Man-Hating DA Nifong Surrenders
Well, the news is in: the man-hating district attorney from Durham, NC — Mike Nifong — has, at last, thrown in the towel on his wrongly pursued rape case against three lacrosse players from Duke University.
Nifong today dropped the rape charges against the three lacrosse players because his star witness, Crystal Gail Mangum — the stripper who goes unnamed in almost all news accounts, even though the names of the accused are constantly displayed — suddenly cannot remember if the alleged perpetrators raped her. Suddenly can’t remember? Are you serious?
Perhaps Mangum’s foggy memory haunts her because, prior to arriving at her Duke stripping gig, Mangum had sex with at least three different men — according to a DNA test, which surfaced last week and which Nifong illegally suppressed. This DNA test exonorates the three wrongly accused Duke students. Worse, Nifong never even interviewed Mangum until a few days ago. Imagine such legal imprudence from a district attorney, especially one prosecuting a world-famous case in which three men could be imprisoned.
In “Juris Contemptus: The Un-American Scourge,” I wrote about DA Nifong’s unethical behavior, in prosecuting his case before TV cameras, thereby violating the American Bar Association’s Rules of Conduct. He did this to win reelection, and he was successful.
I am not, in this piece, going to rehash or expand upon Nifong’s legal transgressions — I’ll leave that to the legal talking heads on cable news programs. Instead, I want to address something deeper and more pernicious: male misandry.
Mike Nifong is an example of a dangerous force in Western cultures: a man in a position of power who hates men, a male man-hater, a man who presumes all men guilty in entanglements with women, a man willing to sacrifice other men — because it is politically acceptable — to further his agenda. This is a serious, anti-family problem in our society. It’s one thing to see man-bashing from angry feminists; it’s quite another to experience it from men.
Let’s face it, the reason men have fewer reproductive (Roe v. Wade) and civil (VAWA) rights than women is that men — who comprise the majority of lawmakers, judges, governors, and presidents — write, interpret, and execute our laws. Why do men hate men so much?
In most homes, children are taught to worship mothers and take fathers for granted. This was true when fathers actually lived with their children. It’s now worse because, in at least 50% of homes, fathers don’t live with their children. What better illustrates the treatment of mothers vs. fathers than telephone calls? In any calendar year, the volume of paid long-distance calls is highest on Mothers’ Day. On the other hand, the volume of collect long-distance calls is highest on Fathers’ Day. What does that tell you?
Men are constantly vilified and portrayed as incompetent losers in TV commercials — especially during the Super Bowl, a man’s venue — and TV sitcoms. My Australian colleague, James Macnamara, based his PhD thesis and subsequent book on this destructive, misandric trend, showing that it exists in his native country as well as in the UK and the USA. Moreover, standup comedians, most of whom are men, routinely refer to men as unfaithful dogs, even though women equally cheat on their boyfriends and husbands.
During this month of Christmas shopping, I’ve seen TV commercial after TV commercial admonishing men to buy jewelry, clothing, and teddy bears for women. Yet, I have not seen ONE appeal to women to purchase anything for men. It’s as if men have but one purpose in life: supporting women.
When a female teacher rapes a male student, many men — including Geraldo Rivera — dismiss such an event as a right of passage. Through a sexual encounter with a female teacher, a young boy — who is a child — could contract an STD, become a father, or be falsely accused of rape. This would permanently destroy the boy’s life.
No matter. In Western cultures, males — whether boys, single men, or fathers — have no value. Men are largely to blame for this because they tolerate it. These eunuchs hail from man-hating homes and enter the world as man-hating, self-loathing adults, dedicated to worshipping and deferring to women. We see it in dating, in marriages, in the workplace, in movies, on TV, in elections, in print media, in family courts, and in criminal courts like DA Nifong’s.
Until men start challenging and overturning this widespread, inhumane misandry, they will be permanently relegated to the emasculating role of sperm donor/ATM — and they will deserve it.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper CablesTM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
See the mating process of Ants….lol
Powerful, very resourceful males, are few, but have the power to achieve paternity to ther offspring. Less resourceful males are simply worker males (ie ants) on there to support the females mating habits and building the nest, and going to war with other ant colonies.
Hey we are a world of ants..its just we call ourselves civil….lol
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Sorry, but this case was and is far more about race and power politics, then male hating. Change the race of the boys or the race of the victim and the charges would have collapsed at once. Does anyone seriously think that the DA would have gone after these boys if they has been of the religion of peace or undocumented students? The question answers itself. As it stands, they are still presumed guilty and the DA will do everything to get a conviction on something, anything, or at least set the stage for a ruinous civil suit. The white boys are rich, aren’t they? Aren’t all white boys rich?
Nifongs rape of the law, and the encouragement he has gotten from the registered PC victims, disgusts me beyond words, but we have been moving in this direction for a long time. Nifong merely took the next step. Now that we are here, God help us from comes next.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Justice will not be served in this case until DA Nifong is indicted, and convicted, by the federal government for civil rights violations of three innocent men. Nothing less will constitute justice. Of course, he will also need to be sued civilally and forced to pay restitution PERSONALLY in order to get anything near what he tried to impose upon them.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
By the way, I coined the phrase “perverted chivalrist” for men like:
Mike Nifong
Bill ORielly
Geraldo Rivera
Donald Trump
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
So now that the rape charges are dropped, the so called “rape shield law” no longer applies. Right?? Will we see the MSM using the…ahem… “victim’s” name now?
I won’t hold my breath.
TMOTS
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
There is a particular Justice Department statistic, mainly comprised of men, that Nifong may eventually be a part. Here’s hoping.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Marc–You missed a very, very important point.
Still outstanding are sexual contact and kidnapping charges, which could put the boyz behind bars for 23 years, and an additional 7 years, respectively.
While Nifong let go of the one charge, there are still two pending, each.
Lets reserve giving his cajones back until he dumps the other charges too.
The Geezer
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:50 pm
SpinMeister,
You are right about the outstanding charges. I carefully worded my article specifically to address the rape charges.
Every legal expert I’ve heard claims Nifong has no case for any of the charges. I believe he will drop the entire case very soon.
The point of my article is not to discuss the case; it is to underscore the reason behind the case: male misandry. It absolutely disgusts me that men have sacrificed their own — in all branches of state and federal government.
Men grow up hating men and carry that hatred with them throughout their personal and professional lives. If we sit there, passively letting them screw us, we are to blame.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
I’ve lurked here for a long time, but this is the final straw that prompted me to get an account here & start commenting.
A MALE district attorney with an ax to grind against OTHER MEN? That’s even more outrageous than the likes of Andrea Dworkin & Catharine MacKinnon! He’s like what Malcolm X called the “house negro” whose job it was to “keep the field negroes in check,” in return for which he ate well, dressed well & lived in the master’s house (albeit in the attic or the basement). MX also used to say, “We declare our right on this earth TO BE A MAN, to be a human being…by any means necessary.” I emphasize the phrase “to be a man” because this quote, which applied then in a race-war context, can apply now in a gender-war context.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
(Marc) — “These eunuchs hail from man-hating homes and enter the world as man-hating, self-loathing adults, dedicated to worshipping and deferring to women.”
