You are on page 1of 40

Letter from the Editor:

Welcome to the very first issue of MenZ magazine. Why the change from our previous iteration? Well, frankly we just didn't see the need to limit ourselves to one subset of society. The concerns we have are Universal, and don't only apply to those of us who live and breathe this stuff. So, onward and (hopefully) upward we go! What have we got in store for you this time? Well, if MRm! Issue 6 was a pistol, this inaugural issue of MenZ could be considered a double-barrel shotgun. Yup, the gloves are coming off, and as you will see inside, this means addressing some pretty taboo subjects. But I don't want to give too much away. As time goes on the growth of this magazine, and indeed the Mens Movement itself, is making it obvious that one man is not enough to do this for much longer. So, I am putting out a call for help. Don't worry, it's easy stuff. I won't go into it here though. Suffice it to say, I would like some emails from people (hint hint). We also welcome Paul Elam to the masthead in the role of Contributing Editor. In addition to being the Editor of MND, and his own site A Voice For Men, Paul does some excellent videos that I highly recommend. Since Paul and I seem to share views on the Mens Movement, and the future, the fit has been quite natural. I look forward to working with him more in future. So, without further ado, I present Issue 1 of MenZ Magazine. I hope you like it.

Everyone lives through History

In This Issue:

6 8 10 16 20 22 34 36 30


What's Twisting the Sisters? Why Women Choose Thugs

You think your Son Just Recently Became Second Class?

Common Pickup mistakes Men Make This Date in History: Lorena Bobbitt End Game The Beginning Book Review: "Knights Without Armor"
Addressing "Good Christian Women"


Cover Illustration: Diane Blackwell's "Woman on Bondage Cross" slightly modified (Wikimedia).

This magazine exists as a collection of blog posts considered compelling enough for publication here. The articles contained in this magazine are solely the views held by the author, and are written as opinion pieces only. Every effort is made to cite the original source, as all of the articles included in this collection are available in their original form online. All contributions, including the design and editing of this magazine, are provided on a volunteer basis. If you, or someone you know, would like to contribute their talents, please, let us know.

Explaining Online Dating Profiles of Women...

No players I am attracted to players.

No games No man who plays better games than me.

No drama I am a drama queen and dont need the competition

Looking for a good/nice guy Still looking for an alpha but might accept a beta if hes affluent enough Prince Charming/Knight in shining armor wanted hopeless romantic and borderline gold digger. Make me laugh Keep me entertained as my personal court jester. Shopping as a hobby gold digger My partying days are over 30something former party girl with a bad case of baby rabies Real Man Wanted she likes the BadBoys

Where are all the real men/nice guys? worst of the worst shes a former party girl, current gold digger, and incapable of understanding that her dating net worth is lousy. Im a real woman Im fat with a bad attitude Friends first/looking for my best friend I want the option to reject you first or put you in the FriendZone while I date other guys Family is important to me my kids, my parents, my aunts and uncles and cousins, my very distant and neverseen relatives will always come before you Zammo

Just yesterday, a man died in Brisbane, Australia. He self immolated, reportedly after going through the family court system. Let me repeat that. After experiencing the family court in Australia, the man doused himself with gasoline and set himself afire, resulting in 3rd degree burns to over 90% of his body. The scene was apparently so disturbing that the local police who responded would not comment on what they saw. There is something else that was set afire in the aftermath of this tragedy. The facts, and the main one being that this type of death only really disturbs those who have it shoved in their face as an occupational hazard.

After searching through several online news accounts of what happened, most of them reported that he was a 39 year old man who had received a bad outcome in the family court (imagine that). Two of them said he was 60 years old, and one of those said his suicide was unrelated to the family court. What none of them even attempted to do was tell us this mans story. Not of his life, and not really of his death, save the headline value of such gruesome business. For underneath the headline, we learned more about his burning body for the traffic problems it caused than for why he set himself on fire in the first place. There was one story, the one that quoted an unnamed police as source saying the event

had nothing to do with court proceedings, also said that he was mentally ill.

As usual with the mainstream media, it is headlines first, facts a distant second. So we may never know what happened or why. But it would be hard to argue against the possibility of an impaired mental state in anyone who would choose death, especially in such a horrifying and painful manner. The problem here is that with men, that emotional dysfunction is not a reason to ask more questions, but the main reason to quit asking questions at all. He was mentally ill, end of story. Such was also the case of 26 year old Daniel Shaull, who died Wednesday after setting himself on fire in front of a fur store in Portland, Oregon. Of course, he was mentally ill, as well. We neednt bother with exploring that any more. And that is what it is like for men lost for a million unknown reasons.

They were crazy; they were impediments to traffic; they were less column space than your average classified ad. They were just more dead men. And as we live in a culture that has men committing suicide at epidemic rates in much less newsworthy fashion, we can, at least in this corner of the manosphere, take pause to wonder:

What would the reaction be if women were lighting themselves up in the streets? Perhaps those that continue to deny that the world is woman centered will answer that one. But of course I have an answer of my own. I wonder if that fact that the world actually cares about the lives of women has anything to do with the fact that they are so much less likely to kill themselves? Nah, that can't be it. Right?

Paul Elam

Everyone Lives through history, We Just dont Realize It

by: Zed

until we have.

These are exciting times for men.

I know that statement will cause some people to snort and roll their eyes and start to think of all kinds of reasons that it is just plain crazy. There is a lot of gloom and doom being circulated about men and boys these days The Decline of Males, The End of Men, the cackling of the pecking hens that men are obsolete because some scientist has claimed to be able to produce sperm in a lab. Most of it comes from the necrotic husk of the hasbeen lamestream media. Too much of it comes from men themselves. I dont buy it any of it. I think Im the oldest contributor here. I have lived through what many of the contributors here (and probably most of the readers) view as history and know of only through the same manner that they know of Ancient Greece, or the World Wars of the 20th century from something they read or someone told them. The 1960s may not seem as remote as an ancient civilization, but from the perspective of a participant observer, I can tell you that a lot of what has been said and is being said about life 50 years ago is 190 proof horse manure. Mens lives in the 1950s and before were not all about the much mythologized male power and privilege, nor were woman anywhere near as oppressed as has been claimed. History is always revisionist, and the revision is always done by the victor. In considering the 2nd half of the 20th century, the ideology of feminism was clearly the victor.

But, other than the ability to dictate how things are spoken about, and what things can be said and what cant, what did they win. I think the real answer turns out to be nothing, except perhaps the booby prize. See, mens lives for most of history have been not about power and privilege, but rather about bone crushing and soul destroying work, huge responsibilities, and disposability.

and pursuing having it all both in absolute terms, and relative to men. At the same time, mens happiness has increased both in absolute terms and relative to women. Now, let me say that again, and really let it sink in men today are happier than men were 40 years ago, and women are less happy. Lots of people have analyzed the hows and whys of that to the level of terminal boredom, but that one simple fact stands alone men today, on the average and in the aggregate, are happier than their fathers and grandfathers were.

There has been much buzz about the internet recently about the finding that womens happiness has actually declined during the past 40 years that they have been winning, becoming liberated,


Well, its really pretty simple mens lives today are simply better than the lives their fathers, and grandfathers, and greatgrandfathers, and all the men in history who lived and died before them. Life for men, in general, has never been better. What??!?! you say. How could that be?!!?! Its just not so! The feminists have told me!

