Ok so asked alot of girls about the parade they participated in.

shadow1118 · 2017-01-23T02:02:39+00:00

I asked alot of girls whats the fucking point. it wasn't until the 15th girl i got a solid answer , and she told me she is upset she will have to pay...

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

they are upset because the gravy train has made its last stop.
and that [le gasp!] they might actually be held accountable for their actions! [le gasp! x2]

first thing on the docket for 2017 is alimony laws! huzzah! hows that for change, bishes!?

notice how, abortions are their rights, cus their bodies...
but somehow, MEN are FORCING them to have babies... dafuq?

the womyn decypher machine says in a logical tone:
they expected the chad they fuckt to pay for them, for life.

didnt you know?! their vagina cures every disease known to man! oh wait. nvm.
obviously, you should have to pay, for even being in its presence.

"18 years? 18 years?!... then he found out, it aint his!?"

babies, to them, are a meal-ticket. and now that shit will soon be over.
soon the equality and respect they actually crave, must be garnered by
hardwork; like every man that has ever been born. ever.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cunt_Robber11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

thank you for the reply, brother, and your right why waste my mental energy, i basically wasted a day just being so pissed off. its just feminism has hurt me so much , i was basically cucked by my first gf without my knowledge and i just haven't mentally recovered from it. I've ordered some books to help me and i go to therapy now but I recently told every female in my family to fuck off forever because they all gave me the wrong advice with girls growing up. i hate that all the girls in my life lied to me (mom, cousins, aunts, even cuck uncles) how they lied to me about being nice and have confidence when its all about looks, money, status. I have no dad and was given a fucking huge life lesson. i just feel so alone and have no other like minded people to talk to, if anyone even reads this or says anything nice back thanks.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Everyone finds their own path to MGTOW through their own experiences of the dark hidden side of female nature but let me tell you as a man in his 40s who has been through the relationship ringer and has been going his own way for nearly a decade you will find balance and emotional stability. You will eventually look back at your previous relationshits and laugh about how bluepill you were and the stupid shit you did for females. You will still hold grudges for women who fucked you over, lied, manipulated and cheated on you but the same applies to anyone no matter what gender who treated you badly so those feelings will lessen over time.
These days I interact with women when I have to in society but I never seek out companionship with them but when I have to I sometimes find them interesting in a behavioral study kind of way just to see how deluded they actually are, keeps me entertained while I deal with them.
You hopefully have many years ahead of yourself to work out what you want for yourself in life and how to achieve it, I suggest sitting down with a pencil and paper (it concretizes ideas and concepts better than typing) and start with a world that you want to create and live in for yourself and then set out how to achieve it.
Remember you are the most important person you know, look after yourself first and fuck that gynocentric bullshit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hey don't worry about it, when I was much younger it took me 5 years to properly recover from a certain long term relationship. They get under your skin and dig into your core masculine essence and leave a self destruct bomb when they pull the chad trigger, whether they do this subconsciously and unknowingly or if it is on purpose is up for debate.
The thing that got me over it was finding out about the negative hypergamous traits of women and seeing if I could apply any of it to the caring loving 'soulmate' I once knew that just shit all over my self worth and discarded me like a used tissue and hey presto, the jigsaw fell into place and any emotional and psychological grip she had over me melted away.
There was a short period of "What a fucking moron I was, how could I be so fucking stupid" self talk but that faded quickly.
Learn from your lessons, don't beat yourself up about them too much.

[–]mortalitybot1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cunt_Robber5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can relate. Was told the same things man... Be nice, be a gentleman, provide resources and safety, bla bla bla. I come to college and I see all the douche bags getting laid and I realized something was terribly wrong. But hey - what can you do? Now that youre aware and going your own way you have more control. I also had a feminist gf at one point. Shit man, I feel like what brings us to these subreddits is similar experiences. I'm glad I found these communities with likeminded people. Ive learned so much and Ive refocused on myself. And suddenly my life has been close to drama-free the last few years. Sure sometimes I feel an emptiness in my life but I think another one would replace it if I was in a committed relationship. You gotta do the best with what you have and always put yourself first man

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

The single most dangerous part of life for any child or human being -- the place where they have the lowest odds of survival and the highest probability of being murdered (as well as maimed, damaged for life, in body or brain)...