100% correct!
And, please take into consideration that boys are socialized within a seamless Matriarchy called SCHOOL from age 5 – 17, entirely dominated by female teachers.
If they survive high school, today they may go on to university, where tenured feminists of all genders rule, and young women comprise 58% of the student body.
If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, it seems entirely clear to me which planet spawned the predatory sex.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I would not see Nifong’s misandry as deliberate and focused. It is simply an epiphenominal means to an end. A personal end at that. He is just one of many who are prepared to sacrifice ethics and justice, truth and other people, vulnerable people, any handy people, to line his own pockets. The ’system’ is overflowing with people like him. Immoral, amoral, wicked, narcissistic bottom-feeders. The Real Misandry lies in the VAWA inspired industry of male-hatred to which the legal system is in thrall.
Whilest it is always useful to make distinctions between weeds and tree trunks, especially in the thick of Jungle warfare, the whole sorry mess of these people need Napalm.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:26 pm
This case has smelled like Ginmar’s crotch from the start and is getting more rancid by the day….
TMOTS
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Nifong’s misandry is deliberate: he never would treat a woman in the way he treated the three lacrosse players. In fact, when he finally drops the entire case, he will not prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum — who committed a felony by lying and who received a full scholarship from Jesse Jackson.
VAWA exists because Joe Biden, another misandrist, created and thrice convinced his fellow senators — most of whom are men — and two presidents — both of whom are men — to pass and reauthorize this anti-male law.
It is men who are screwing other men. Yes, the women benefit. Yes, the women demand special treatment. But without male enablers, women would have no special privileges.
Chivalry would not exist without men. Roe v. Wade would not exist without men. Safe-haven laws would not exist without men. Rapacious child-support and alimony laws would not exist without men. On and on and on and on — all female entitlements exist because mamas’ boys can’t say no to women.
Listen to the hosts and callers in my 2006 radio highlights.
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:13 am
So, Marc, your arguement, is not so very different from mine. I did say deliberate AND focused. I see several distinct levels of misandry. An arguement can be made that men are competitive with other men, and some men in power use the giving of privileges to women as a means to both screw the prospects of other men viv a vis women and to gain power over both men and women.
The misandry of the men you mention – no arguement from me there – is, as I said, from this view, (and covers the Nifongs of the world), an epiphenomenon, a discovered means, for personal gain. This describes not so much deliberate male-hating as straight forward male on male competition. From the men-in-question’s perspective, that may seem biologically ‘legitimate’. Man-hatred isn’t the major drive. Disadvantaging other male competitors is the name of their game. Gaining power in a society where power is money.
From the Dworkin-type perspective though, misandry is very different. Man-hatred IS the major drive. Even personal benefit seems to take a back seat with such people. It seems to me that the sort of invective and active demeaning of men that many femonazis exhibit, is the real misandry, unimpeded by other factors. It is the femonazis who actively seek the privileges and manipulate the men in power. They do it to gain superiority over men, not so that they can reorganise the world to provide better for all, but to punish men, hurt men, destroy the benefits that men have traditionally brought to society. It isn’t even to benefit themselves as individuals. Every move is orientated to hurt others. It ain’t for personal gain. It is neurotic and psychotic in nature rather than a biological strategy.
I am sure that Nifong would happily mismanage his office to gain strategic advantage, revenge, punitive exhibition over women too, should he think he could get personal, career advancement – and therefore, money in his pocket. But it isn’t because he hates them.
Whether or not the distinctions hold for long is not so very material however. As I said, napalm is needed in this tangled jungle of hatred and power.
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 am
Amfortas,
I totally disagree with you. If I want to compete with you, I am not going to fix the system so that, one day, it will do ME in as well.
Nifong, and those of his ilk, are subject to ruin by the very misandric system they have created. Live by misandry; die by misandry. Lawmakers and judges who fix the system today to crucify men someday will get divorced. And, when they do, they will be very sorry bastards, cursing themselves.
Any stupid man who thinks he has power today with a woman because of his cash — the matadormat — will someday see that cash in her bank account. Why? Ask the men who passed the laws to make it so.
Instead of constantly arguing with me, think.
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:36 am
As I said Marc, we agree on most things. I am not fighting you. The system is misandric. No doubt some of the judges, lawyers even politicians will run afoul of their own fixes; those which have been screwing men for a generation. Ruin will catch up with them but their laws and the system will continue to florish, others will take their place and their ill-gotten share of the massive money-flow. The system will prevail even if public attitudes slowly change. Women will not give up their privileges and income from men.
I just can’t see the system changing for the better, however, from the application of reason. It will flourish as decay does, eating away at the health of society. Men will still get screwed for several generations as our society dwindles and fails. Gresham’s Law applies to the system as a whole not just its currency. The Legal System from top to bottom is now too compromised. Trust has gone.
The system has to be swept away. If we, the affected generation, cannot or will not sweep it away, another society will.
Here is a prophesy: the American term of ascendancy will be the shortest in Human history.
Still, let’s not get angry at each other about it, my friend. Have a Christmas drink on me.
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:17 am
I think the subject is very important. If men who wanted to get rid of misandry would focus on the men who enable it, then you would start to see change for all men.
The problem is these pereverted chivalrist, line Sen Biden, Nifong (maybe), Geraldo, seem to not be affected directly by the issues that most men face. So they really do not see the problems they create for men, children, and families.
I wish we could talk about this issue in depth in a forum, This is the key to solving most of the issues facing men. Its not women, women have very little power over men, its really a few powerful men who want more control and power, who give power to lowly women to keep other men at bay. This even fits perfectly with nature.
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:38 am
Keep up the good work Marc, your one of the few guys out there doing it while everyone else sits on their hands and does nothing.
Although a very good bit of PR work (re:link),the attiude towards your comments are opening ears and eyes to what has become an anti-male society and it needs guys like yourself to throw a spanner in the works…
Keep it up, everything helps.
December 23rd, 2006 at 10:05 am
All interesting points above — except the one from supamike claiming women have little power over men. That is the opposite of reality. Please reread my article — you didn’t grasp what I wrote, and you are not in touch with your environment.
Men are raised to worship their mothers and sisters, to believe that women have more value than men; that is REAL power. Geraldo Rivera told Bill O’Reilly that he pays alimony to four women and happily does so. He said men should pay their ex-wives as much as possible. He’s insane and a perfect example of a man who worships women.
Do you remember your childhood? If your sister stole your truck, you probably weren’t allowed to touch her in response. But, if you stole her doll, she could retaliate against you as she pleased, with impunity, right? Double standard, right? She learned she has power. You learned she has power. You carried that nonsense into your adult life.
