demeaning, nasty, intimidating and such, then obviously they both are.
>amusedI was wondering if you could point out where I made any reference to how the physical or emotional abuse was delivered.
>No, you're doing it again. I told you to stop comparing them, and you're still at it. Asking 'which one is worse' is comparing, which is an argument made in bad faith. They're both bad. Abuse is bad. Many people are victims of abuse. I wholly support programs which focus on helping abuse victims. But if I went into a domestic violence support center because I needed assistance getting out of a battering relationship, and all I hear about is how bad it is when men emotionally abuse women, that's not going to help – either me, or the abused men. And that's precisely what you're doing here. If you want to talk about men being abused, talk about men being abused. But knock off the comparisons, they aren't helping your argument and are making you appear mean-spirited.
>Explain to me why physical abuse is worse than emotional abuse that causes someone to take their own life? How is the pain worse?At least with suicide, you get to choose the time and manner of the physical pain you experience.With physical abuse, you experience the pain over and over and over again. At times which are not of your choosing, and which are unpredictable. Plus, on top of the emotional humiliation that comes from feeling as if other people consider you worthless, you have the additional humiliation of having someone demonstrate exactly how worthless they think you are by invading your bodily autonomy to hurt you.I mean, that's how it seems to me. Not having experienced either suicide or prolonged physical abuse, I really don't know for sure. I suppose only people who have both experienced abuse and attempted suicide but survived the attempt would be able to say for sure. Perhaps we should organize a survey of these people? I'm sure they'd be happy to take time out of their life to satisfy our curiosity. <– A little bit of reductio ad absurdum thereBut look: this is pointless. Both are awful. As Lady Victoria says, comparing them makes you look incredibly callous. Like a child playing "tit for tat," only with real people's suffering as the subject of your petty games. "Don't compare! All suffering is intolerable!" Elie Wiesel said that. It's one of my favorite quotes.
>If people are suffering and nobody wants to hear of their suffering then they will try to compare. The problem comes when one side doesnt think the others is comparable. And that it seems is where the MRAs and Feminists are at. "Hear me, hear of my pain"So I guess you want me to say a womans experience of pain is worse than a man's, right? If not, then maybe acknowledgement of the bonafide suffering of some in the men's movement is warranted. From what I read, I think that is what many of them are looking for. So far very few(that I have seen) are willing to.
>With physical abuse, you experience the pain over and over and over again. At times which are not of your choosing, and which are unpredictable.(Sally)And this doesnt happen with emotional abuse?
>I don't really want you to say any experience is worse. It comes down to: people are suffering. The worst kind of pain is the kind one experiences personally. And the problem with the MRA movement is that they don't want to relate their suffering in a way that doesn't blame *all* women for their pain. When an MRA finds himself in abusive relationship, he's likelier than not going to extrapolate and conclude that all women are abusers. The other problem is that they, like you, try and get into dick-measuring contests over whose scars are worse. If you want to talk about your pain, get a blog or a website. WordPress blogs are free, a basic website has a minimal cost. Create a safe space where other men with similar experiences can share them without being judged. And if that website existed, and a battered woman came there and started talking about how her pain was worse (or just trying to get the people there to compare the pain), she'd be out of place. Her pain would not be any less real, but she'd be in the wrong place to be heard.
>So I guess you want me to say a womans experience of pain is worse than a man's, right?No, you fucking idiot. Project much? Sorry to result to personal results, but when I encounter this sort of density, I just lose patience. If not, then maybe acknowledgement of the bonafide suffering of some in the men's movement is warranted. From what I read, I think that is what many of them are looking for. So far very few(that I have seen) are willing to. Utter, unsubstantiated, purely fabricated bullshit.That is, if you had bothered to read a bit (there's that intellectual laziness again!) you'd have seen that the CONSISTENT response of feminists to MRA complaints is, "We hear you. We've been saying this all along: rigid gender roles aren't helping! They're oppressive to everyone. PATRIARCHY HURTS MEN TOO. So let's get together and break down these absurd gender binaries that are causing both of us so much pain."
>No, you fucking idiot. Project much? Sorry to result to personal results, but when I encounter this sort of density, I just lose patience.(sally)Exactly the same response I got on avoiceformen.com when I had similar ideas from the female perspective.