Is not some gangland ghetto, but rather their mother's uterus.

And it isn't THAT "dangerous" because of some natural, external threat of disease -- natural "stillbirth" death rates of fertilized, fully implanted fetuses are actually (generally speaking) relatively low, and while earlier stage "miscarriage" rates of fertilized eggs that are rejected/unable to implant into the uterine wall (and so never really grow to the point of being fetuses with heartbeats, etc) are several times higher -- the actual rate varies tremendously will be largely dependent upon the woman's prior and current choices and behaviors (everything from diet to disease; per example scarring from prior STD's {even fully "cured" with antibiotics} is one of he chief causes of later"ectopic" pregnancies).

No the chief reason it is dangerous is because of either a LACK OF CARE & CONCERN by the mother, or INDIFFERENCE & even outright HATRED by her -- per example of the former what are called "spontaneous abortions" (mid-term miscarriage/late-term stillbirth), along with many birth defects & disabilities are generally due to diet/habits/vices of the mother: drinking, drugs, poor diet, etc. (and thus "crack" babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, and so on); and of course the latter, abortion by "choice" the deliberate killing of an otherwise viable fetus/infant because it would be "inconvenient" for the woman is the LION'S SHARE of most pre-birth deaths. (Generally speaking in western countries the latter is around 30%, about 1 "abortion" for every 2 live births -- higher in some countries {as high as 2/3 in fact}, ad lower in others -- but basically for every 2 children you see running around at any given age group, a third one was intentionally killed in utero {i.e. "aborted" by choice}.)

You've heard, and probably even USED the term "decimation" -- i.e. the death or deliberate killing of 1 out of 10 people from some group -- say an army unit (a platoon, or company or battalion) that has suffered significant losses in a battle was "Decimated" is 1/10th of it's members were killed (or wounded so severely as to be taken out of action)...

Well the rate of deaths (killings, ending the lives) of foetal infants via "choice" (female "convenience" decision) is a threefold MULTIPLE of that.

Nor is that the worst. Just as battle deaths are (of course) higher in some combat units than others, or higher in certain wars than others... well so to are the abortion-death rates HIGHER in certain age ranges and groups -- that ~30% abortion rate is an aggregate "average" across ALL women (and generally ONLY of "natural" pregnancies -- IOW the failure or choice to end an IVF baby {generally referred to by the euphemistic phrase "in utero/in vivo reduction" whereby one or more of several IVF imlpanted fertilized eggs are "eliminated"} are typically NOT counted) -- the point being that younger women (those in late teens, early twenties) have a far HIGHER rate, well above the ~30%, and in some groups estimated to be as high as 90%. Not even epidemic diseases like "Ebola" or the "Black Plague" have a fatality rate THAT high.

Then we come to "infant death rates" -- that is the death of children who HAVE actually survived long enough to be born, and to EXIT that "most dangerous place."

To be sure in poor & relatively "undeveloped" countries death from disease and/or poor nutrition are a big part of the equation...

But even there, the cold, harsh reality -- the unspoken/unspeakable "taboo" (because it so strongly contradicts the UNQUESTIONED dogmatic belief that women ARE by default "nurturing, caring & loving" of {at least, or especially} their own "infant" children) -- is probably a lot LESS sanguine; after all, one way to AVOID "responsibility" for a child is for the child to die, and perhaps the BEST was to avoid "blame" for the death is for it to be (or at least appear to be) entirely "natural" or "accidental"... and given that infant children are particularly vulnerable...

But again, of course we CANNOT go THERE.