Also, as I’ve pointed out, ad nauseam, men are raised to believe that men are more sexual than women — a HUGE lie. This is why men spend so much money on women. Men believing this lie give women tremendous power — on dates, in the home, in divorce court, on the Supreme Court, and in lawmaking committees.
A man who yields power to a woman, for whatever reason, will have a life of horror in his house and in his life. This man literally fears women. This man is your congressman or senator or governor or president or judge — or district attorney.
I fear the system is too-far gone to fix. Women usually squawk and get what they want. Alas, men tend to sit on the sidelines and privately grumble, accomplishing nothing. They write on blogs at MND, but they can’t face women in person.
Listen to the way I handle female callers (click on the radioclip link above). I do that in my personal life, too. THAT is how men can fight back, but most men won’t — proof that women have won.
If men don’t fight back — at the female box and the ballot box — they’re finished. They will wither into a powerless gender.
I give actionable advice in my books, but most “regulars” on MND refuse to read them. My book customers tend to be from outside MND. It’s too bad. All the fuming and bickering on MND doesn’t change anything in the courtroom or your bedroom.
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
(Quoting Marc) “I give actionable advice in my books, but most “regulars†on MND refuse to read them. My book customers tend to be from outside MND. It’s too bad. All the fuming and bickering on MND doesn’t change anything in the courtroom or your bedroom.”
I guess that proves the saying, “Barking dogs seldom bite.”
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I know women who openly admit that they laugh at men behind our backs for being so easy to manipulate. Probably, most men also know those who freely admit this but they just ignore reality. In groups of family and friends that are dominated by women, it is almost impossible to maintain ones composure and that, of course just impowers them even more. Mothers, sisters wives of friends are all out to reprimand and ridicule ANY man if he so much as even mildly disagrees with Oprah, Dr. Phil, Rosie etc.etc.. We, all too often, end up just sitting there with a blank stare on our face, thinking about the super bowl or the next days work issues. Its pathetic when you stop and think about it and I am as guilty as everyone else.
December 23rd, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Donnieboy57 — thank you for being honest enough to admit the truth about male behavior.
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Marc,
I dont disagree with anything you say. I simply am making an even more important point here. That the sons of these mothers who give power to their daughters, also teach their sons to be submissive to the powerof females. I think you are saying this as well. But keep in mind that these type males that are groomed to submit to females are the ones who gain the power to control the other males who dont follow suit. That was why I came out with the silly “ants” comment at the beginning of this forum. Now realize, I dont disagree with you at all. Women were given the womb, and since she has that part in her body she can take advantage of her offspring, and sits at a greater advantage to do so. But I think God made it that way, to garantee a womans survival.
I would love to read your book, you are very much like me. I do speak out with great vigor on gender issues in and among family, and other settings. I think where you and I disconnect is that you may not see that these perverted males out there dont really see or understand your point of view. They wer groomed from birth to be how they are. Feminism understood one fundamental thing that had to be done in order to usurp male power in the mating system, and that was to limit his ability to achieve paternity to his offspring. She has to womb. So she can do such. Which is why most women are pro-abortion, divorce laws that give them the power to control the father, and socialistic economies that move resources to the center so that they not need men to access them. But realize that is the dilemma for women. They have to do 2 major things to get that power:
1) Raise male offspring that will submit to the female role.
2) They have to “squawk” to men to move all the resources the “he” gathers to move them to a central place so that she can have access to them.
All I am saying is that there are 2 types of males that males that exist. There are males like me and you, that want rights to our offspring and achieve paternity to them. This dilemma has been facing men since prehistoric times. Then there are males who simply work for the mother, sisters, etc..These are the worker males. Just like the worker ants in an ant colony. They fight to protect the colony but mostly the fight to protect the queen ant, so that she can mate freely without any disruption to create more worker ants.
Other than the power of having a womb, the woman has very little power to ocntrol men. But even if she has a womb, she has to have access to resources to raise her offspring. She needs males to get access to those resources. She is powerless to mate if she has no males to protect her. Which brings me back to my point that women have very little power over men, but men must assume the right position. That you must not bring the resources to the center, so that every male has benefits from his labor. And lastly, your biggest battle of all,is to fight the perverted males, who are going to tell you that you are not a man, but a whiny spineless chauvanistic piece of crap….lol
That in a nutshell is the war you and I face. Keep in mind that the men who are in power today were put there by mostly women. Bill Clinton got elected because of his looks..It is guys like Donald Trump who has billions of dollars but he gives the crown back to the slutty female, who does not deserve it. These men are given the power.
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
These men pose no threat to women…It was set up that way.
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Supamike:
It is a woman’s vagina, not her womb, that gives her power. Why? Because men wrongly think they have to grovel and pay for that vagina. They don’t. Wimpy men will do ANYTHING a woman wants just to get laid, to avoid her rejection. Women know this and manipulate men accordingly. Try telling a woman that SHE is lucky to be in bed with YOU; watch how her behavior changes.
Once a man falls into that “getting lucky” trap, he will defer to a woman’s other excuses for privilege: wombs, PMS, fragility, you name it. Try telling her she can’t be a VP in your company because of her womb, PMS, and fragility; see what happens to you.
Once the misandric avalanche begins, it never ends. VAWA, part of the misandric avalanche, has nothing to do with the womb. It has everything to do with the presumption that men are bad and women are good. Nifong presumed Crystal Gail Mangum innocent and the lacrosse players guilty. Why? He hates men. He’s the enemy, and there are millions of men whence he came.
Negative portrayal of men on TV has nothing to do with the womb. Nothing. Yet, it continues unabated. Men do nothing about it. Who is responsible for that? Largely men. Men at TV networks are deathly afraid of offending women.
It has become acceptable in Western cultures to bash men — especially white men. Do men complain about this? No. Never. They just guzzle more beer and accept it.
Nobody can accuse me of being chauvinistic. I view women as peers — the highest compliment. I never tell women they are incapable. In fact, it’s the opposite. Once you read my books and articles, listen to my podcasts and radio interviews, you will conclude quickly that I am not chauvinistic.
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:50 pm
“During this month of Christmas shopping, I’ve seen TV commercial after TV commercial admonishing men to buy jewelry, clothing, and teddy bears for women. Yet, I have not seen ONE appeal to women to purchase anything for men. It’s as if men have but one purpose in life: supporting women”… As far as I can see, most women don’t need help being told to buy gifts for their husbands. Most women I know enjoy giving their spouses gifts. But it is strange that there are not as many commercials focused on women giving gifts to men… I would not mind some commercialized ideas!
As far as rape, it pisses me off when a man is automatically thought of as guilty, while a woman in the same situation isn’t looked upon as that bad, especially in the case of doing it to a child. I don’t think there should be any question as to whether someone like that, man or WOMEN, should be punished (not just slaaped on the hand, that does not do much).
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:15 pm
KVolz,
Men don’t need to be cajoled by TV commercials into buying gifts for women, especially after all those expensive meals, child support, and alimony they pay for during the first 11 months.