>Lady VicI think when the average man hears Patriarchy they feel that it is an attack on all men. Maybe that is why they go on the offensive. Just thinking………..you know, how words affect.
>SallyThis is what many "Dense" men might read when looking the word up.Patriarchynoun, plural -ies. 1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe. 2. a society, community, or country based on this social organizationpatriarchy (ˈpeɪtrɪˌɑːkɪ) — n , pl -chies 1. a form of social organization in which a male is the head of the family and descent, kinship, and title are traced through the male line 2. any society governed by such a system But it isnt about gender or sex, right?
>It is not an attack on all men. Can you please pay some attention to what these people are saying or are you just here to get us to say "FINE, EMOTIONAL ABUSE SUFFERED BY MEN IS A GAZILLION TIMES WORSE THEN ANY WOMAN BEING BEATEN BY A MAN."Because there, someone said it even if I do not mean it in any way. Now you can wander off happy that men have it worse and women have it better and feminists are ebil. I rarely say this but: troll.
>ElizabethLol, a troll on a web site designed to show how ignorant and nasty, ignorant and nasty people are. Priceless. Of course its not an attack on all men, but it sure seems that way for some. Do you honestly think that just because you say pariarchy is not about men but about a system, that most men are going to believe you?
>But you have problems with understanding why women and fair-minded men might, just might, be put off by a system in which the men are in charge, solely by virtue of gender? Where a woman's children are considered as belonging to her husband, and she isn't given consideration when it comes to inheritance and kinship?A less than dense man will also be able to pick stuff up from context – you know, if the debate is on how patriarchy influences the pornography industry, an intelligent and fair-minded man, operating solely from that definition, might indeed be confused. But that intelligent and fair minded man will know how to phrase his question without seeming like an asshole or a dude JAQing off. Or, even better, will realize that it's not other people's jobs to educate him, and will spend some quality time with Google. Also, didn't we clear this up about eleventy million comments ago? If you've run out of arguments as to why we should pay attention to men's pain in abusive relationships as worse than women's pain, and are just trying to drum up more discussion by bringing up an issue that was resolved awhile ago, you might as well just say "I own a horse" or ask how magnets work, and get it over with. At least those trolls are polite and will make themselves known within a few minutes or so.
>Where a woman's children are considered as belonging to her husband(Lady Vic)Ok, I own a horse. I rode the horse for the last 10yrs. I could talk custody stuff with you, but hey, you already know its a patriarchy.Goodnight
>I see you have made zero progress, T4T. You are back to making the same arguments you did at the beginning, using the same wrong definitions, as if nothing has been said. I refer you to my post to you, WAAAAAY back, among the very first things I said to you was: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."Since you have revealed that you are unwilling to use accurate basic definitions of words that are absolutely key to this discussion, we can conclude that you're not arguing in good faith.
>Do you honestly think that just because you say pariarchy is not about men but about a system, that most men are going to believe you? Well, yes… that is, if they're not already invested in preserving the status quo, or if they're not exceptionally stupid. That's because men are just as capable as women of understanding the conceptual distinction between a system that affects a group of people, and the group of people that are being affected by that system.
>Cold, you do realize that the news article on that study that I linked to also mentioned very clearly that it involved polling undergrads (not a perfect methodology, to be sure, but the study offers at the very least a suggestive result, and based on my experience I am inclined to think it's probably true). I'm guessing you didn't notice because you didn't read it, and simply wanted to shout "oh you're a hypocrite you didn't link to the source."Here's the deal: I don't demand sources for everything. For example, I'm not going to demand you provide a source for your assertion earlier in the thread that "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." Why? PArtly because I'm not sure how you can footnote something that you've pulled out of your ass. Anyway, what I want is for people to cite sources for alleged quotes from feminists, because when an MRA "quotes" a feminist there's a pretty good chance that feminist didn't actually say that or anything like that. I link to the sources of the things I quote. It's really not an onerous requirement. As for my comment about spam, yes, long lists of supposed feminist quotes copied and pasted from MRA sites (without bothering to check their accuracy or relevance to the topic at hand)… that's spam.