Or in western developed nations, well in the US the highest/largest cause of "infant deaths" (i.e. over 1 month & under 1 year non-"preemie" children) is what has been -- so conveniently -- labeled (arguably euphemized) as "SIDS" (aka "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome"), that is a death WITHOUT any known/discernable "cause"... ergo an inexplicable "tragedy."

How do we KNOW it is accidental & inexplicable? Well, duh... because the mothers are so "emotionally distraught" over the child's death -- they're GRIEVING, crying,* weeping, seemingly "psychologically shattered" and etc, etc (yada yada blah blah). I mean how DARE anyone even THINK for a single moment that the child's own MOTHER might have had ANYTHING at all to do with it! Why the merest insinuation or intimation that ANY of them might be (GASP!) "infanticide" by the mother...

Over the past few decades, a whole host of changes (to bedding, blankets, and a host of other "external" and "inanimate" factors) have significantly reduced what was (for a time) considered a growing "epidemic." Thus ELIMINATING most of the other PROBABLE "causes" -- leaving us with... Well quite frankly leaving us with the THING WE WILL NOT CONSIDER -- the proverbial "elephant" in the room that CANNOT be mentioned (or even "thought").**

* And nevermind that these are the very SAME gender that has been demonstrably proven (at least to those not blindered to reality) to be FULLY capable of "turning on the waterworks" -- ON DEMAND, and to whatever degree is deemed "necessary" to create empathy/pity -- in any number of other situations (particularly anything that might be "threatening" to them, or any context where they might otherwise be held accountable or to blame).

Not to mention that -- as we've previously noted -- this is the same gender that is MORE than willing to END their own child's life (even illegally) because such a child would be "inconvenient" and would interfere with their "life & plans & lifestyle."

No, see... just as the "cock carousel riding slut" is -- post age 30 -- magically transformed into an "ideal" (mysteriously "re-virginized" chaste, barely-sexual, non-kinky) prospective "wife" material -- so too the woman who "just wants/ed that THING out of her, NOW!" -- is likewise equally & magically, mysteriously transformed into an instantly, perfectly loving, caring & nurturing "mother" (who never has any doubts, misgivings, no "impulsive" changes of mind, no mood-swings that might lead to rages or other inexplicable actions {even "violent/violating" ones that they themselves might later regret} etc).

Riiiiight. Cool story bro. What else you got?

Add in that we KNOW for a COLD HARD FACT -- that in many "cultures" around the world (historical AND present day), purposeful, intentional infanticide is not only something that happens, but something that is fairly COMMON (even arguable "accepted") -- it just isn't spoken of openly & plainly.

Why -- other than the desire to believe & perpetuate a MYTH of female "goodness" -- do we think that MODERN WESTERN WOMEN (these otherwise most self-centered of creatures) -- are categorically incapable of the same?

** Anecdotes here: I know of THREE cases of "SIDS" deaths. Interestingly enough ALL THREE had TWO things in common -- First is that the FATHER was not in the home on the night of the "inexplicable" tragedy. In one case the father was off deer hunting (the ONE time of year he was away from the home for even a night, much less several nights); in the others, the men were off on some week-long business/conference trip (also relatively unusual -- i.e. not a regular occurrence in their job, only happened once or twice a year). The SECOND thing they had in common is that there were no other "walking, talking, fully aware" individuals in the home -- no other adults, and no grown children -- just mommy and the infant & another (slightly older) "toddler" child.

Strange coincidence, no?

But again... no one DARES to state the obvious (as all hell) inference: because women just DON'T kill their children, period.

Except of course, when they do.

And those "tears" ... all of that "grieving" -- is it REALLY because the child simply "died" -- for NO cause/reason at all??

Or is it possible (even REMOTELY possible in just SOME of those cases) that the "tears & grieving" may be either FAKE...

Or else even "REAL," but yet MORE about REGRET & GUILT over the consequences, over some "mistake"*** -- about regretting (even feeling GUILTY over) some "impulsive" (and NOT necessarily "premeditated") act of violence (which they DARE NOT "confess" to anyone -- and thus a state of horrible stress/distress, a THREAT to their very life, etc -- more than enough to "turn on the waterworks" wouldn't you say?)