The so-called “generous” women you know do not represent the female population as a whole. Are they buying their husbands gifts from their own salaries or from their husbands’ salaries?
The typical woman keeps her wallet closed most of the time when she’s with a man — and her eunuch boyfriend/husband tolerates that. In addition, she receives child support and alimony from her ex, plus her salary (if she has one).
According to annual retail statistics, on Valentine’s Day, a woman spends little, if anything, on her man. So, in December, after 11 months of male largesse, she has plenty of cash to buy him a nice Christmas present. Wow.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Yes we should resist always being backfooted by women. They will find any excuse, any opportunity to take the superior position and put a man in the wrong. An anecdote. I was given a birthday present by a couple who were friends of mine. It was a really nice pewter wine-bottle stopper, carved and ornate.
The ancient Greeks used to value the person giving a gift rather than just the gift itself and the gift took on the person’s value. So it was quite common to give to one’s well valued friend a gift that had been previously given by another well valued friend. A particular gift moved between people gathering greater and greater value due to its increasing, deepening provenance.
I gave that lovely pewter bottle-stopper to my-new-wife-at-the-time’s son (my new stepson, late teen) on his birthday. I explained the provenance to him and told them of the friends and how much they meant to me.
Wifey (now ex) went beresk. It seems I should have spent my money on him. I was ‘insulting’ our friends by giving their present away. I was insulting him by not buying something ‘new’. I was insulting her by not buying something for her son. I guess some people get insulted at the drop of a hat.
I refused to capitulate which made matters worse. How dare I not be wrong! The Good that men do often do them no good. Do it anyway.
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Hi Marc,
I have been listening to your podcasts and I am going to purchase the books for some good reading.
YOu make some good points, and its hard for me to disagree with much of what you say. I think that a womans vagina is not her biggest power, but it is her womb that gives her the power to manipulate the world the most. The fight is for who has the most influence on the offspring. YOu do a good job in showing the differences and double standards in the “mating game”. BUt you must understand that fundamentally men have had to use their access to resources to get access to their offspring. That is just the hardcore truth about the dynamics between men and women. This goes back a long way in mans evolutionary journey. Now I agree that too many men out there are paying too much to, as you say “get lucky”. But again this problem lies with men, who you and I agree, feel that in order for them to “get laid” they have to pay for it. Heck I know some men who would rather it be that simple for them anywy. Some men like prostitution becuz their are no strings attached. But to marry a woman, based on the dynamics we pose, is dangerous. I think that is where the problems is. That there are plenty of men who lure goldigging women, and purchase the sex, and then turn around and marry these women, and expect the dynamics somehow are suppose to change in marriage. If your realtionship was based on superficial characteristics when it started, its going to be based on that in marriage.
But again, the power you speak of, is the transfer of thing (ie money, jewelry, bills, house payments) gives women power over anyone who feels left short after willingly providing such. Heck I dont have much sympathy for men who wine and dine women, only to get sex, and probably not good sex at that, and then whine about it afterwards. He has no shoulder to cry on here. You seem to be trying to help these men, and that is good. I think you sense that some of these men have confidence issues, and have been programmed since birth to follow this mating system that favors the female. But try to understand that even with monkeys, gorillas, and most mammals, the female plays this role. It is her job to manipulate the male into turning over his resources to her. The female has to disguise her high libido to the male so that she sends a message to the male that he is the only one. Women simply dont want to expose their “raunchy” side to men, because that would infuse a thought in men that their offspring is not theirs. We see today men raising children in families, and those children not being of his own. Paternity fraud is alot more rampant than men would like to know. When women expose themselves completely to men, they simply face losing credibility and trust to men, and when that happens they have less access.power and controlto the resources they enjoy now. No one said that the mating system was fair. Women and men have both taken advantage of each. But it is women who have not played fairly the most. But everything in our mating system is about women having to decieve men in order to coerce him to mate with her. My point is, that is women can lure a male more easliy if she can convince her that she is virginal. The cat is on its way out the bag on that one….lol…if the events happeing on the news today dont show some men that women are just as trashy as men sexually, then I dont know what will wake them up…lol!!
THe womb is the one thing that allows womnen to demand more rights in our society. More rights equal more power for women. It is the primary reason that we men put her before our ownselves. Why?
WEll it goes back to our primitive history. People used to worship women due to her ability to give life. This was the first miracle that trumped everything else on the planet in these primitive times. This gave fertile women a great advantage. That advantage has been going on for millions of years now. That is what you fight against. That is why women have such a deep sense of entitlement in civil societies. Not becuz they have the “kitty kat”, but becuz she holds the ability to bring forth life. And since her body provides the sustenance to hold life, women have simply demanded the rights to trump a mans right to his offspring. That is the honest hardcore fight that men have been facing for a long time. This fight for men, is to prove that he has equal rights to his offspring. Sure men dont have to pay for the goods. But men do it anyway, because these men are paying to have some access to his offspring at a later time.
I think for the men who marry these golddiggers, that is what its all about. But the singles mating scene, men paying to “get lucky” are simply paying for something that they may want. Heck when you rent something, its a lot more expensive than it is to buy it, ya know? Some of them understand that, and dont have a problem with it. Some come out unstatisfied.
I would challenge you to see that in most cases the women who engage in sex with men for money, are they having good sex? I think the only thing these women get is money and things, but they dont get the good sex they want.
Lastly, I do see many men bankrupt themselves for women on dates, trying to impress woman. Some women want to know is a man cheap or not, and watch him closely as to how he spends, so some men go overboard to show he is not a cheap guy. Keep it up, and btw, we need guys like you, and I plan on starting my own radio show here in the future…
BUt only a shallow male would think that a womans vagina has the power.
December 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Supamike,
I’m glad you are going to get my books. Once you do, you’ll realize that the womb is not a woman’s source of power. It’s her punani. If you disagree with this, it’s because: 1) you have little experience with women, or 2) have no male friends who constantly get suckered into wining & dining women, or 3) both.
A woman who’s medically infertile (nonproductive womb) or who’s had a hysterectomy (womb removal) has no womb with which to make an issue. She has just as much power in our society as a woman who can pop out babies like a Pez dispenser. In fact, a young infertile woman is even-more desirable because she can bang all day and not get pregnant.
December 24th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Like I have said before, the women you know are a different type than the ones I know! I am sorry that so many woman are like that! My environment is full of working women, most of which contribute to household finances as much as the men do. So I guess that is why I cannot even make a knowledgable comment on what you are talking about. I know the other type of women exists, I have just not been around them. I thought the idea of a wife leaching off of her husband was mostly back in the older times, not now, when most women seemingly have jobs.
December 24th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Amfortas, It is horrible that your now-ex-wife went beserk when you gave a very meaningful gift to her son! To me it is not how much money you spend, or if you spend any at all, but about how much you value the gift or the meaning of the gift. I would have been so offended if I were in your position! Having a gift “rejected”, even if it’s not from the recipient, feels terrible!