One of the better musical poets of my generation, Bruce Springsteen, summed up very well what the lives of average men used to be like not very long ago, in his powerful song, The River.
I come from down in the valley where mister when youre young They bring you up to do like your daddy done.

acceptance at all, he damn well better be wealthy. Well, fast forward 50 years and we find that men have far more freedom and flexibility than any group of men has ever had in the history of the world. They can now choose to be husbands, and/or fathers, or anything else, and the social pressure and stigma which used to force the vast majority of men into early marriage (and often early graves) and the role of a specialized beast of burden bred for the specific purpose of dragging around an emotionally and financially dependent wife and family is simply no longer there.

how women really end up liking them once they do. But, for the rest of us, who have never had any desire to be women, we now have the opportunity to completely define for ourselves what sort of masculinity will serve us, and those we love, best in the coming years. We men, right now, are living through history. To most of us, it just seems like our lives. But, as time passes our lives of today will become our context of tomorrow. And, our choices of today will shape the world that we and our children will live in tomorrow. And, in far less time than they can imagine, young men of today will have become the older generation of tomorrow and find to their surprise that those who came after them are now judging them based on the present they created for those next generations.

Mens lives were incredibly constrained. What your daddy done was most likely what you would end up doing, and your son, and his son. For the college educated and middle class, this usually took the form of some sort of business, mercantile, management, or professional white collar job. For the working class, it meant

Certainly, some men might wish to continue to choose those roles for their lives. And the social Luddites, who fear and resist change, may want to try to keep men trapped in those old roles. But, as womens roles have changed, the system which gave men only one set of choices has changed whether people wanted it to or not. Men may choose to be husbands and fathers. Or not. They can choose to be travelers, or explorers, or scholars, or Xbox players. Or not. They can be househusbands, assuming they can find a breadwinning wife and are willing to deal with the residual social stigma toward a man who does not live up to the traditional roles. But, women have blazed the way in breaking down those old roles and in their place have left men a world of opportunities limited only by their own imaginations. The real challenges confronting men these days are the topics Novaseeker and Prime have recently written about defining core masculine values by which men define themselves. For too long men have been allowing women to define us either in the negative, by giving a us a list of things they dont like about us, or by demanding that we become more like them. Some men are comfortable with becoming more like women, and we will see

Then I got Mary pregnant and man that was all she wrote And for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat

A white collar boy/man might marry Sally instead of Mary, and a get clerkship in his fathers law office instead of a union card, but both classes of men had their life script handed to them about the end of their teens. And, all classes of men were expected to spend the vast majority of their waking lives working for someone else in order to live up to the protector/provider role which was most mens alternative to being social nonentities. In those days, the only roles which gave men any social validity at all were husband, father, and wealthy man. In order for a single man to have any social

Instead of watching our feet, and looking behind us, and castigating the boomers for their mistakes, our best future lies in reclaiming our authenticity from those aspects of the culture which have become toxic. We need to do what the younger men here have started to do and realize that we no longer have sustainable values handed to us as previous generations of men did and that we must now create them. We can seize the day and take the best from the past ideals of masculinity, reclaim them from the dishonor which has fallen on them, and at the same time shed the worst aspects which have been the source of much of that dishonor. More than at any other time in history, we have the ability to define not just our own presents, but our futures and the futures of those we care about. Yes, indeed, these are exciting times for men.

We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.

What's twisting the sisters?

by: Mark Richardson

From the website of an Australian feminist (Kate) we learn that:

Some feminists do actually hate men. And if you're a man I think you just need to accept that.

So here is a feminist admitting that she belongs to what these days is termed a hate group (a hate movement?) and that the targets of this hatred should casually accept the situation. What kind of a response did this get from her feminist sisters? The feedback was as follows:
Ariel: Bloody brilliant! Mindy: Keep up the good work Kate. Cristy: Great post Kate. Dogpossum: sentiments. I applaud the

subordination of women. There is no natural masculinity or femininity to explain the differing roles and behaviour of men and women. This too is a creation of the patriarchy designed to subordinate women, and must therefore be overthrown. Imagine what it would be like to be a heterosexual woman who believed in this theory. You would be attracted sexually to the very group who were your oppressors. You would also have to question the expression of your own feminine identity. Talk about being conflicted! Little wonder that "dogpossum" declares in the comments that:

Feminists have not been left as powerless oppressed women within a patriarchy. Quite the opposite, in fact. Ever since the mid1800s, feminists have been granted a great deal of power in Western societies. In Australia, feminists have secured a special office to help shape government policy; they have had university faculties established for them; they have been helped into political positions via a quota system within the ALP; and they have been helped into positions of influence in the professions via affirmative action policies. In the 1980s and 90s, as many of us will recall, feminists were powerful enough to establish their own views as politically correct.

Sometimes I think it would be easier to just become a lesbian separatist, and hate men.

Janet: Right on, sister. Lizzy: This is a fantastic post.

What could possibly twist the minds of these women so much that they would applaud an article which so casually discusses a feminist hatred of men? It's notable that many of these women unquestioningly accept the ideas of patriarchy theory.

The influence of patriarchy theory runs right through Kate's article. For instance, she justifies feminists hating men on the basis that it's harmless, as women like herself are powerless within a patriarchal system:

The fact that feminists have been so readily promoted within the power structure means not only that patriarchy theory itself is wrong, but that a feminist hatred of men is not to be taken lightly. Kate also tries to justify a feminist hatred of men on the grounds that women are callously victimised within a patriarchal system. She writes that she is a manhater in a world:

Patriarchy theory claims that society is organised on the basis of power and domination. Men are the dominant class and all aspects of society are designed to secure the

Even if I do hate men, so what? Do I have the power to do anything with my hypothetical burning hatred of human beings with penises? Nope ... I am a Man Hater, in a world where the institutions of power favour the XY chromosome.

The problem is that reality doesn't fit the theory.

where women are regularly raped and abused and murdered, where child abuse is rampant, and where my gender guarantees I'll make less money than a male colleague.

Again, this fits the theory of

patriarchy well (as it reinforces the idea of women as a subjugated class), but not reality. In the comments to her article, I pointed out that it's actually men who are more likely than women to be victims of violence and that women are more likely than men to abuse children.

inscribed set of ideals" rather than as a true expression of men's nature. But once again there are problems. First, science has now confirmed that gender is not just a social construct but is hardwired into human biology. So Kate is forced to complicate matters by adding on as a kind of postscript that:

sew pink clothes for her daughter. Janet, in fact, runs one website about her passion for laundry and another about her love for motherhood, her daughter, flowers, gardens and sewing.

There was much resistance to accepting these facts. I was told I was ignorant, incorrect, dishonest and a poor role model for men. But when I linked to some persuasive evidence the counter argument changed. It was accepted that women did in fact abuse children more often than men, but this too was blamed on the patriarchy (for "making" women spend more time with children than men). Here again you see the concern to fit reality into the theory rather than the other way around. Finally, Kate tells us that she doesn't really hate men, but just masculinity:

I'm not a complete moron and I do think there are differences in male and female behaviour that come down to chromosomes and hormones and suchlike.

So we have this very odd situation. The feminists who are adamant in theory that there is no essential masculinity and femininity are in practice the best living proof of the existence of essential gender differences between men and women. Heterosexual feminists have done themselves a disservice in accepting patriarchy theory so uncritically. It is a theory which can only leave such women deeply conflicted. Patriarchy theory leaves women with a conflicted view of men as being loving fathers, husbands and sons but also a hateful enemy who subjugate women in every facet of their lives.