*** Ever seen a woman collapse into tears because SHE screwed something up? Ruined some dinner? Scratched the family car? Lost or otherwise ruined some "file" on a computer at work? Or any of a number of other TRIVIAL things? I have. Numerous times in fact (so many I've lost count).

Again, "tears" from a woman are NOT necessarily (and certainly not ONLY) a sign or symptom of "grief" -- for women, "tears" are an inherent (and practiced proven, even habitual, default) "defense mechanism" -- a means of avoiding blame & responsibility (accountability, culpability); a mechanism that almost "magically" & automatically transforms any/all MEN into becoming their "defenders" (rather than being their accusers, judges, punishers).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Also... while I said it is something we CANNOT talk about -- a societal "taboo" -- it is NOT something that *I* am the only one to posit, nor is it a categorical impossibility, to wit:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/19/nyregion/investigating-a-rash-of-sids-deaths-exposing-infanticide.html

The book describes how a medical researcher in Syracuse, Dr. Alfred Steinschneider, treated two of the Hoyt babies and, unaware that they were smothered by their mother, based his theory of SIDS on these cases. ''Dr. Steinschneider wanted a theory very badly and became blinded to what nurses were telling him and what the data showed,'' Ms. Talan said.

Dr. Steinschneider's 1972 medical paper convinced the pediatric establishment that SIDS was related to apnea, a temporary cessation of breathing. His claims led to a thriving industry in apnea monitors, an expensive apparatus that sounds an alarm when a baby hooked up to its wires breathes irregularly. ''The impact of that paper is still immense today,'' Mr. Firstman said.

Indeed, 40,000 babies are now on home apnea monitors, ''for no real medical reason,'' said Mr. Firstman. In an editorial in the October issue of Pediatrics, Dr. Lucey wrote, ''This month [i.e. October of 1997, nearly 20 years ago] marks the 25th anniversary of the now infamous article by Dr. Steinschneider. We never should have published this article. When an unsupported hypothesis attracts support from parents, government and becomes 'a religion,' it's impossible to stop. In fact, monitoring is still going on and some physicians still believe SIDS runs in families. It doesn't -- murder does.''

Also -- gee, just CONCIDENTALLY -- 1972 was a year in the midst of the "watershed" of feminism -- concurrent with the infamous Roe v Wade Supreme Court case -- Initially Argued December 13, 1971; Reargued October 11, 1972 (!!!); Decided January 22, 1973 -- that then "legalized" on demand abortion in the US. (Now this nouveau [unsupported] theory of "SIDS" wasn't {at least AFAIK} ever cited in that case, but it was definitely "in the air" as the unprecedented "decision" was being made; make of that what you will.)

EDIT: Side note, pretty amazing thing is that the while the [Wikipedia page on Waneta Hoyt] includes the following line about Dr. Steinschneider's paper: "The last two biological Hoyt children, Molly and Noah, were subjects of pediatric research conducted by Dr. Alfred Steinschneider, who published an article in 1972 in the Journal Pediatrics proposing a connection between sleep apnea and SIDS. The article was discredited and subsequent research failed to replicate the results." -- the Wikipedia page on SIDS makes ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "Dr. Alfred Steinschneider" at all; as far as "SIDS" is concerned, he's been essentially "erased/whitewashed/memory holed" out of existence.

Nor was the "Waneta Hoyt" case -- the one that was used as the basis to CREATE the whole "SIDS" hypothesis -- the only instance of such:

http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/SIDS-Australia.htm

Proving that women who kill no more than one of their infants get away with murder, Kathleen Folbigg's husband, who had found her diary, raised the suspicion of the authorities only after she had killed her fourth child of her four children she had killed, a 19-month-old baby girl. Mind, you, if her husband would not have found her diary, she would have gotten away with murdering that child, too.

