These are some Youtube channels that I think have good content:
schopenbecq
misesmedia
outlaw2747
factory2590
MGTOW
themanonthestreet
wizardking78
pinegrove33
arguseyes
verlch
sauvecitobro2
antifeminismaus
champcreed
menareangrynow
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Beauty
We have often read of feminists claiming that women are "objectified" and judged on their appearance. Women often complain of the pressure they are under to look good. Women also complain of the treatment unattractive women get in society,while saying nothing about the treatment that unattractive men get. My problem with all of this is that women want to complain about discrimination only to have more ability to discriminate against others themselves.
What do most above-average looking women do? They pursue wealthy men. In the case of most women who complain about their appearance, what would they do if they could be granted stunning looks? I know what they would do, they would persue wealthy and attractive men. Women want more parity with their more attractive sisters so as to be able to have the same leverage in discriminating against that evil of evils: regular men. On top of this, they expect men to share in the pity-fest. To me, it just smacks of someone with plenty to eat complaining to a starving person that there is no gourmet food available.
What do most above-average looking women do? They pursue wealthy men. In the case of most women who complain about their appearance, what would they do if they could be granted stunning looks? I know what they would do, they would persue wealthy and attractive men. Women want more parity with their more attractive sisters so as to be able to have the same leverage in discriminating against that evil of evils: regular men. On top of this, they expect men to share in the pity-fest. To me, it just smacks of someone with plenty to eat complaining to a starving person that there is no gourmet food available.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Knaves
Tennyson's poem, Idylls of the King, has a few lines that I think describes the attitude of many women. In a section titled, "Gareth and Lynette" has Gareth, about to become a knight doing duty as a kitchen knave and is sent by Arthur to assist Lynette. Lynette doesn't yet know the true background of Gareth.
"Ay, sir knave!
Ay, knave, because thou strikest as a knight,
Being but knave, I hate thee all the more."
"Fair damsel, you should worship me the more,
thus being but knave, I throw thine enemies."
To me, this is a good example of the way many women think: They don't look at actions, but instead focus on status and title. Later in the poem, Lynette does come to appreciate Gareth, only when she finds out his true title.
It has been my experience that women, (and many men also) will form an opinion very fast and stick with it, regardless of contradictory evidence. She doesn't care what a man does, she cares about WHO is doing it. I think this extends past relationships and even to interacting with co-workers and women in public. I think it is best for men to keep a low profile, keep their eyes open and not stick their necks out for anyone who has not proven themselves worthy.
"Ay, sir knave!
Ay, knave, because thou strikest as a knight,
Being but knave, I hate thee all the more."
"Fair damsel, you should worship me the more,
thus being but knave, I throw thine enemies."
To me, this is a good example of the way many women think: They don't look at actions, but instead focus on status and title. Later in the poem, Lynette does come to appreciate Gareth, only when she finds out his true title.
It has been my experience that women, (and many men also) will form an opinion very fast and stick with it, regardless of contradictory evidence. She doesn't care what a man does, she cares about WHO is doing it. I think this extends past relationships and even to interacting with co-workers and women in public. I think it is best for men to keep a low profile, keep their eyes open and not stick their necks out for anyone who has not proven themselves worthy.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
George Sodini Discourse.
I have not blogged in a while, but in light of the coverage regarding George Sodini and his shooting of a fitness center, I am being active on this blog again.
And that is just it: all of the feminist and men's rights blogs and internet video channels are ramping up with their take on this tragic event. Between Sodini's blog and Youtube channel, and all of the commentary by others on their internet outlets, much of the suffering involved with this event is seemingly for public consumption. The question is: What will become of it?
Many men have already come out in their own forums or in commenting on feminist blogs that Sodini's actions are inexcusable, which they are. Since Sodini is not likely to receive much sympathy, will this result in more scrutiny of mens rights blogs and channels? This event brings a lot of different issues concerning the sexes to the forefront. Where this discourse will lead is still too early to tell. Will anything be learned, I wonder, or will it be just more internet backbiting?
While Sodini's actions were inexcusable, I can't help but wonder if this event will lead to further social marginalization of those who lack social skills. While Sodini's example is an extreme one, I can't help but wonder if this will lead to unconstructive stereotyping, such as was seen after the Columbine shootings with those wearing dark trenchcoats.
I personally hope this event triggers at least some rational discourse on the issues involved, and not just used as fuel for propaganda on all sides, though I am sure there will be some of that. I just hope that among the media noise that there will be an opportunity for people to stop and think about a few things. I don't think this situation is as simple as it seems. Sodini was clearly disturbed, but writing him off as "crazy" and a "woman hater" somehow seem too simple. I think we now have a chance to discuss some of these issues in a new light without resorting to common finger-pointing.
This is a tough situation for anyone writing on men's rights; I obviously can't defend him, but we need to discuss this in ALL of its facets. I don't think the public can just dismiss him, and those like him, as "losers" and "crazy". As we have seen, the ramifications are all too serious.