So Kate is running with two competing views: first, that masculinity is simply a "performance" and, second, that masculinity has a natural basis in human biology.

You see, I don't really hate you, if you're a man. If I criticise 'masculinity' I'm not being critical of you as an individual ... I'm being critical of an idea, a performance, a culturally inscribed set of ideals about how 'men' should behave.

There are other tensions produced by the patriarchy theory view of gender. On the one hand, women like Kate are duty bound to reject both masculinity and femininity as pillars of patriarchal dominance.

But where does this leave a heterosexual woman? How is she then to secure a sense of her own feminine identity and her attractiveness to men? It seems to me that the more that such feminist women reject femininity in theory, the more that they attempt to bolster it in practice. How else can you explain the feminist craze for the most feminine of interests, such as knitting, sewing, decorating, flowers and kittens. Kate herself lists her primary interest as knitting; Mindy makes quilts; Laura likes baking and kittens; and Janet likes to

Once again, this fits in neatly with patriarchy theory. Patriarchy theory explains the traditional male role in society as being a result of an oppressive, illegitimate power system and not as a natural expression of masculine drives. So Kate is being perfectly orthodox in her feminism when she describes masculinity negatively as a mere "performance" or "culturally

It leads feminist women to see themselves as hardpressed, powerless victims at a time when feminists hold considerable power within the institutions of society. It puts feminists who view gender difference primarily as a social construct on a collision course with modern science. And it creates a powerful conflict between the rejection of femininity as a tool of patriarchal domination and the expression by feminist women of their own feminine identity. If feminist women suffer it is not at the hands of hard working, masculine men but more as a consequence of what their own theory imposes on them.


by: Codebuster

Lets be clear about two things:

(DANIEL BERGNER Published: January 22, 2009)

1)The New York Times poses the question, "What do women want?" 2)Feminists do not want you to know this (duh!). Indeed, at this early stage, evidence seems to suggest that not only do they not want you to know this, but they will implement measures in direct contravention of their cherished free speech traditions to ensure that you are denied the right to know this. We should expect the topic of womens rape fantasies to become the new taboo. But I digress.

as the word that best encapsulates this dimension.

It is nothing new or controversial to suggest that violation features in pornography for example Frontline hosted a program called "American Porn" the violation to which one star was subjected was not entirely scripted, nor against her will. What is perhaps more controversial was her willing complicity.

everything going for them partner up with idiots, only become the trash that they chose, and Ive seen women with nothing going for them hit the jackpot by way of a wealthy fool to become entitlement princesses.

Weve covered the topic of rape fantasies before on The Spearhead, so we really dont need to revisit it in detail. Suffice it to say that I and the rest of us at The Spearhead abhor and reject the idea of rape. It is true to say that just because a woman fantasizes about being raped does not mean that she wants to be raped. Most of us will have no problem with respecting such basic rights and we would not wish to deny any woman the freedom to walk the streets unhindered. However, we must face the likelihood that womens inclinations to fantasize about rape must surely predispose them to making certain kinds of choices, whether its the way that they dress or the men that they choose. Womens rape fantasies speak to the way that women actualize their realities. What word should we use to describe this dimension of female sexuality? In her Diary II, Anais Nin made the comment, To be violated is perhaps a need in a woman, a secret erotic need. It would seem appropriate to nominate violation

Violation, then, is integral to female sexuality, and it manifests itself along a continuum. A woman fantasizes about having her prissy, porcelain niceness violated. Of course there are different contexts, but in terms of primal drives, violation is its essence. The practical implications womens rape fantasies of

At one end of the scale is the rough stuff. Its why women have rape fantasies. At the other end of the scale is intimacy. Its why women fall in love and why they long to share their sexuality with someone to whom they are loyal. Female sexuality applies to all women, and they make their choices along this violation continuum. There are several implications: 1) Every woman has within her the potential to betray and to like the rough stuff. Every woman has within her the potential to be loyal and to like the intimacy. Clearly it dishonours a man to betray loyalty but it also dishonours him to harm even those who willingly so submit;

Of course men also change with the choices they make but by and large, men seem to be more in control of their destinies than women do. My point? Theres complicated stuff going on, quite profound actually. The only thing that I can assert with any amount of certainty is that women dont understand either women or men anywhere near to the same depth that men do. What women interpret as empathy has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding people and everything to do with diplomacy and social engagement; 3) Important to understanding women is their reliance on superficial labels. Women dont apprehend depth. They dont have to its one of the costs of living lives of entitlement. Contrast this with men who, like our Game specialists, expend considerable effort in understanding what makes people tick. No such demands are placed on women; 4) Im thinking of a friends daughter as I write this, 17 years old, and her boyfriend. Why do girls from solid backgrounds choose annoying, characterless twerps to impact on their destinies? Think label. Adolescent males with adolescent priorities, leaving school early to enter the workforce, have their labels sorted out. Of course their labels are shortterm and transient, but young, impressionable girls relying on peer acceptance dont see this.


2)Ive seen fine, loyal women whove had everything going for them become sluts and Ive seen sluts become loyal and loving partners. Ive seen women who have had

having the faintest notion of what he stands for or what he is. But if he comes across as too safe, if she cannot respect (fear) him, hell become invisible to her as just another niceguy. Hell become just another piece of that vague, amorphous mass of betahood, another piece of the furniture. This interface between thrill and fear presents to the seasoned PUA a fine balancingact that calls upon all his skills in psychology, deception, confidence and charm; 8) A sense of humor (SOH) means different things to men and women. Women construct elaborate plans for what they want. They have the word agenda etched indelibly into their foreheads. They take themselves too seriously. There is no onus on women to have an SOH. In fact, to be honest, left to their own devices, Id have to say that women dont have an SOH. Not really. Sure, they laugh when you bring your SOH into play, but the humor is rarely initiated by women. The reason that it is important for a man to have an SOH is that he has to disarm a woman. He has to unspook her, to make her forget her agenda. He has to be able to make her laugh at herself, to make her realize what a silly dork she is with all the big problems and dramas that clutter her life. Thats why teasing works so well. Its about saving women from prissy

uptightness and drama;

What do I mean by label? Its the badge, what they stand for, lifestyle drugs, adolescent fashion statements, maybe as leader of a pack, or maybe as belonging to the right pack or peer group. It all comes down to label. This is the stuff of impulse;

9) Badboys are more likely to initiate, and this simple fact swings the statistical outcome in their favour. Most men learn fairly early on in life that if you hesitate, opportunities will pass you by. Women dont have to confront the ramifications of this basic dynamic and it is another manifestation of their lives of entitlement that precludes them from having to take responsibility for their dumb choices; 10) Game theorist David DeAngelo observes that Most men fail miserably when it comes to online dating. I disagree with David on this. Its women that fail miserably when it comes to online dating. They dont have a clue, they jump to conclusions on the basis of limited information. In one sense, we cant blame women because they have to somehow sort through the large numbers of men that are available. But in another important sense, women are essentially incapable of making astute judgements in the way that men can. And they multiply their ineptitude with their vacuous shoppinglists of requirements that bear no relationship to the Game techniques that can ultimately snare a date on this latter point, we can definitely agree with David. You can virtually ignore what a woman states in her profile, and