But of course, even though the whole SIDS origin has been proven to have a fallacious basis... well that doesn't STOP the perpetuation (and EXPANSION) of the "syndrome" theory, to wit:

“Smothered” Infants—Neglect, Infanticide or SIDS? A Fresh Look at the 19th Century Mortality Schedules"

Based on the U.S. Federal Mortality Schedules from the years 1850–1880 infant deaths <1 year were investigated in order to determine whether mortality attributed to “smothering” or “overlaying” followed known SIDS trajectories. By comparing a case sample of 2,236 smothered/overlaid deaths with an age-, regionally and time-matched control sample of all-cause infant deaths (N = 58,293), striking similarities with SIDS became apparent, which were not mimicked in the control sample. These epidemiological traits included a disproportionate vulnerability during the second to fourth month of life (Poisson RR 12.94, p < 0.001), a remarkable birth and death seasonality, as well as pronounced racial disparities. The study could also corroborate sex-specific discrepancies—such as differential impact of month of birth on age-at-death. Results of a Cox regression furthermore indicate that age, sex, race and death season were significant predictors of mortality. This strongly supports the hypothesis that these infant deaths represent empirical evidence of 19th century SIDS.

Gotta REINFORCE the "taboo" and come up with further "evidence" of this nice cover story -- so conveniently NECESSARY to maintaining the myth of female "caring & nurturing" (and of course being the OPPRESSED "victms of misogyny").

Is it any surprise that said 2009 "retrospective data study" -- 12 years AFTER the "debunking" of the origin of the "SIDS" theory -- was done by a woman? (And moreover a female "researcher" of somewhat dubious repute, who -- while officially labeled a "Cancer Researcher" -- seems instead to bounce around and contrive a shitload of rather biased "data fudging" papers, titles & subjects varying from: "Postponing or rejecting parenthood? Results of a survey among female academic professionals"; to "More than a Leap of Faith: The Impact of Biological and Religious Correlates on Reproductive Behavior"; to "God, Faith, and Death: The Impact of Biological and Religious Correlates on Mortality"; and " 'For better or worse, till death us do part' - Spousal age gap and differential longevity: Evidence from historical demography"; plus "The short die young: The interrelationship between stature and longevity - Evidence from skeletal remains"; and well "etc" -- but but, she's a "cancer" researcher!!! Yeah riiiight, sure she is.)

But by way of contrast & demonstrating the "confusion" on the issue, and the fact that "SIDS" is a sort of "default" diagnosis/conclusion based NOT on any evidence, but the ABSENCE of evidence to the contrary, see the following page (and keep reading):

**Distinguishing Sudden Infant Death Syndrome From Child Abuse Fatalities

CHILD ABUSE FATALITIES BY SUFFOCATION

As the occurrence of cases of true SIDS has decreased, the proportion of unexplained infant deaths attributable to fatal child abuse may be increasing.32 Estimates of the incidence of infanticide among cases designated as SIDS range from <1% to 5%.

Parents of infants with recurrent ALTEs have been observed trying to suffocate and harm their infants. In Great Britain, covert video surveillance was used to assess child abuse risk in 39 young children referred for evaluation of recurrent ALTEs. Abuse was revealed in 33 of 39 cases, with documentation of intentional suffocation observed in 30 patients. Among 41 siblings of the 39 infants in the studies, 12 had previously died suddenly and unexpectedly. Although 11 of these deaths [11 out of 12] had been classified as SIDS, 4 parents later admitted to suffocating 8 of these siblings. Other cases previously thought to be multiple SIDS deaths within a family have been revealed to be cases of multiple homicide by suffocation.

It is impossible to distinguish at autopsy between SIDS and accidental or deliberate asphyxiation with a soft object.³⁸ [etc...]

What is NOT stated in that article -- but what is KNOWN -- is that the term "parent/parents" invariably is a gender-neutral euphemistic cover for "single mother" and/or "single mother with boyfriend" (i.e. NOT the biological father of the child).