December 24th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
I have plenty experience with women, and I have plenty of friends who like wining and dining women. I think you get it wrong by thinking the men actually dislike wining and dining women. Many men enjoy such, and its their choice.
But again as I made my point earlier…If we as men think that a womans power is her vagina, then this proves how shallow we are as men. This calls for self control, because all women have to do, is control the sex if they want to. I see men as much stronger than that.
December 24th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Supamike,
I don’t get it wrong. I am in contact with men and women from around the globe. Most men do not enjoy wining & dining women, which is legal prostitution.
The men who do “enjoy” wining & dining women have three problems: 1) they disrespect women, whom they do not view as peers; 2) they disrespect themselves, because they have no game and no other means to lure women; 3) they attract women who will clean their clocks in divorce court.
If you think that most men are not mesmerized and controlled by a woman’s vagina, you are not living in the real world. Men are NOT much stronger than that.
You claim to have plenty of experience with women, but your comments indicate the opposite.
December 24th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
KVolz,
You are judging the world by the women you know, and you are making a big mistake. Welcome to the real world, where most women — especially those in their 20s — are entitled princesses. Daddy’s little girl becomes tomorrow’s entitled bitch. That’s how it works.
Whether women work or not isn’t the point: most women have attitudes of entitlement. You don’t get calls from them on the radio, do you?
Also, how a woman acts around her female colleagues is rarely representative of how she behaves behind closed doors with men.
December 24th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
I have no problem saying the men who enjoy wining and dining women have some issues, but like I have said, this is nothing new. LIke i have said, this mating game has been around for ages, birds do it, bees do it.
Women seek out men for resoursces, and men show how resourceful they can be. Now thier is a deviancy that has been added in the wining and dining which is a pageanistic component that has been added. Romance is simply something that has been in the history for a while now.
I also want to say that if the fertility rates of women drop, the status of women will drop as well. Its hard to see this, but it still hold true today.
December 24th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Supamike,
You are caught in the past. It matters not what’s been around for ages. Birds do it, my ass. What nonsense.
Fifty years ago, women were not CEOs, judges, astronauts, university presidents, chiefs of police, surgeons, generals, fighter pilots, senators, governors, secretaries of state, speakers of the House, and presidential candidates.
If you want to define romance as man paying for woman, be my guest. It’s your cash and your life. You have no game. When you wake up some day to realize that you have purchased the woman in your bed, you’ll change your mind … maybe. Don’t complain when she has all your cash.
December 24th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I don’t care either, what the rest of the animal kingdom does. There’s something within our brains that sets us apart from all other animals: THE ABILITY TO REASON. Let reason triumph over biological drive. If women could throw off the tradition of staying home, raising kids & baking cookies, let US throw off the tradition of wining & dining them! Sure, we may have been taught since boyhood to pay women’s way on dates, but once we reach adulthood, we all must assess which aspects of our upbringing have served us well, & which ones have not–i.e., know what to hold & what to fold.
Unlike most of you, the idea of paying a gal’s way NEVER sat well with me. I’ve insisted on going dutch from the very moment I was old enough to date. If a gal refuses to pay her way, she’s the wrong one for me; I call the date off & wish her well in her quest for her white knight, Prince Charming, sugar daddy, etc.
I realize that in most of you, the wining & dining habit is deeply rooted & hard to break, but you gotta break it nonetheless. Learn to do without close r’ships with women if you must. Realize that if James Buchanan, Jubal Early, Adam Smith & Henry David Thoreau could live long lives without ever marrying, so can you! Better safe than sorry; better alone than in bad company.
December 24th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Rock on, Roxtar!
December 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
At the core, I see misandric laws promoted by misandric men primarily as bribes or subsidies, if you will, for sexual liberation. The epitome of the self-loathing male is none other than Wilhelm Reich, often referred to as the Dean of the Sexual Revolution. I believe that in order to properly evaluate the situation today, we need to become familiar with his writings. Here are a few excerpts from Marvin H. Clark Jr.’s piece called “Wilhelm Reich: The Dean of Sex Revolution.” It should strike a cord for anyone interested in this topic.
“Wilhelm Reich. A name which shall live in infamy. He ought to have been thankful to America for giving him refuge from Hitler’s satanic holocaust. But instead, he began turning his sexual perversion loose on an unsuspecting Christian nation and began seeking her demise from the moment he arrived. Reich was known as a sexually fanatical communist in Europe. But his generous American hosts never suspected the intense hatred for Christians that lurked beneath is breast.”
“To Wilhelm Reich, the entire world could be reduced to one word: sex. As a psychoanalyst, he was convinced that sex motivated all personal instincts. As a socialist, he came to believe that also were rooted in the Christian repression of sex. Therefore it is not surprising that after joining the Communist Party, he immediately began attempting to marry the theories of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx.”
“Most of the ’socialist’ philosophies had their genesis with the theories of Rousseau and Hegel. Those elder philosophers aimed at the creation of a ‘Super State:’ a totalitarian structure under which common people could be controlled by the elites. Christianity brought individuality and education, which in turn spawned freedom and democracy. Consequently, the elites lost control pver little people and they wanted it back.
“Reich noticed that in the Soviet Union, the Communists repeatedly had problems which, he figured rightly, were rooted in human nature. It seemed as if the Bolsheviks were always trying to fit a square peg in a round hole…(He) declared that the party program would never get out of the ditch until the Party first changed the people’s psychic nature, or in other words, the culture. So long as the people possessed a psychic nature based upon individualism and family norms based on the old regime, they never would truly develop a collectivist attitude toward the revolution. Without the collectivist culture to support it, the Communist Revolution would be doomed to failure. Communal life requires people with ‘collectivist’ instincts rather than those of rugged individualists and family orientation.”
“Reich reasoned that ‘individualism’ came from infantile development within the nuclear family. ‘Collectivist’ instincts would result when children would be ‘raised by the village’ within communal nurseries. In that situation, the child bonds with the ‘collective’ of its peers and not its parents. The patriarchal father is easily replaced by the State. Only people raised in infancy in such surroundingswould be capable of establishing true collectivist communism.”
“To accomplish the collectivist instincts in society, Reich suggested abolition of the family, communal rearing of childen, and total destruction of all moral inhibitions concerning sex. Reich said that sexual restraints imposed by religion were intended to support not only the church, but the nuclear family, which in turn became the foundation upon which power of the old regime was laid. By eliminating all sexual restraints, Christianity and the family would be destroyed. And by erasing all memory of “family ties,” all of the problems of production that resulted from family considerations would cease. Free sex would, Reich reasoned, also pacify workers and make them happier about their conditions in the workplace.”
“Reich’s idea was to look for those controversial issues and to figure out how to manipulate the outcome to Communist advantage.
Instead of simply dividing society according to “the haves and the have-nots,” Reich was one of the first people to realize that classes of people might be made hostile to Christian culture through other issues: those relating to gender, age, marital status, desire for abortion, sexual preference, occupation, race and so on.”