5) Men typically get their thrills from risk for example, extreme sports, exciting business transactions, and so on. Women also get their thrills from risk. But where sports or business negotiations are of little interest to them, women get their thrills from risky sex. Its the thrill of the forbidden. 6) Nice guys dont do the rough stuff, and raunchy sex with a nice guy is a contradiction in terms. Thats why casual sex with a nice guy doesnt do it for women. Thats why a woman being pumped by a niceguy is much more likely to want to get it over with, and she has to restrain herself from blurting out arent you done yet? 7) Only thugs or badboys can deliver on the rape fantasy. The most successful PUAs are the ones that can manage that fine line between thrill and fear. If a man spooks a woman and fails to appease her fears, shell jump to conclusions and dump him without

you will have much better luck, instead, snaring her with a bit of Game; 11) Women realize, at some fundamental level, that they cannot compete with men on an intellectual basis. Try as they might to deny it. Women have serious esteem issues that are very different to mens. Where men typically test themselves against realitys slings and arrows, women test themselves against the opinions of others (recommended keyword search relational aggression social proof). One of the consequences of womens fragile selfesteem is the Groucho Marks syndrome I dont want to belong to any club that would have me as a member. Thats why many women are inclined to submit to the thugs that assert themselves. If he doesnt respect her, it is clear to her that he has the superior status that she values in a man; 12) Within the context of male female interactions, a niceguy can make an ideal marriage partner, whose provider status can ensure a steady income for the rest of a womans life. Nice guys dont make demands, they pedestalize their wives, and they

embrace their provider roles without complaining. But a nice guy beta is never ever sexy, he never stirs the violation instincts of anyone. He is only ever useful as an agent of materialism;

Source: Portugalpictures via Wikimedia

shell of frigid denial;

13) Women are more inclined to assume things than to question them. They are more likely to jump to conclusions about things, such as peoples intentions. Its an extension of the mindset that relies on labels. Women dont have their delusions tested. Reality changes things and a bit of rough stuff can have the effect either of awakening a thrill that a woman never knew existed, or compelling her to retreat into a

14) How can we know this stuff? You cant ask a woman directly, not so much because shell lie about it (though yes, they will lie), but more because she wont understand your reference point, she has no way of expressing her experience from a perspective that means something to you.

You have to pretty much infer this stuff from a lot of observation, listening to women talk, and reading between the lines. You have to imagine how you yourself would alter your thinking if you were limited to a life of providedfor entitlement.


Lone Nut The Thought Crime Comic

course within the violation continuum, there are shades of gray and complex reasons that are factored into why women choose the men they do. But the point that I make here is that casual sex, at one end of the continuum, receives its motivations from instincts that are alien to what most men assume. Men have to come to terms with the nature of female sexuality and its relationship to violation and the forbidden. There is a direct relationship between violation, rape, female arousal and love. There is no such thing as nice violation. The rough stuff, at its most primal level, requires a thug. By contrast, love requires an archetype that is discouraged within the Anglosphere, wherein alphas or at least paper alphas go some way to filling the void. Niceguys might make reliable providers, but they cannot be associated with respect, and they dont fall into either camp. They are just useful drones, as expendable as cannonfodder in the battles instigated and headed by alphas. ADDENDUM (Paul Elam):

I think the primary problem with most men is that, unlike what Codebuster said in this fine article, they completely fail to understand their own nature and the nature of women. Very few women ever rise above their hypergamous programming. The normal state for women is not governed by the same values that men adopted to become good protectors and providers, and to function within male hierarchy. The normal state for women is acquire as much sexual power over men as possible, at any cost. Men and women as a whole are

Reading novels by women helps, because it can shed light on what they value and fantasize about. Reading philosophy by men helps, because philosophy concerns itself with probing analysis, and how it is that reality is perceived the way it is. Probing analysis is

:Source: Morgan Sherwood via Wikimedia

just not what women do.

The bottom line? The reason that women choose thugs is not a mirage. Its not a product of arbitrary statistical processes. There are very specific reasons why women choose thugs. Of


Source: Jere Keys via Wikimedia

clueless about each other, and the only time they succeed at relationships that are not forced to be maintained with social and legal pressures, is when they are bound by some sort of mutual benefit that outweighs moving on. That part is particularly true of women.

violent rape fantasies, many of them fantasizing about being gang raped.

Women fantasize about rape for two main reasons, IMO. The primary of which is that rape is power and women are attracted to powerful men. I cant even remember how many women have told me that are excited by the idea of their man just taking it. I have spoken with other women who admitted to very

It is real simple. Men who can take what they want can protect and provide. And this makes the fantasy of a man taking what he wants such a core factor in the average female psyche. This gets women going much like killers and thugs. Another extension of this playing into rape fantasies is just plain old female narcissism. Women draw a good deal of self esteem and identity from being sexually attractive. And the idea of being so attractive as to cause a

powerful man to lose control, is like the ultimate validation of her sexual viability; an ultimate reflection of her power. And to have that sort of power over a group of men is even better. Yes, you are reading me right. Womens rape fantasies are fantasies that empower them as women.

If a woman is so sexually alluring that she can cause men to lose control and break all social rules and personal values to select her to receive his seed, then that makes her an prime real estate in the world of hypergamy.

You think your son just recently became a secondclass citizen at school? Think again
by: Archivist
Robert Topp, dean of the college of education at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, said schools discriminate against boys from kindergarten through high school because they penalize them for nothing more than "masculine tendencies." This discrimination results in more girls than boys being eligible for college and boys being given lower grades than they deserve. The trouble with boys, Dr. Topp said, is that they are boys. They don't readily conform, they are restless and squirm more, they are more aggressive and daring, and don't easily catch onto the "social niceties." The classroom setting, on the other hand, places a premium on traits that girls, not boys, exhibit, namely docility and conformity. Dr. Topp wondered if the traits that hurt boys in the classroom actually fortify them for life later, and he said that to prevent boys from being feminized, schools need to place less premium on "girl" traits, such as docility and conformity and start rewarding students more for creativity and extraverbal skills. about it. It is also fair to say that even today, despite its incontrovertible truths, most educators don't fully buy into it, if they buy into at all, and most of the ones who do buy into it don't care all that much about it. You see, the "boy problem" doesn't fit their preferred metanarrative. The fact is, our sons have been secondclass citizens at school, by most standards, for as long as anyone can remember, and hardly anyone has ever given a damn. Every one of the subjects in this post could have entire books written about them, and we mention them by way of illustration only. Take corporal punishment. It's now banned in most school districts in America, but as recently as the 1970s, it was very common. Care to guess whether it was applied equally to boys and girls? In fact, many school districts expressly forbade spanking girls. Boys, on the other hand, were fair game. In 1973, for example, California school boys were spanked 37,594 times. California school girls were spanked 2,146 times. Does that mean boys were 18 times more deserving of corporal punishment than their females peers? Thirtyseven years ago, writer Bethia Caffery wrote in the St. Petersburg Evening Independent that it was "unfair" to boys that Pinellas County school girls may not be spanked but it was OK to spank the boys. She hoped that "some group of [boys] will

organize and protest to the school board."

Sure. The boys should organize. I mean, remember all those protests about unfair treatment to boys? Neither do I. That's because boys rarely ever protest unequal treatment that penalizes them for being boys. When they do, they generally are ignored. In Seattle Washington in 1978, the federal governement did crack down on boys being subjected to corporal punishment far more than girls, but it wasn't because of a "boy protest." A female registered nurse blew the whistle on the unequal treatment.