CRITICAL POINT in the above article -- is that **ONLY COVERT VIDEO** was able to "discern" the TRUE CAUSE of death -- deliberate infanticide. All other "expertise" (even autopsy, and medical investigation) was easily fooled, utterly and almost completely useless.

But, never forget... women CATEGORICALLY CANNOT be harmful to childrurnz, EVER! Because women are THE naturally & inherently "nurturing and caring and loving and [etc]" gender -- it's only MENZ that are MEANIES and violent rapists & molesters, etc etc etc.

(Good gawd, "grab her by the pussy" -- CRUCIFY that MAN!!!)

See guys, the FULL "Red Pill" isn't just about "hypergamy" -- the rabbit hole of LIES about women goes much MUCH deeper.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

ok on 2nd read this is so makes TRP look bluebell [sic] and i love it.

Oh TRP is absolutely still very much "blue pill" in many, MANY ways.

Really, it is only "Red Pill" in relation to one relatively trivial, minor (and IMO blatantly obvious) aspect of females -- i.e. hypergamy & women chasing "wealth/status/power/fame." *Yawn.*

THAT is -- again my opinion -- not exactly some "deep" revelation; it was something I had already figured out in frigging elementary school (to ME, the lying/social-climbing/resource-seeking habits & behaviors of females was already blatantly obvious with girls as young as 7 or 8, and in the years since then {on the rare occasions I get to observe infant/toddler girls with heir parents, and others} I've noted that it actually starts even earlier).

EDIT:

i think all mgtow are amateur sociologists

I don't know that I would go that far -- nor would I say that it is any "compliment" to make that as a generalized statement.

I have no doubt that -- in a very REAL sense -- any true (much less unbiased, accurate) anthropological/sociological observation & description of human female behavior more or less HAS to come from bachelors; and moreover from "confirmed" bachelors (aka true MGTOW men*).

Because ALL other men -- married or dating (or even those who "wannabe"); or indeed anyone who is subject to the "power/wiles" of women IN ANY WAY** -- are more or less categorically and by definition "blindered" and invariably biased towards women (generally FOR, but occasionally {especially recent divorced men} AGAINST them).

* And even among MGTOW -- well, it is the *rare* MGTOW guy who is able to still "love" his own mother and yet at the same time, view her in a relatively "objective" manner as STILL being a woman (i.e. AWALT).

EDIT #2: Also, while it ought to be obvious, it needs to be stated that older MGTOW men -- those who have dated a significant number of women, probably been in several "long term" relationships (the level of cohabitation or degree "intimacy" is IMO fairly irrelevant) -- are invariably a LOT MORE EXPERIENCED relative to women than most "married" men are (especially those men who married young, and/or married their "high school sweethearts" etc -- those guys are the MOST blindered, having essentially only ONE "data point" to draw on {at best TWO, if you include "mom" but we've already noted the "blind spot" there, sadly commonly present even with blatantly abusive/crazy/toxic mothers}).

** And I guarantee you this is true of nearly ALL men -- even ostensibly fearless so called "fire & brimstone" type preachers (yes even those who are openly "pro-life/anti-abortion" and/or "anti-feminism") -- are invariably STILL "cuckolded" these days, to wit the following blog article/admission: The Fear of Woman Bringeth Two or Three Snares

Wherein he admits that:

I am addressing a problem that has arisen—in both church and home—as a result of the unrelenting and very fierce campaign being waged by the feminists. By “feminists” I mean both the crazy ones and the respectable mainstreamed ones. And by respectable mainstreamed ones, I am including the form of feminism that takes up the left wing of complementarianism. Thus far it has been a most successful campaign. The upshot of the campaign is that a woman, considered as such, cannot really be admonished in any way by a man. He doesn’t really know. He hasn’t checked his privilege. His thoughts are always suspect, and he is very much part of the problem.

Or again...

COWARDICE IN THE PULPIT

[...] Now suppose—just suppose—the presenting problem in three marriages I am trying to help is the problem of lazy and idle housewives. Is there any practical way, without becoming a Pariah for the Ages, to preach on “Lazy Housewives”? I could get myself into a fit of the giggles just thinking about it.