“The Bolsheviks did attempt a sexual revolution at one time. The family and marital laws put into effect by Russian Communists in 1918 were virtually identical to those now on the books in most American states today; the results were identical too: social chaos, parents abandoning their responsibilities in droves, leaving children victimized by broken homes. Juvenile delinquency and crime went ouf of control. Children slept unattended and unfed on Moscow streets because their parents abandoned them for new families or just plain ‘free sex.’ The Russians tried it all, long before America did.”
“So the question arises, how to destroy the American family, and all of the institutions of conservative society that it supports. Reich merely declared that the family would be destroyed by ending sexual repression. Sexual suppression makes the youth capable of monogamous marriage; by allowing sexual freedom for youth, they become incapable of lasting marriage….”
“Obviously there are economic consequences to sexual activities. Reich would build economic socialism, and the entire social order, around the obvious need to eliminate those consequences. Reich proposed ending the economic dependence of women and children upon the family. Women would be made not only sexually free, but financially independent of men. Not only would they be encouraged to divorce and abandon ‘just a housewife,’ but the government would establish full social care and education of single moms. Children born out of wedlock would no longer be viewed as ‘bastards’ by the legal system. The tax payer would pay the full bill to support these kids in style.”
“On the other hand, abortion would be made available on demand to suit the fancy of anyone not wanting to give birth. There would be an end to public condemnation as well. Women with multiple sex partners would be given the illusion of normalcy while the resulting ‘jealous’ males would be castigated as social mongrels. No one would be made to feel guilty about illicit sex, even with multiple partners of either or both sexes. Girls would be taught from infancy that the father’s authority in the home is somehow illegitimate and that being sexy can unlock the doors to ‘happiness.’”
“According to Reich, ‘Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian (Christian) ideology.’ Reich felt that the strict moral attitude of monogamy would loosen up when women achieve economic independence. Once moralism would be overcome in an atmosphere where free sex is publically affirmed by media and education, there no longer wold be any inner argument aginast intercourse with extra partners. ‘The ideology of marriage collapses and with in the marriage itself.’”
“In order to help women achieve economic independence, and thus to achieve this ’sexual awakening’ Reich proposed that divorce courts should force the jilted ex-husbands to pay ‘temporary’ spousal support in addition to child support. Where this would not be forthcoming, there should be welfare to pay the way.”
“Obviously such a system completely negates
the financial security of society’s male population. When divorce is granted on the whim of any woman asking for it, the man can never be financially secure. No matter how hard a husband works to build financial security, he never knows when some balck robed tyrant setting on a court bench will strip him naked and throw him penniless out onto the street. He becomes a piece of meat to be sliced and diced, and usually if left financially impotent. According to Reich, this is necessary:
‘It was a matter of course that the revolutionary law intended the abolition of patriarchal power. Depriving the ruling class of powermeant at the same time, the elimination of the power of the father over members of the family, and the representative of the state within the family as the structure forming cell of the class society.’
American men obviously have been stripped of all patriarchal power, they’ve been labeled as mindless idiots and have been left financially impotent – unable to secure the future of their children. Child support, spousal support, attorney’s fees, they all operate to destroy men more than to provide for the well-being of families. As fathers become financially disabled, they become driven further and further from their children.”
“By the same token, all of the sexual images have also lured many men away from families. This has deprived good women of good men, and has stripped their children of whole homes.”
“According to Reich, divorce would feed the process of changing the psyche of the population, by the effect it would have on children of broken homes….Because divorce routinely send little girls packing with their mothers, these girls naturally grow up alienated toward the concept of being a wife to a husband. It is no wonder that these young women from broken homes wind up having higher divorce rates than did their mothers. The problem feeds itself.”
“As soon as the marriage is ended, Reich calculated that the link between mothers and their children ought also to be destroyed…To encourage mothers to turn over care of their children to strangers in daycare, their lives must not be sexually empty or economically dependent on husbands. Many sexually free women would be happy to dump their children on fathers except for the economic need for child support, or need to avoid paying child support themselves. If Dad doesn’t have a job or refuses to cooperate with the “child support” system, then welfare picks up and nowhere is the woman any longer dependent upon the financial support of her husband. This not only frees her from the marriage, but also gives her opportunities for a “new life.” In order to cash in on sexual liberties and this new life, the majority of divorced women today find it no problem at all to dump off their offspring to be cared for by complete strangers in state subsidized daycare centers.”
“So, what purpose is served by public daycare centers?…By putting children in the daycare environment and preventing them from closely bonding with their parents, the children are being instilled with the collectivist psyche already….”
Reich saw collectivized daycare as indispensable for achieving ultimate change in people’s psyche structure:
‘Human structure must be adapted to collective living. This adaptation, no doubt, will require a decrease in jealousy and the fear of losing a partner. In general, people are incapable of achieve sexual independence; they are bound to their partners by loveless, sticky ties, and therefore incapable of separating from them; they are afraid that in losing a partner, they may not find another. This fear is always based on infantile attachments to mother, father, or older siblings. If the family were replaced by the collective, the formation of such patholigical attachments would not occur.’
‘If the compulsive family is upheld ideologically or structurally, the development of the collective is inhibited. If the collective is incapable of overcoming this inhibition, it is destroyed by the familial structure of its members.’
“Thus we see that Reich viewed this whole process of sexual revolution as a fight to the death of the collective mentality and the traditional family unit. And to create that collective mentality, the patriarchal family needs to go.”
“Once more, we can see what the American “child welfare” really is all about. It is about Communism. It is about stripping good parents of control over their children and assuming that same control in the name of a totalitarian state. It is about making children the legal equals of parents and giving them complete standing to challenge parental authority…”
In sum, “Reich desired to destroy Christian style government, so he sought to destroy Christian style institutions. To do that, he proposed the destruction of the family, be enabling women and children to become sexually promiscuous. To accomplish that, he needed to end patriarchal control in the home, which in turn enables more promiscuity among the young and further destroys attachment to family; which in turn creates more promiscuity; which in turn dimishes the family and so on. Eventually we create chains of females,each giving birth at successively younger and younger ages…This is the perfect constituency for the welfare state. This represents the end of Christian civilization. This represents usurption of power and tyrannical control by our own government.”
“let us make no mistake, Reichian revolutionaries are out to get us. They’re merely waiting for the next opportunity to finish off our freedoms.”
December 24th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Kangaroox,
You present some interesting ideas, but you idealize and romanticize Christianity to the point of denying history.
Please remember that The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Russian Pogroms, Conquistadoran destruction of Indian cultures, Hitler’s Holocaust, and KKK lynchings were all perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Based on my research, it is difficult to know how much Wilhelm Reich contributed to American feminism, but it matters not. One can say anything he wants; if his message doesn’t resonate with the masses, he is reduced to irrelevance.
The point of my article, which is getting lost in these postings, is that misandry — the driving force behind DA Mike Nifong’s behavior — exists because men support it.