Dr. Topp's analysis is deadon. But does it surprise you to know that Dr. Topp wrote this analysis in a newspaper article that appeared December 3, 1961? The fact that this piece is just as valid today, almost fifty years later, sadly indicates that the "boy" problem isn't some recent phenomenon. It is fair to say that the problem wasn't new even when Dr. Topp wrote

Innumerable school rules have historically placed restrictions on boys that didn't apply to girls. No facial hair (what would be the reaction if girls were told they had to shave a part of their bodies?). Boys must tuck in their shirts. No hair for boys below a certain point. No earings. On and on and on. But historically, when boys complained about unequal treatment, they were treated either as freaks or whiners (boys who protested rules that dictated boys', but not girls', hair length in the 70s were often treated with ridicule and harassment). More often, the unequal treatment of boys has been defended with rationales that are less than persuasive and sometimes downright comical. In 1990, not exactly ancient history, a Toledo boy was

separated from his classmate because he wore something only girls were permitted to wear: a ponytail. He and his parents said the school's dress code discriminated against boys. The school superintendent defended the school's action with a logic that is so breathtaking, it should be studied in law schools everywhere: "The question is not a kid with a ponytail," he clucked. "The question is can a school district allow a student to willfully and continuously disobey rules." (Little things, such as whether the rule is unjust or unconstitutional, are beside the point.)

boys had argued they should be allowed to dress just as comfortably as the girls, but that argument didn't cut it. Why? Listen to the Deputy Superintendent's rationale for why the boys' argument didn't prevail: "We don't want to create too casual an environment." (Read that quote again to let it sink in. Girls in de facto shorts, or even miniskirts, don't create "too casual an atmosphere." Boys wearing shorts do.)

manure. Into the '90s, "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" systematically excluded the boys before a lot of people realized that this was unfair to our sons and had no place in a modern society. The Ms. Foundation for Women continued to defend the discrimination, and in 1994, its spokeswoman Nell Merlino, parroted a once common feminist mantra that is, in fact, so ludicrous that today, even feminists have difficulty saying it with a straight face: "People don't appreciate that girls need a special level of encouragement. . . . . We know from the research when boys and girls are together, particularly in this [915] age group, boys get more attention." (Right, Ms. Merlino. For one thing, boys are subjected to corporal punishment 18 times more often than girls.) Mostly, boys were told to suck it up and take it like a little man. Take gym class. Most of us know that boys almost always showered in a communal setting where there was no privacy. (Because, of course, no boy cares at all about modesty.) This, presumably, was supposed to prepare them for military life, something their female peers didn't have to worry about. The boys forced to shower together were often experiencing the effects of puberty at wildly divergent times, with all the accompanying trauma for the guys lagging behind. The girls, of course, were afforded shower compartments to protect their modesty. Worse, some younger readers might find it bizarre that it was common for boys, but very rarely girls, to be forced to swim in the nude in gym class. Back in the '40s, one Detroit

In 1989, when a Lakeland, Florida teen argued that the school district's dress code discriminates against boys because it allows girls to wear culottes (divided skirts that look like baggy pants) but prevented boys from wearing shorts, the young man's argument was dismissed out of hand. The Deputy Superintendent said he'd heard the same argument in the 60s when girls were allowed to wear miniskirts. The

In 1997, the Texas Supreme Court had no problem with rules that governed boys', but not girls', hair length: ``The requirement that males wear their hair no longer than a certain length may be out of step with the social norms of the moment, but it does not deprive male students of an equal opportunity to receive an education or to participate in school functions,'' Justice Priscilla Owen wrote. (Um, but is it fair, Justice Owen?) Sometimes, the rationales for disparate treatment were the legal equivalent of horse

school district came under fire fire from mothers when both boys and girls were forced to swim nude in their separate gym classes. Can you guess which gender the mothers complained about? The girls, of course. "Personally I see no reason for girls at these schools going swimming in the nude," said one mother in the Jan. 16, 1947 SpokesmanReview. "It is just going to lower their moral standards and get them off on the wrong foot." Another woman said: "We are all alarmed about this freedom the girls have been given. There is no telling what it could lead to and we want it stopped at once."

thing adult guys do when they get together is show each other their penises. Thank goodness they forced us to swim naked when we were 14.) When parents finally got around to complaining to school boards about the immodesty of boys swimming nude in the 70s, one Duluth

As for the boys swimming nude? For a long time, no one cared. If adults had asked the boys, in confidence at least, they would have learned that a fair number of them were traumatized by it. The whole delayed puberty thing and the phenomenon of unwanted erections hey, too bad for the boys. The feeling was, "real" boys suck it up and swim in the nude. When a parent wrote to Dear Abby in 1968 complaining because her 14 yearold son was told he would have to swim in the nude and the boy felt uncomfortable, Abby showed little of the warmth and sensitivity many associate with her today: "[H]e had better overcome his shyness about nudity in the presence of other boys," she lectured, "or he is apt to be uncomfortable much of his life." (Right. Because the first

school board member couldn't understand why all the fuss. After all, he said, the boys "still will gang shower in the nude." ("Gang shower" sounds lovely.) Because, of course, giving the boys separate shower compartments was out of the question. As for school sports, well, entire books are written about unequal gender treatment in school sports. When the federal government decided that girls had been historically deprived of their rightful opportunities to participate in sports, girls were permitted to try out for boys teams, even though this took spots away from the boys. Boys, however, typically were not permitted to

try out for girls teams. The law in this area is complex and while it is possible today, in some circumstances, for boys to play on girls' teams, legally, it is more difficult for a boy to play on a girls' team than vice versa. This is so because, in sports, as elsewhere, the law doesn't care as much about the harm to an individual boy as it cares about the rights of girls as a class. "It is the class of girls, not boys, with whom the government seeks to redress past discrimination and promote equality. It is girls, not boys, who have suffered and continue to suffer from discrimination and inequalities in athletics. . . . [C]ourts in ERA states and federal courts supporting EPC protections have found that protecting the participation rights of girls as a previously discriminated against 'class' outweigh the rights of an 'individual' boy to play on a girls team." See here.

And there you have it. Under the guise of historical inequality, secondclass treatment for boys has been given a judicial imprimatur. Oh, well, at least when it comes to sports, the government went to the trouble of manufacturing a rationale. Historically, boys' secondclass treatment in school has been regarded as "just the way it is."


The "KafkaTrap"
In Franz Kafka's novel "The Trial", the main character is on trial for crimes that are never specified, where the only way 'out' is to acquiesce to his own destruction, and where the process is designed to humiliate, degrade, and destroy him regardless of whether a crime has been committed at all. Some may say, in striking resemblance to our current legal system. There are several circular, almost nonsensical arguments being used today to produce a generalized guilt on certain subjects, allowing the manipulation of the subject into compliance with the operator's wishes. In similar fashion to the methods employed in "The Trial. These arguments have been appropriately termed "Kafkatraps", and we offer you a working definition here. For the purpose of brevity, any and all isms (sexism, racism, etc) are denoted *.ism:

Model 'A': "Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of *.ism confirms that you are guilty of *.ism" This most obvious of Kafkatraps is also the most easily dismissed. Simply laughing should suffice. Model 'C': Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of *.ism, you are guilty because you have benefited from the *.ist behavior of others in the system. The subject of this attack must be prevented from noticing, or failing that, articulating, the fact that one cannot be held responsible for the actions of another free human being, let alone a whole group of them.