Anything said along these lines will be immediately translated into an “attack on all women.” The violent response will insist that what you said about a small subset of women is to be understood by the entire world as an attack on all women, and the violent response will be led by women who also insist that they are every bit as rational as men, and should therefore be trusted to preach and teach and handle the text of Scripture, and they will do this when they have just finished parsing a statement that some mammals are marsupials into the clownish doctrine that all mammals are marsupials, and how dare you say that all mammals have pouches? Whales don’t have pouches, you maroon.

Yet despite his "rant" on that blog... I guarantee you that he will NEVER OPENLY preach anything that is even REMOTELY "admonishing" or in any way "negative" about women, period. AT ALL, EVER.

He DARE NOT -- if he does, he is essentially not only "quitting" his present position as pastor/preacher at THAT church (the women of that church will "see to that!") -- he is also essentially dooming/ending his entire preaching career. (Not to mention that his WIFE {if he has one} will refuse to have sex with him for the following several months, if not year or more -- not to mention she'll start burning/ruining his meals, or {if his preaching was AT ALL blatant or strongly against women} perhaps even quit cooking for him at all. IOW he WILL be brought to "heel" like a proverbial "whipped dog." Either that or she'll divorce-rape {and probably VAWA} his ass.)

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamCasey986 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing "free" about abortions or tampons. There are abortions paid for by taxpayers. The tampon argument is a little more complicated. It has to do with sales tax. There are over 10,000 different jurisdictions that charge and collect sales taxes in the US. Each of them have either different rules, laws, or interpretations. Apparently, there is at least one jurisdiction that collects sales tax on tampons but not razors. For the marching women, this is obviously huge injustice requiring we pay attention before they turn blue. I am certain they are likely correct. I am also certain there is at least one jursidication that charges for razors but not tampons. For me this just another example that owners of the magical uterus are award unearned entitlements and unwarranted victimization.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm still confused as to why they should get free abortions and tampons.

If you ask a woman (basically ANY woman) some open ended, "no limits" question on what she thinks she should be entitled to obtain "free" (that is with ZERO effort or work on her part)...

Well, generally speaking, there is really NOTHING that they will not include. Women typically (all, internally) believe that they are entitled to:

A grand home (ridiculously oversized, and equipped with the latest trendy/fads/fashions in home design, appliances, etc -- including kitchens, baths, and so on -- and regardless of whether they EVER actually "cook" or not) -- and then of course a few years later entirely redecorated/refurbed or else entirely "newer/grander" home (upgrade). Rinse & Repeat (and personally I think most of "hypergamy" is an attempt at procuring this).
A brand new (stylish) vehicle... preferably with all pesky "maintenance" taken care of (at no cost OR effort from them -- even having to REMEMBER to get said maintenance done [by someone else, even "free" under warranty] is considered an imposition) -- not to mention of course "free" gasoline (and ideally they'd prefer someone ELSE "magically" refilling the tank for them).
Maid, cook, cleaning, even "child care" services -- some nanny or "au pair" or even (if possible) some "wet nurse" (that last probably depends on just how much she "gets off" on having a baby suckle at her breasts {another "taboo" subject by the way*}).
And then "free" food --endless variety, on demand, on a whim, and again already cooked & served to them with NO effort on their part (I sometimes think that nearly ALL women would -- if they could -- end up as "Jabba the Hutt" style morbidly-obese blobs; only "social pressures" & status-seeking keep them slim).
Plus -- of course -- and endless and ever-changing, ever growing supply (literally INVENTORY**) of new "stylish" clothes and "fancy" shoes (the higher the price tag, and the more "exclusive" the better -- their NIGHTMARE is encountering some OTHER woman dressed & shod with the exact same outfit).
etc.

* And ironically so... I mean ever have a lover properly "suckle" on your nipples? For most people -- men OR women -- it's an incredibly "horny/erotic" thing.

