I found this amazing pic of “Husband Libber” Harry Britton posted to the Blue Pill subreddit; it was taken in 1972 by the father of Blue Piller smileybird.
According to Cape Girardeau History and Photos, which has another pic of him,
New York Magazine wrote that he was a fixture who had been supporting himself wearing placards, carrying signs and selling his leaflets for 25 cents each for several years. “Harry makes only $2,000 a year [roughly $12,000 today –DF]. He’s not in this for the money, though; he says his only goal is reconciliation with his wife, from whom he is, not surprisingly, separated.”
Another account said he was the “president (and probably sole member) of the National Association of Dissatisfied Husbands subsisting on sales of publications extolling ‘Husband Lib.(‘It’s not men’s lib,it’s Husband Lib. The Bachelors are not oppressed yet’).”
Here’s that pic, and a couple of others; thanks to SquashedBananas in the Blue Pill for tracking all this down. (And thanks to the reader who emailed me about all this.)
Woody,
Either become more interesting or shut up.
Thirding the opinion that the top .01% is stupid to try and return things to the way they were in the gilded age. They are so much better off with a complacent middle class.
Lord Vetinari, is that you?
This is mainly me pulling things out of my ear, but I’d say that today’s .01% probably doesn’t have much incentive to keep the U.S. middle class moderately prosperous. As long as someone in the world has money to buy the goods, or to invest in the markets (which the rich can then manipulate for even greater gains), they don’t really have much reason to care about the people in their own back yard. “I don’t need you to have any money if I can sell my stuff to someone across the ocean. If you’re unhealthy and poor and desperate, you’ll agree to anything I want. I can block wage hikes, fight regulation, poison your water and air! And you’ll sit back and let it happen, because you either can’t afford to rock the boat, or don’t want to because you’re hoping to join me at the captain’s table one day.”
These folks don’t seem to have much a long-term view, or much loyalty to anyone or to anything except profit. If it looks like the peasants with pitchforks are heading for the castle gates, they’ll probably pack up and go to a place with less rowdy commoners.
Sigh. That’s depressing. How ’bout some brain bleach? Have a happy fox:
Fuck off, Tom. No one cares what pleases you. You just asked if a site dedicated to mockery was “serious” and then had the gall to complain that we weren’t intellectual enough to entertain you. We’re not here for your edification.
Shut up, Woody.
Not to get to deeply into economics, but I think the rich are afflicted with some very irrational beliefs. One is that they feel they really are the most important and valuable people in society and that the rest of us drones don’t worship them as much as they deserve — and just like the MGTOWs, they want to go off in a sulk like John Galt in their hero Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.” Another is they take the old canard that “Money is the way you keep score” way too seriously. They are like the skirt-chaser who knows the exact number of women he’s slept with and thinks that the higher the number, the bigger man he is. I’m sure that Charles and David Koch go to bed every night distraught at the fact that they are not the first and second richest people in the US. Mitt Romney said and did a lot of things that showed he was clueless as to how most people live, but I always remember that he was planning to demolish his $4 million mansion in order to replace it with a $12 million one.
Men – they possess virtually all the wealth and power in the world and, with that, the opportunity to be independent and self-sufficient.
Their rights though! They’re being trampled on!
“Men – they possess virtually all the wealth and power in the world ”
But only a small percentage of men (and a very few women) have real wealth and power. In order to direct the resentment of the majority of men away from the wealthy and powerful, they are encouraged to blame women in general and feminists in particular, as well as blacks, latinos, immigrants, etc. etc.
Yes, males are more oppressed than females. That’s why, for example, we see many more articles along these lines addressed at males: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/10337123/How-to-avoid-beauty-blunders
Silly me for thinking that female bodies are policied more than male bodies.
*policed, not policied. Although possibly both work.
LOL, Woody
The US is heading for one man, one vote in Vetinari style – it’s a pity they don’t have Vetinari to run things.
And Vimes, of course. Imagine if Vimes ran all the police forces.
Troll comes to site called We Hunted The Mammoth and is shocked, shocked I say, that there is mockery going on. Perhaps he thinks being a Deep Intellectual Thinker means one has to have a humour bypass. Protip, troll: we’re not all Fucking Asshat Dicky Dawkins.
Heh. I had to google who Lord Vetinari is. Please don’t report me to the high council for not being a Pratchett fan.
Pallygirl, you really don’t want to get me started on the way the “”””””beauty”””””” industry (one set of scare quotes is not enough) encourages and exploits women’s insecurities to create billions of dollars in profits. If a woman wants to use makeup etc. I won’t say a thing — though I may silently shake my head at the idea that she thinks her natural appearance isn’t good enough. I don’t think that a woman who doesn’t use makeup is lazy or otherwise morally deficient. I realize that this is not my business, but … I hate the possibility that my not speaking on the matter may be considered a silent vote in favor of the usual (assumed) male attitudes. I just don’t want any woman to think that I EXPECT her to use makeup, or that I will think less of her if she doesn’t.
Does this make any sense?
It’s just a subtle trap. First you Google, then you read quotes, then you buy a book, then you are lost.
@GrumpyOldMan: I *don’t* read males not speaking on the issue as being in silent agreement with assumed norms of male attitudes towards how females “should” dress and what make up they “should” wear. My only point here was that I see very few articles with this type of content aimed at males, and the wording in that piece is very blunt – “blunders” seriously? And then more policing in the comments section below. So many ways for females to wear make-up, their hair, and their clothes “wrong”.
Does that make sense to you? I only identify a commenter here as supporting beauty policing when that person posts an idiot comment, normally along the lines of attempting to link a particular clothing or make-up style to being a slut.
Yes, usually they don’t use words like “blunder” — they are more subtle and devious.
Men are also pressured about their appearance to some degree, but not to anything like the same degree. In any case, we all have insecurities and there is always a horde of people ready to make a buck by exploiting them.
I’m too tired at the moment to figure out what I really mean to say, so …
My dad took a picture of Harry and I in 1972 and I have cherished it all my life. Sure it’s ridiculous! That’s why it’s funny. However, I’m not saying the man does not have a few good points, albeit a little over the top.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Y1u6DVpNkPZXJLnt2IEuF5iUGXxfbIDZ
I also have a copy of the segment George Schlatter Productions did with Harry on the 70’s show, “Real People.” Man, those were the days!