Model 'P': Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of *.ism, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the *.ist system. Model 'S': Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of *.ism, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt. For this to work, the subject must willingly selfcondemn, not based on their own actions, but on accepting the Kafkatrapper's assessment of their situation, and 'guilt by association'.

Those who would engage in activism, or simply want to find a better way to get out of accusatory 'conversations' effectively, should run, not walk, to: to continue their education.


by: Chateau


Picture two guys swapping complaints about the ratio of girls at the venue they're at. Little did they know, the two women they would eventually approach overheard their bitching. Lets get out of here. Theres nothing going on. There are no chicks. Then, on a dime, they switched on their happy faces when they noticed the girls and decided to hit on them. There are two problems with this seemingly innocuous behavior. One, bitching and moaning will infect the positive attitude you need to properly seduce women. Even if you are a pro at altering your demeanor to suit your company, the simple act of verbalizing a negative feeling can subtly influence your facial openness and attitude. Highly

feminine and intuitive girls can pick up on that.

Two, and more importantly, you dont want women youve yet to meet getting ringside seats to your dr. jekyll mr. hyde facade. File this under incongruency. When a woman overhears you complaining about the ratio (and more women can hear what you say in their proximity than you might imagine), and then gets introduced to your smiley, good times self, shes going to register the disconnect. Why start a pickup attempt unnecessarily handicapped? I suppose PUA gurus would call this being in state.

fatal error. Women do not like to argue (barring the exceptions that loiter this internet outpost). Women like to win arguments; they just dont like the process of arguing to achieve the satisfying win. Men argue because it is a natural part of our being as natural as farting loudly and laughing in triumph. So men tend to project their comfort with arguing onto the women with whom they interact. Remember, projection is a cognitive bias of both sexes, (though a more frequent failing of women.) Men may think that by arguing with women they are demonstrating alpha characteristics like masculinity, boldness, and assertiveness, but what women usually think of argumentative men is that they are annoying, bitter, and tinglekilling. Save the arguing


Men get argumentative. Why would you root for Uruguay and against your own country? This is often a



for ugly or otherwise undesirable bitches you arent trying to bed. Confuse Aggressiveness for Cockiness

offputting hubris is by leavening the insult with charm.

Leave in a Huff

Similar to the above, men have a bad habit of confusing malecentric aggression for femalecentric appreciation of cocky indifference. This is commonly referred to as the overplayed neg, and happens when one has crossed the threshold from seductive backhanded compliment to vajshriveling awkward insult.

When I was applying myself to learning game material, David DeAngelos Cocky/Funny series had a big impact on me. As he stressed, you cant have the cocky without the funny. The two go together to form a perfect union of seductive prowess. Cockiness alone conveys arrogance, the stink of the man trying too hard to impress or dominate. Funny alone is the province of the class clown, the entertainment monkey. But fuse them, and you have an attitude that is irresistible to women. Add a 10" cock and its game over, maaan, game oveeer!

The overplayed neg is the bane of game acolytes everywhere, and it is why so many newbies give up and turn against the only solution that can give them hope. Once the neg is mastered, though, a whole world of delights opens up. A better way to neg the women and display superiority without

Whats worse than getting rejected? Getting rejected and giving the girl the satisfaction of knowing her rejection got to you. I cant tell you how many men Ive observed get blown out and then leave the scene of the accident with a parting insult or a noticeable sulk in their body language. Why would you treat some random chick worth no more than a humid summer days condensation on a single short and curly to the pleasure of your petty meltdown? The best response to a rejection is no response. Say goodbye as if you were parting company with a gas station attendant. Maxim #45: Before sex, no girl you are attracted to is important enough to merit an emotional reaction should the pickup attempt turn bad.

This date in history:

by: Archivist

Lorena Bobbitt sliced off her husband's penis and exposed the politics of hate !

The mutilation of John Wayne Bobbitt by his wife, Lorena, on June 23, 1993, marks one of the most appalling and reprehensible chapters in modern Western gender relations. The story is well known: Lorena Bobbitt said her husband abused her over a prolonged period of time and that, on the night in question, he raped her. In a moment of what she claimed was temporary insanity, while her husband slept, she went to the kitchen of their apartment, grabbed a knife, returned to the bedroom, and proceeded to cut off most of his penis. She then hopped in her car, penis in hand, and drove away. As she sped by a field, she tossed the severed appendage out the window. The organ was later recovered and, miraculously, reattached to its owner. The Bobbitt affair was appalling and reprehensible, and not merely because of the gruesome act of mayhem that defined it. It was all the more despicable because of the unspeakable glee, the unbridled delight, and the inexplicable exultation expressed by feminists and large segments of the female population, who luxuriated in the vile mutilation of some lower class nobody, a man who had difficulty holding onto a job as a manual laborer. Feminists regarded the event as both a watershed moment in the battle of the sexes and a justifiable assault on maleness itself.

the incident, with de rigueur, mindless, knee jerk fidelity, women's organizations branded the perpetrator "the victim" and the victim "the perpetrator" strictly along gender lines, even though the alleged rape was "he said/she said," and even though there was no question that she mutilated him while he slept. This wasn't just a rush to judgment; it was a 60meter sprint, completed in record time. Before a single scrap of evidence was considered by a jury, for feminists and many women, the trial was over even before it had begun. They arrogated to any woman the right to exact the most gruesome vigilante justice on any "member" of any member of the opposite sex. The Bobbitt affair was feminist stardust wishfulness come true. John Bobbitt: False Rape Claim Victim

becomes fact, old cowboys and feminists alike insist on printing the legend. In the Bobbitt case, the legend quickly took hold that of course John Bobbitt raped his wife. The problem is, the facts don't support the legend. It seems more likely that John Bobbitt was the victim of not only a horrible bodily mutilation but also of a false rape claim.

The mutilation couldn't then, and can't now, be rationally justified on any level. It was not selfdefense. Ample evidence showed that both Mr. and Mrs. Bobbitt abused each other during their marriage. There is no evidence to believe anything stopped either one from leaving the other, and at the time of the maiming, they had been discussing divorce. By any measure, Mrs. Bobbitt's vigilante "justice" didn't fit the crime, even if Mr. Bobbitt had raped her earlier in the evening, as she claims. But did Mr. Bobbitt rape his wife? When the legend

Mrs. Bobbitt's version of the facts was the evolving narrative of a woman groping for victimhood. At the time of her arrest, according to the New York Times, she told police: "He always have orgasm and he doesn't wait for me to have orgasm. He's selfish. I don't think it's fair, so I pulled back the sheets then and I did it." That was the reason she gave for severing his penis. Later, however, she claimed she cut her husband in anger after he raped her, and she told a psychiatrist that she cut him "really fast." Later, at her own trial, she claimed she couldn't even remember doing it. "This was all contrived to strike back at him after he said he was going to leave her," said Mr. Bobbitt's counsel, Gregory L. Murphy. "She was acting out a fantasy that's in the psyche of many women." Mel Feit, executive director of the National Center for Men in Brooklyn, might have hit the nail on the head with his explanation for the mutilation. "This is the result of feminists teaching women that men are natural oppressors."


In the immediate aftermath of

As befits a case where the accuser's story is a moving target, at his trial for marital sexual abuse, John Bobbitt was acquitted. But that did nothing to end the misandry. Lorena Bobbitt: Feminist Hero From the outset, Lorena Bobbitt was widely regarded as a feminist hero. Time Magazine said there was a "ripple of glee that passed through the female population when Lorena Bobbitt struck back." Vanity Fair ran a sultry photo spread of Lorena Bobbitt and branded her a "national folk heroine."