I mean HOLEY fuck-nipples Batman!! those things are like "HARDWIRED" directly to your genitals.

Ain't no way you can convince me (at least until the kid has TEETH & starts "chewing" on them) that women aren't getting "insane" levels of pleasure from nursing.

I think that many, possibly even most hetero men have probably never really experienced that (i.e. GF is shitty-in-the-sack) ... ergo they're "clueless" about it; I know I was, only had one chick that did it to me properly, and in doing so, she "blew my frigging mind!" (BTW she laughed about how I didn't already know... she said MOST women know {how exactly childless women would know - if their MEN don't - was not explained... I assume some Lesbian experience?}, they just don't like to DO it for/to men, & many women I think just DON'T want their men to know.)

** Though exactly WHY they want the massive inventory, since they RARELY re-wear the same "fancy" outfit or "designer" shoes more than once or twice -- is really a rather inexplicable "mystery" -- I think it's a sort of "fetish" the nearest parallel for men seems to be the "TOOL COLLECTOR" and "perfectly organized/super-clean workshop" types, guys who are forever buying more/new TOOLS... (that they seldom, if ever, actually use to build anything).

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Migtaosammich1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

So this chic, then tells me "men have abortions all the time because they get girls pregnant but then leave them", but i said:

"girls need to be more careful who they sleep with (not chad) and then they wouldnt get guys who do that."

"that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. Not staying with and supporting a woman and her body/choice is different from placing a burden on individuals, society, and having a measurable effect on the tax-base." -better, use that next time. Either way you will be wrong in her eyes, because you disagreed with the hamster, but you will be logically consistent. Also your original approach puts the responsibility on her, and the signal will be lost in the noise.

You walked into a no-win situation, and took a few swings, nothing to be ashamed about, we can all learn from these events, thanks for sharing.

ETA: did some edits to make it more palpable for discussion, but looks like you may have already used some things. Oh well-awesome! Fuck me if they can't handle the unbridled truth! Be well brother.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Groizerx0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JNC960 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wildfireboat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok so asked alot of girls about the parade they participated in.

Comments

It is impossible to distinguish at autopsy between SIDS and accidental or deliberate asphyxiation with a soft object.³⁸ [etc...]

CRITICAL POINT in the above article -- is that **ONLY COVERT VIDEO** was able to "discern" the TRUE CAUSE of death -- deliberate infanticide. All other "expertise" (even autopsy, and medical investigation) was easily fooled, utterly and almost completely useless.

Oh TRP is absolutely still very much "blue pill" in many, MANY ways.

I mean HOLEY fuck-nipples Batman!! those things are like "HARDWIRED" directly to your genitals.

Title	Ok so asked alot of girls about the parade they participated in.
Author	shadow1118
Upvotes	33
Comments	42
Date	January 23, 2017 2:02 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/5plh2l/ok_so_asked_alot_of_girls_about_the_parade_they/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/ok-so-asked-alot-of-girls-about-the-parade-they.610780 https://theredarchive.com/post/610780

Comments

It is impossible to distinguish at autopsy between SIDS and accidental or deliberate asphyxiation with a soft object.38 [etc...]

CRITICAL POINT in the above article -- is that ONLY COVERT VIDEO was able to "discern" the TRUE CAUSE of death -- deliberate infanticide. All other "expertise" (even autopsy, and medical investigation) was easily fooled, utterly and almost completely useless.

Oh TRP is absolutely still very much "blue pill" in many, MANY ways.

I mean HOLEY fuck-nipples Batman!! those things are like "HARDWIRED" directly to your genitals.

It is impossible to distinguish at autopsy between SIDS and accidental or deliberate asphyxiation with a soft object.³⁸ [etc...]

CRITICAL POINT in the above article -- is that **ONLY COVERT VIDEO** was able to "discern" the TRUE CAUSE of death -- deliberate infanticide. All other "expertise" (even autopsy, and medical investigation) was easily fooled, utterly and almost completely useless.