And that is just it: all of the feminist and men's rights blogs and internet video channels are ramping up with their take on this tragic event. Between Sodini's blog and Youtube channel, and all of the commentary by others on their internet outlets, much of the suffering involved with this event is seemingly for public consumption. The question is: What will become of it?
Many men have already come out in their own forums or in commenting on feminist blogs that Sodini's actions are inexcusable, which they are. Since Sodini is not likely to receive much sympathy, will this result in more scrutiny of mens rights blogs and channels? This event brings a lot of different issues concerning the sexes to the forefront. Where this discourse will lead is still too early to tell. Will anything be learned, I wonder, or will it be just more internet backbiting?
While Sodini's actions were inexcusable, I can't help but wonder if this event will lead to further social marginalization of those who lack social skills. While Sodini's example is an extreme one, I can't help but wonder if this will lead to unconstructive stereotyping, such as was seen after the Columbine shootings with those wearing dark trenchcoats.
I personally hope this event triggers at least some rational discourse on the issues involved, and not just used as fuel for propaganda on all sides, though I am sure there will be some of that. I just hope that among the media noise that there will be an opportunity for people to stop and think about a few things. I don't think this situation is as simple as it seems. Sodini was clearly disturbed, but writing him off as "crazy" and a "woman hater" somehow seem too simple. I think we now have a chance to discuss some of these issues in a new light without resorting to common finger-pointing.
This is a tough situation for anyone writing on men's rights; I obviously can't defend him, but we need to discuss this in ALL of its facets. I don't think the public can just dismiss him, and those like him, as "losers" and "crazy". As we have seen, the ramifications are all too serious.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Appearances
One frustrating thing about dealing with feminists and with many women in general is that they seem to have a hard time getting past outer appearances. Women date good-looking losers, feminists cite false statistics, weak men, (manginas) defend immoral women. I used to think that there was this large scale inability for many people to see past appearances, but I realized later that many people willfully refuse to do so.
When a man lies about another man, it is often really a way to lie about himself by contrast. If he declares, "I am intelligent" or "I am more intelligent than Jim is" he may be called upon to back that up; if he says, "Jim is stupid", then it will be Jim who is questioned. It is implied that the other man is smarter because he cast himself in the role of Jim's critic. This offers no proof of intelligence and that is the point: to state a position without having to back up the assertions. If a person agrees with him that Jim is stupid, they both can be in collusion and feel superior, for they have found a scapegoat in Jim and merit is never a part of the eqaution in situations like these.
We find this a lot with the statements of feminists; they will accuse men of every evil imaginable and by doing so, claim a moral high ground by doing no more than pointing an accusing finger at others. When feminists accuse men of being immoral, it is a good way to take the spotlight off of their dating drug dealers and having multiple abortions. Their criticism is largely a pre-emptive move against any criticism they may encounter themselves. Feminists have appointed themselves watchdog over men and thus have implied authority. If men question feminism, they have to go against an authoritarian structure that is largely false.
If I point out a defect in you, I have not really proved anything about my own ability, but I have claimed an authoritarian position by default. While you begin to state a defense, you forget that my argument was based on presupposition to begin with.
The problem feminists have is that if they begin to look at the world more realistically, without the male bogeyman, they may have to look at themselves a little more honestly. If it turns out the dragon was an illusion, claims of being the dragonslayer and the rewards that come with it go out the window.
When a man lies about another man, it is often really a way to lie about himself by contrast. If he declares, "I am intelligent" or "I am more intelligent than Jim is" he may be called upon to back that up; if he says, "Jim is stupid", then it will be Jim who is questioned. It is implied that the other man is smarter because he cast himself in the role of Jim's critic. This offers no proof of intelligence and that is the point: to state a position without having to back up the assertions. If a person agrees with him that Jim is stupid, they both can be in collusion and feel superior, for they have found a scapegoat in Jim and merit is never a part of the eqaution in situations like these.
We find this a lot with the statements of feminists; they will accuse men of every evil imaginable and by doing so, claim a moral high ground by doing no more than pointing an accusing finger at others. When feminists accuse men of being immoral, it is a good way to take the spotlight off of their dating drug dealers and having multiple abortions. Their criticism is largely a pre-emptive move against any criticism they may encounter themselves. Feminists have appointed themselves watchdog over men and thus have implied authority. If men question feminism, they have to go against an authoritarian structure that is largely false.
If I point out a defect in you, I have not really proved anything about my own ability, but I have claimed an authoritarian position by default. While you begin to state a defense, you forget that my argument was based on presupposition to begin with.
The problem feminists have is that if they begin to look at the world more realistically, without the male bogeyman, they may have to look at themselves a little more honestly. If it turns out the dragon was an illusion, claims of being the dragonslayer and the rewards that come with it go out the window.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)