Men allow women to walk all over them in every facet of life, from the courtroom to the bedroom. You cannot blame Wilhelm Reich for this. If each man doesn’t grow a pair of balls and stop letting women run his life, he is ultimately responsible for the consequences. Any other explanation is a cop-out, period.
The next time a woman begs you to buy her something you don’t want to buy, say “no.” Just try it. The next time a woman demands sex but you are pissed at her, say “no.” Just try it. When a woman begs you to get married or have children before you are ready, say “no.” Just try it. This is how to end misandry — like charity, the anti-misandry revolution begins at home. It’s so simple, most guys don’t see it.
December 24th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
And when she serves you with a temporary restraining order requiring you to get out of the house, freezing all of your bank accounts, prohibiting you from encumbering the house with further deeds of trust, taking money out of the country and placing it into offshore banks, staying more than 500 yards away from your house, your wife’s place of employment, your children’s schools and from your children, say “no”.
Just try it.
When the deputy sheriffs come to haul off to jail because you said “no” to the orders signed by a judge, say “no”. Just try it.
Then we will hold a seance and ask you how it went!
December 24th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Merry Christmas, Marc!
December 24th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
“In order to help women achieve economic independence, and thus to achieve this ’sexual awakening’ Reich proposed that divorce courts should force the jilted ex-husbands to pay ‘temporary’ spousal support in addition to child support. Where this would not be forthcoming, there should be welfare to pay the way.â€
I think that is terrible, what ever gives anyone the idea that a man should support the woman? Once they are divorced, a woman should be on her own financially. Child support is one thing, although sometimes they seem to take too much of a man’s income (my brother had to pay child support until he ended up marrying the mother a few years later, and he piad A LOT of money to child support. When he lost his job and got a new one that paid less, he was still paying the same amt for child support, I believe), but an extra amt for the spouse sounds ridiculous to me!
December 24th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Roger Knight,
When we have that seance, we can invite and “call up” all the men who created, passed, and enforce the laws that enable women to ruin men’s lives. We also can invite the men who vote, and have voted, for the public “servants” who ruin men. Then, we can invite and “call up” all the men who say and have said: “Ladies first. Don’t speak that way in front of a lady. A man’s job is to take care of a woman.”
December 24th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
I think that any woman who is not a “golddigger” would be fine with going dutch as far as dates are concerned. I have always been that way in my dating and married life. Once in a while my husband will pay for a meal out, such as this past anniversary (unusual for him), and I am just as likely to hand over the money to pay for a meal, too! Because we both like to make each other happy, and share. So, as this type of a woman, I am saying that sometimes the issue needs to be brought up. In dating, sometimes it is awkward, because everyone is different and women do not know if the man she is dating is the type that “wants” to pay, or if they would like her to pay half. But on the other hand, if he says he’ll pay it, how do we even know he is genuine? …..
December 24th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
KVolz said: “I think that is terrible, whatever gives anyone the idea that a man should support the woman? Once they are divorced, a woman should be on her own financially.”
I dare you to show up at a NOW meeting or a Maureen Dowd lecture to utter these words. Let me know what hospital you’re in afterwards; I’ll send you flowers.
December 24th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Kvolz said: “In dating, sometimes it is awkward, because everyone is different and women do not know if the man she is dating is the type that “wants†to pay, or if he would like her to pay half. But on the other hand, if he says he’ll pay it, how do we even know he is genuine?”
It is simple: before a blind date, I tell the woman: “This is going to be Dutch. Please let me know that you agree.” Often, the woman will get angry and refuse to pay. I tell her to get lost.
As above, I invite you to listen to my radioclip. You’ll get a better idea of how this conversation about wining & dining goes:
http://web2.streamhoster.com/mhrudov/MHR_RadioHighlights2006.mp3
December 24th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Marc said:
“The next time a woman begs you to buy her something you don’t want to buy, say “no.†Just try it. The next time a woman demands sex but you are pissed at her, say “no.†Just try it. When a woman begs you to get married or have children before you are ready, say “no.†Just try it. This is how to end misandry — like charity, the anti-misandry revolution begins at home. It’s so simple, most guys don’t see it.”
I am postin here about the sex comment. This goes back to my original comment. I am simply saying that men gain power over women by showing some self-control over themselves. I think you are saying the same thing. But until men learn to say no to sex, and say no to giving things to women, then women will always have that power. But even deeper, I would like to say that many of these men who lack the backbone to say certain things to women, these men have been groomed that way from birth. You can tell many men to stand up, but the truth is, I think alot of men fear women on all kinds of levels. The law, the family, even the church gives women a very big stick to beat men down if they get out of hand. So I go back to my original point, that the one who gains the most power, is the one who has the rights to the offspring.
December 24th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Supamike,
The way to have power (not real power, fun power) over a woman is to give her LOTS of real orgasms — that is the premise of Under the Clitoral Hood. Withholding sex isn’t any fun. I want sex. The purpose of being with a woman IS sex!
When it comes to offspring, neither parent should have real power: we must strive to make all states mandate shared custody. Fair is fair.
Again, back to my article. DA Mike Nifong hates men; that is why he presumed Crystal Gail Mangum innocent and the three lacrosse players guilty. VAWA, Senator Joe Biden’s baby, is premised on woman good/man bad. Joe Biden, the liberal senator from Delaware, is a classic man-hater — study his life.
December 24th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
I am gonna be honest with you marc, I have known for many years, that if you turn a woman out, that she will follow you for life, that to me is immature power over women, that eventually can come back to bite ya. Women love sex, and they can desire that alot longer than we men can. I have very little interest in “fun power” for men. My interest lie with empowering men.
You say that men should have equal power to their offspring but right now they have hardly any. Even married men are complaining that they dont have much influence to thec children. I think its childish to teach men to do what you are saying. Every man knows that if he gives his woman the big “o” that he can enslave her. But that is not what men should want to do to women.
What you are teaching is a war in the bedroom, with women. Heck women can give themselves the big “o” without a man these days. With vibrators, dildo, rabbits and such they are geting that orgasm on a regular basis these days. Feminism is teaching women to attach themselves to other women..The whole game being played by you and these feminist is who can make the other cum the hardest…Its purely an immature game.
Men have lost power, because they have simply lost their own self control over themselves. We want loose women, but expect these loose women to have our interest.
Mike Nifong is the result of some mother who teaches who to exploit men to gain power. There are lots of men just like him. Nifong would not exist if his father had of pulled him aside as a boy to teach him how to be a real man. So how do we deal with these men? Or do we just go out on a date and demand that she pay her half? Is that how you suggest I beat Nifong? Or do you suggest calling out the Duke Lacrosse players to stop calling up strippers?
December 24th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Supamike,
You understand nothing about what I am teaching men, and you understand less about women. This becomes ever-more clear with every word you write.
It is futile for me to continue a dialog with you, for I am talking to a wall.
Best of luck to you.
December 24th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
You have a Merry Christmas yourself…
December 25th, 2006 at 5:10 am
Supamike Said:
“People used to worship women due to her ability to give life.”