'Way to go!'"

A woman wrote to the New York Times: "Prof. Catharine MacKinnon of the University of Michigan and the writer Andrea Dworkin long ago pointed to the institution of marriage as a legal cover for the act of rape and the permanent humiliation of women. Lorena Bobbitt's life has been a poignant instance of that nightmare, which elicited a bold and courageous act of feminist selfdefense. As one who recently returned from a conference of feminist activists in Europe, I can assure readers that the Lorena Bobbitt case has galvanized the women's movement worldwide in a way the Anita Hill case never did. No feminist is advocating emasculation as the weapon of first choice. And some women question the political prudence of 'sociosexual vigilantism.' But whatever the judgment of America's patriarchal legal system, Lorena Bobbitt is for most feminists no criminal. She is instead a symbol of innovative resistance against gender oppression everywhere." Another woman seemed to sum up the feelings of many women without the pretentious feminist patina: "Every woman I've talked to about this says,

A sexual assault counselor said she didn't condone the maiming but could "understand it," and "could sympathize." The severance of this 26yearold loser's penis somehow became, in the words of that sexual assault counselor, "a critical event in the history of women." Why? Because "violence is done to women continuously and pervasively. And this is a retaliatory act of great dramatic value . . . ." John Bobbitt's severed penis was a sacrificial offering for the collective guilt of all men on the altar of political correctness. The mainstream media was only too happy to mirror the feminist glee with barely any more restraint. Progressive writers (we called them "liberal" back then) dubbed the affair a "cautionary tale" for men. The lesson wasn't that mutilating another human being is never justified; the lesson was that men had better wise up when it comes to how they treat women or they'll rightly lose

their dicks. Female features writers couldn't bring themselves to outright applaud the mutilation but they went to great lengths to make clear that they were sympathetic to it. One columnist wrote: "Personally, I'm for both feminism and nonviolence. I admire the male body and prefer to find the penis attached to it rather than having to root around in vacant lots with Ziploc bag in hand. But I'm not willing to wait another decade or two for gender peace to prevail. And if a fellow insists on using his penis as a weapon, I say that, one way or another, he ought to be swiftly disarmed." A notsoveiled justification for mutilation, so long as the mutilation involves a penis, and premised on a thousand modernday Chicken Little fables and madeup stats that encourage young women to see sexual predation oozing from every male zipper.

Then there was celebrated columnist Ellen Goodman, Radcliffe grad and Pulitzer Prize winner, one of the darlings of

"The Revenge of Lorena Bobbitt" Sandow Birk

progressive feminism whose column appeared in hundreds newspapers across the nation and who, on the the entitlement and privilege scale, was a "ten" to John Bobbitt's "one." Ellen Goodman took time out from polishing the awards on her mantle to make this working class putz her personal piata. Ms. Goodman, of course, refused to come out and condone the mutilation, but she certainly could "explain," in a decidedly feminist way, both the mutilation and women's celebratory reaction to it. Ms. Goodman concluded that this story became a national sensation only because a woman finally fought back. "Last year," she declared without bothering to support her pronouncement with silly things like evidence, "the police blotter was full of abused and battered wives an almost unilateral massacre." (Because, you see, in 1993, women did not commit domestic violence. Even today, few progressive female writers accept the indisputable fact, proven beyond question, that women commit domestic violence in significant numbers against men, and other women.) Now, Ms. Goodman gushed, men "see a dangerous enemy where there was once a victim." And the men squirming at the thought of being Bobbittized? "If women smile at men who squirm, maybe it's at that recognition of power." Ms. Goodman's take on the matter, of course, proves one thing: even misandrists can win a Pulitzer Prize. To use the stilted, stickuptheir ass syntax of Women's Studies majors, trying ever so hard to convince everyone they are actually getting an education in those wretched classes, Ms. Bobbitt was the leveler of gendered power differentials. She was a feminist Batman,

without the codpiece. Never mind that none of the women applauding penile mutilation would applaud any other type of brutal vigilante justice for any other type of crime. Nothing a woman could do would ever justify mutilation of her breasts or vagina. Yet vigilante justice directed at the penis of some below average guy was heralded with a giddy "you go, girlfriend!" heard around the world. The fact that purportedly enlightened publications were quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, rooting for Mrs. Bobbitt even before a single fact was adjudicated or a scrap of evidence admitted at trial is nothing short of astounding, puzzling, and frightening, all at once. John Bobbitt Fit the Feminist Metanarrative as Oppressor of Women

point: the alleged gang rapes of black women by white men in the Tawana Brawley and Duke lacrosse cases. He might also have cited the Bobbitt affair. The Politics of Hate But some columnists couldn't accept that women in general embraced the feminist glee over the mutilation. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen explained why Mrs. Bobbitt was chosen as a feminist pinup girl: the mutilation, they believed, was "every woman's fantasy." The case gripped the media because, Ms. Charen lamented, "they [the media] really believe that most women feel that way deep down." But Ms. Charen recognized how utterly twisted all of it was: "If feminists are seething with such hatred for men, that is evidence of a politics bordering on pathology." She continued: "To see the mutilation of a man's body as a political act and to signal secret approval and a vicarious thrill . . . truly deserves the label 'the politics of hate.'" Charen found the nation's obsession with the mutilation "bizarre, abnormal and sexist to boot." It would be impossible to disagree with Ms. Charen's observation about reversing the genders: "If a woman were similarly wounded by a man, no one would treat it with ghoulish humor. Men are evidently fair game." The brilliant Charles Krauthammer, one of America's most respected political commentators, chimed in and noted that the hypothetical where the genders were reversed "would not have the weight of feminist rage behind it." Newsweek nailed it: "Just imagine what [feminists'] reaction would be if someone had tried to cut off a woman's breast. Feminists have a cuttingedge sense of

What was behind all this contempt, all this hatred for a runofthemill 26yearold man who, by any logical measure, was the real victim here? Think Duke lacrosse. He fit the feminist stereotype as an oppressor. He was young, white and an exMarine. The fact that he was anything but "privileged" was easy to overlook and, in fact, beneficial because he lacked the capacity to defend himself against the Ellen Goodmans of the world. As Thomas Sowell recently wrote in Intellectuals and Society: "Information or allegations reflecting negatively on individuals or groups seen less sympathetically by the intelligentsia pass rapidly into the public domain with little scrutiny and much publicity." Sowell cited two of the more prominent hoaxes in recent history as evidence for this

To find a shelter in your area that accepts men, please visit our Google Map project at:

humor...but only if it's directed at men."

Even when Mr. Bobbitt was found not guilty of marital rape, that didn't change the feminists' view that, of course, he was really guilty. Kim Gandy of NOW said the verdict "discourages women and gives men a free ride in marital rape cases." It doesn't seem to have occurred to Ms. Gandy that John Bobbitt might not have raped his wife. Ms. Gandy, obviously, knew better than the jury. Or if it did occur to her that perhaps Mr. Bobbitt was factually innocent, she didn't let that inconvenient fact get in the way of her womenarealwaysthevictim metanarrative. The Lorena Bobbitt Things Get Really Nutty Trial:

protest outside consulate.



