August 2009 Hater of the Month

It wasn’t even a contest. The Hater of the Month for August is closeted dyke and purported social conservative SMK, who managed to insult not only myself but my entire readership with her misandrist nonsense:

These comments are a risible and grotesque amalgam of “Roissyism,” F. Roger Devlin and his wet-dreams of “feral women,” father’s rights victimology, and “masculism.”

Oh dear, we’re in trouble. First off, only an ignoramus would make such a huge distinction between the gestalts of Roissy and F. Roger Devlin. Their worldviews are nearly identical, springing from the same body of knowledge – the unwritten, unvarnished truth about human sexuality. The primary difference between the two is that Devlin works in the realm of theory, while Roissy and other game advocates exist in the world of applied sciences. And who would oppose father’s rights but a dedicated man-hater?

I see you link to Mary Nemko and Glenn Sacks, both left-wing “masculists.” Nemko is an associate of Warren Farrell, and Sacks apotheosizes Farrell as the “inellectual wellsping of the men’s movement.”

“Mary?” I was unaware that Mr. Nemko had had a sex change. As for him and Glenn Sacks, who cares about their political beliefs? When a man’s right, he’s right. And what the hell is an “inellectual wellsping?” Your grasp of the English language is strong.

“The Myth of Male Power, “the bible of the “men’s movement,” is arguably the silliest book ever written by someone widely regarded as a “serious scholar” and professional.

I’m not comfortable with the victimization motifs of some wings of the MRA movement, but ultimately, the facts recorded by Farrell, Sacks, and other men’s rights advocates are correct. Anyone who’s done some research into divorce, alimony, and child custody laws knows that men are treated like shit under the current regime. Why do you think men don’t want to get married? No sane man wants to enter into an agreement that will likely end with him living in an apartment with lawn furniture having half of his paycheck garnished to support a selfish bitch who lavishes her unearned spoils on her badboy guy-friend, and no access to his kids to boot.

Although there’s a taliban-wing of the father’s right movement that would like to reverse the gains of 19th century feminism and turn the U.S. into a Westernized version of Saudi Arabia, virtually all “masculists” are left-liberals, sexual egalitarians, absolute cultural determinists, and male feminists who came to feel betrayed by “radical feminists” whom, ludicrously, they caricature as “neo-Victorians” and “biological determinists.”

And so the truth comes out. A conservative feminist is an oxymoron. If you are in favor of an ideology that has resulted in the unmaking of society (exempting individuals who have no interest in politics and are simply looking out for their own concerns), you have no right to call yourself a conservative. You are an enemy of Western civilization, and you should be outed, shamed, and shunned. As for all “masculists” being “left-liberals,” that’s completely and utterly false; most of the MRA and MGTOW bloggers I read are conservatives or libertarians.

“Masculism” is feminism, feminism for males. They espouse the basic dogmas of feminist ideology, environmental determinism and sexual egalitarianism, and support 80-90% of the feminist agendum: ERA, “gener-neutral “laws with no exceptions; women in combat, total sexual integration of the military, police forces, fire departments, male prisons, etc.; androgynous pedagogy, homosexual marriage, etc.

I would rather see a return to the pre-1965 system, but in the unlikelihood of that happening, I fully endorse these ideas. If women want true equality, I say we give it to them! We’ll see how loudly the feminists cheer for equal rights when they have to fight and die on the battlefield, get shot at by criminals, or any of the other perils that men and only men have to deal with in our world. To paraphrase the old Cherokee curse, may women have everything they desire.

And vicitmization for males. As Paul Gottfired observed, “masculsts” and feminists are “victimologists wearing interchangeable masks. “The only difference between “masculists” and orthodox feminists is that the former believe that men and boys are now more victimized than women and girls by “sexism” and “traditional sex-roles.”

Masculinists think that men are victimized in our culture? I don’t endorse that viewpoint – it’s unmanly – but I understand it. See; divorce laws, alimony laws, sexual harassment laws, etc.

“Masculists” and the posters on this blog are only united by hatred of women and those who realize that women have a civilizing influence on men , yes even today, and by the view of men as victimized, systemically as a group, by “feminazis” and “chivalrous” traditionalists.

“Women have a civilizing influence on men”? Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, why are people so STUPID? The sex that is apparently more civilized than men is the sex that has members that fantasize about being raped, members who get hot and dripping for men who beat them, members who are sexually attracted to murderers and sociopaths (often putting themselves in danger in the process), members who have no qualms about having their ex-husbands jailed for years in order to steal their hard-earned simoleans, and members who, when their sadistic criminal boyfriends attempt to stab their family members to death, SIDE WITH THE FUCKING BOYFRIEND. Anyone who thinks that women are more moral then men, “a civilizing influence on men,” the “crown of creation,” or some variant thereof, is an shit-for-brains idiot with no comprehension of female sexuality.

I will say it again, and I’ll keep saying it until the morons wise up or shut up: women are amoral. In their natural state, women have no comprehension of morality at all. Their only loyalty is to their pussies and the men who make them wet. If a woman is moral, it is a product of nurture, not nature. As Mr. Devlin wrote:

Men do not have to prove their worthiness to anybody. They are the ones who bear the primary costs of marriage. It is a woman’s responsibility to prove she is worthy of the privilege of becoming a man’s helpmeet and bearing his children. It takes a strict upbringing to form a tiny female savage into such a lady. Today, that form of upbringing is mostly a thing of the past: marriageable women are becoming difficult to find, and the costs of searching for them are getting too high.

A society that doesn’t beat morality into its women will be undone by their mercenary behavior – as the West is being undone now. And in a society in which women are lead around by their clits, the only way for a man to get ahead is game. If you don’t want to expatriate or drop out, you have to learn game and learn to love it. Those are your choices. Pick or perish.

Runner-up for Hater of the Month is Lupo pal Common Reader, who wins points for originality in hating on my manifesto:

So let me get this straight. Roissy’s hobby is deluding 20yo homesick Russian au pairs into thinking they love him enough to let him have unprotected anal sex with them. You guys think this is awesome and will somehow rejuvenate the West. I guess I cannot understand this because I am a girl. Please, manly men, explain.

Well, you make it seem evil when you say it like that. Lupo’s response to CR can be found here.