Women have never had the ability to give life because that is the male role…Females are simply incubators who nurture life during pregnancy and after birth…
December 25th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Marc…
I agree that the individual members of the feminine gender use their vagina’s to manipulate men yet it is also just as true that they use their wombs to financially enslave men as well…
It seems to me that in this day and age the single greatest mistake a man can make is to become intimate (engage in sexual intercourse)with a female…
Nifong is only acting within the normal parameters of his misandric programing and isn’t even aware that he hates men…Nor is his primary motive driven by hatred of men but by the desire to win a conviction at any cost (a problem that is endemic in the legal profession) in order to keep his job…Had he not pursued a case against the students involved no doubt he would have faced an opponent who would have had no qualms whatsoever campaigning on the promise to pursue the case…Which is being driven by race (black on white racism) just as much if not more so as it is on gender issues…
As the father of a son I would much rather my son to remain single and pursue his own interests rather than a career that would allow him to either marry or bed any female he chooses…For it is upon the altar of lust, marriage and the family court system that the dreams of the average man are being sacrificed in this day and time…
December 25th, 2006 at 8:51 am
If you believe Nifong did what he did out of man-hating…
You’re In NONSENSE Territory!
Nifong is playing the race card to win political points and it isn’t going as easily as he thought. He doesn’t hate men, he’s a leftist politician. Leftists will do anything to win, even destroy innocent people. Hating men is NOT part of this.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:11 am
All this stuff about vaginas and wombs and power is getting into nonesense territory too. Biologically, women have always been vulnerable in child gestation, bearing and nurturing, and needed a male to provide and protect. It is nature’s way. It has been taken advantage of, however, by women’s access to the societal, technological and economic advances created by men. Un-natural advantage. Women have taken advantage of man’s biological drive to provide and protect and give little or nothing in return. They used to ‘earn’ it. Now they demand it. They used to respond with love, respect, acknowledgement. Now it is entitlement and social force. They ‘take’ and when objection looms from men, in any form, even thinking through the issues, its a game of “Let’s you and him fight” and they use the ‘power instruments’ of society.
It is a spiritual ‘Ceasarian Section’.
December 25th, 2006 at 10:52 am
… and men have stood by and allowed all of it, and continue to do so.
December 25th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Not men Luna but She-Males: which is a male who bows down before the feminine gender by both wearing on their backs the footprints of the female who dominates em. As well as by stabbing their own gender in the back by supporting the passage of laws that intentionally give females more rights and advantages while outright oppressing the male gender…
December 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
“Hating men is NOT part of this.”
A wise philosopher once said correctly that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.
The fact that Nifong is totally indifferent to what he is doing to innocent men shows that he considers them irrelevant and without value and worth. He would NEVER ever do what he is doing to women. Maybe he IS doing it to WHITE men, but in the end, the fact that they are men is what matters. These are trumped up rape charges.
The fact that men are sent off to die by incompetent politicians who have failed in THEIR jobs, are expected to always give and give to the women (including giving up OUR rights for the benefit of women), are unjustly jailed, deprived of family, property, and possessions, without due process simply for being men, …these all show how little this society values it’s men. And the POS Nifong is a Baby Boomer male product of this culture. It is a culture awash with misandrist ideas and values and these ideas and values marinate the minds of it’s people. It’s been doing this for 40+ years.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
DaPoet said:
“Women have never had the ability to give life because that is the male role…Females are simply incubators who nurture life during pregnancy and after birth…”
Well it may be the wrong choice of words that I used, but I think you would understand what I mean. The fact that women have inside their bodies the ability to give birth, they have simply been able to be capitalize on that. Men need a woman to sustain those babies. And women simply have forced men to do what they want them to based on having that womb. This is the original arguement. This is what the war is all about. This lies at the foundation of the issues that lie between men and women. Women simpl have not been fair about it. But if women fear that if they become baby making machines for men, then they simply lose status.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Lets also realize that men do compete for women against one another. I often see many men who want power and control, will use men and exploit men in any way they can to get to the top.
So what we may see often when we see certain men in the media and in high authoritative position capitalize on exploiting and weakening other men, is simply that male taking advantage of an opportunity.
I have seen plenty of men talk a good game when they are struggling to get to the top, but when the finally get to the top, they give opportunities to women. Go to any major company and see how it works. You see offices filled with women, and most of the executive offices filled with men. That when men get to the top, the get a certain perverted chilvaristic sense about them. Now they become the Sen. Biden, or the Mike Nifong. I cant tell ya how many times I have seen this..
Men in authoritative positions fear surrounding themselves with more men that women, becuz as men we are the competitive sex, and its more likely to face replacement with more men under him, than females…
December 25th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I very much agree with Marc that in our culture (western) we spoil women.
If you spoil a child rotten, that child will grow to hate you as a parent.
Marc is very right, that men need to stop feeling they have to do everything for women. But this is the basis of our mating system. But the key to defeating this is not to give women plenty of orgasms. It is not completely a mans responsibility to give women lots of orgasms..And I will say that doing this, is just another form of spoiling women. Women have their own responsibility to get their own orgasms. And men make a big mistake by trying to feel obligated to give women these orgasms.
That is a major problem among western women, is they have big problems in the sexual department. But its up to that women to get hers. Men working extra hard in the bedroom is not the answer. While it is fun to satisfy your woman, it could also become a task for men. And make him lose focus on many other things in life. This giving women lots of orgasms once again brings the focus to the woman. Heck, that gives the female the upper hand. I am the one that wants lots of orgasms.
But stil men need to learn to make women see that they have responsibility, accountability in every department. Right now women feel they have entitlement. That has to change.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Once again, some of you are misunderstanding and misquoting me, and totally ignorant about Female 101. Giving a woman orgasms is not spoiling her — it is pleasing her and making her addicted to you, in a good way. If you think of this as defeat, you have your head up your ass. Making a woman scream in bed is one of man’s greatest joys in life.
To have the attitude that a woman is responsible for her own orgasms is outright stupidity — and self-defeating. If you can’t make her scream, she doesn’t need you. If you give her responsibility for her orgasms, she will cheat on or leave you, as well she should.
Pleasing a woman in bed is not, however, tantamount to the spoiling derived from wining & dining her like a whore. Such moronic, emasculating behavior gives her real power and establishes the expectation that you will be a great provider in divorce court. In this regard, comparing an entitled woman to a spoiled-brat child is apt, and I draw this comparison in Under the Clitoral Hood. If you don’t read it, you’ll never know.
Above, luna said that men have stood by allowing their rights to disappear. He is restating the point of this article. Thank you, luna.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:56 am
Sorry Marc but real men don’t allow themselves to be manipulated by the women in their life nor do they stab their brothers in the back…But She-Males do…
December 26th, 2006 at 9:25 am
DaPoet said: “Sorry Marc but real men don’t allow themselves to be manipulated by the women in their life nor do they stab their brothers in the back…But She-Males do…”
You are correct. Why are you apologizing?