Finally, it was time for Mrs. Bobbitt's trial for maliciously wounding her husband. Much of the nation, and beyond, watched intently with sympathies split largely along gender lines. In Ecuador, Lorena Bobbitt's home country, the National Feminist Association called several news organizations to announce that if Mrs. Bobbitt went to prison for mutilating her husband, 100 innocent American men would be castrated (it is not clear if they really meant "castration," which generally means removal of the testicles, or if they meant they would slice off 100 innocent penises). The organization also staged a large

The Lorena Bobbitt trial was a feminist Woodstock. A carnival atmosphere swept over Manassas, where it was held. A woman sold homemade, penis shaped white chocolates outside the courthouse. T shirts were hawked that said "Revenge how sweet it is," and "Manassas: A Cut Above." Some feminists sold buttons that read: "LORENA BOBBITT FOR SURGEON GENERAL." Disc jockeys handed out "Slice" soda pop and cocktail wieners "with lots of ketchup." Hundreds of Lorena Bobbitt supporters cheered their champion outside the courthouse. When the man she mutilated the real victim walked outside, he was greeted with boos and whistles, but he stoically showed no reaction. Mrs. Bobbitt's selfdefense claim that she was justified in maiming a sleeping man would be laughable in any context outside feminist jurisprudence. Here's what Newsweek said about it: ". . . the traditional definition of self defense wasn't enough for radical feminists. And so in the 1970s, feminist psychologist Lenore Walker conceived the 'batteredwoman syndrome.' Women beaten by their mates, she claimed, are so demoralized that they become too helpless to leave or to take steps to help themselves. They become convinced their only option to stop the abuse is to kill the abuser. So even if the woman is in no physical danger at the time of the killing, she's defending herself against future beatings. Get it? Because men supposedly have so much power over women in our society, women should be given the powers of judge, jury and executioner.

"Ideasespecially seminal ideas such as thesehave consequences. In 1991, the governors of Ohio and Maryland commuted the sentences of a number of jailed women who had killed or assaulted their mates because they claimed to have been victims of battered woman syndrome. But reporters turned up embarrassing evidence indicating that 15 of the 25 women freed in Ohio had not been physically abused. Six, they said, had talked about killing their boyfriends or husbands. in some cases months before doing so; and two had tracked down and killed husbands from whom they were separated. If they were capable of that much premeditation, they were certainly capable of picking up and leaving."

The female prosecutor kicked off the trial by telling the jurors, apparently with a straight face, that it was "his penis versus her life." Charles Krauthammer called that characterization a "stark summation of feminist victimization theory." Mr. Krauthammer added that the Bobbitt case wasn't one of self defense but of revenge. He noted that evidence of self defense, improper though it was, came in quite handy for Mrs. Bobbitt because it allowed her to introduce "the most lurid allegations of sexual abuse." The trial made the Bobbitt marriage "one of the most highly publicized and minutely scrutinized ever," said the New York Times. One of Lorena's former co workers testified that Lorena once said she would chop off her husband's dick if he cheated on her. Witnesses testified that Lorena was mean, violent, and subject to jeolous, unpredictable physical attacks.


In the end, the jury found Lorena Bobbitt not guilty of malicious wounding by reason of insanity and committed her to a mental health facility for 45 days for observation. The New York Times reported that "a gasp went up among her supporters in the courtroom." Did you get that? 45 days in a mental health wing of a hospital. Until relatively recently, many states punished rape with the death penalty. It is clear beyond question that very few rapes are as vicious, as brutal, as inhumane as the attack on Mr. Bobbitt. But while many men and boys have been put to death for rape, a woman who sliced off her sleeping husband's penis got 45 days of observation in a nice, clean hospital. Whatever this was, it was not justice.

of Bucay, Ecuador, hundreds took to the streets, cheering and firing shots into the air the way joyous fans do when their team wins the World Cup or the Super Bowl.

The verdict elicited the predictable response. Self described feminists cheered and gave each other high fives that a woman was permitted to get away with what now could literally, and officially, be called an insane act. Kim Gandy, executive vice president of the National Organization for Women, summed up the position for the lunatic fringe, which in this case seemed to comprise a regrettably large segment of the nation's female population: "We're glad the jury rejected the twisted argument that a battered woman should be locked up in a prison cell." Ms. Gandy used the verdict as the occasion to push one of her pet projects: ". . . this whole saga drives home the need for swift passage of a comprehensive version of the Violence Against Women Act . . . ." In Lorena Bobbitt's hometown

The New York Times chimed in, ever so delicately: "[I]n this case," the Times pontificated, "the jury can be forgiven for finding a reason to excuse Mrs. Bobbitt's brutality . . . ." It also noted: ". . . perhaps the verdict will indeed make some abusive men think twice before they strike again." But, the Times refused to go so far as to invite every selfanointed victim to resort to retaliation: ". . . violence cannot be the standard answer to violence." If violence can't be the "standard" answer, this suggests that, sometimes, violence is OK, and presumably that "sometimes" includes any time it is done to a penis by a selfanointed wronged woman.

Krauthammer, a Harvard educated psychiatrist before becoming a political pundit, said it best: this verdict took "political correctness to its ultimate extreme, to the point where for those who claim politically correct victimization, the laws no longer apply." "Politically correct victimization" sums up the entire affair. Legacy The Bobbitt affair ripped off an ugly scab and exposed the even more loathsome oozing pus that mainstream feminism had become. It revealed a worsethannasty vindictive streak, so wide and drawn with such brightlines, that proved feminism is less interested in achieving gender equity than in blindly punishing an entire gender for the unnamed sins of a tiny percentage of its members.

But Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said violence is not OK. Mrs. Bobbitt "pulled the wool over the jury's eyes," Dershowitz said, by claiming that abuse left her unable to take responsibility for her actions. He called her a "feminist Dirty Harry." The "abuse excuse," Dershowitz explained, "is dangerous to the very tenets of democracy, which presuppose personal accountability for choices and actions." Mona Charen, likewise, was in no mood to celebrate. She knew that the reaction of feminists, and of too many women, was as wrong as can be: "Rarely have I been as ashamed of my sex as I have been in the aftermath of the Lorena Bobbitt verdict." The brilliant Charles

The principal legacy of the Bobbitt affair was to "empower" women by insisting they are powerless; because of that purported powerlessness, they are excused from assuming personal responsibility for their actions. The problem is, the more we institutionalize the notion that women are powerless, the more we underscore that women really aren't men's equals. The Bobbitt affair was a setback for women's quest for true equality. A more immediate impact was that copycat crimes cropped up and continue to crop up to this day, including the crime that led to the Brigitte Harris trial last year, where a young woman admitted to researching the Bobbitt case before severing her allegedly abusive father's penis. Ms.

It doesn't have to end like this...

Suicide is the second or third (depending on age) leading cause of death for men under the age of 65 - a rate between 4 to 9 times the rate for women. Suicide kills more men aged 15 - 44 than Cancer, Stroke, and Diabetes


This is not "normal" in any sense of the word. Suicide rates for men have risen sharply in the last 5 decades, from almost parity with women in 1960 to the glaring crisis among men we have today. Please, contact your MP / Congressmen - ask them why they don't care about men and boys.

Harris made sure to burn the purportedly offending appendage to avoid Mrs. Bobbitt's mistake that allowed John Bobbitt to be reunited with his organ. Ms. Harris' father died in the ordeal, so his side of the story will never be known. (At the young woman's trial, the jurors convicted her of second degree manslaughter and not murder, which prompted the judge to chide the jurors for elevating their sympathies over the law.)

Bobbitt affair. The detestable reaction to the crime was too hateful to entertain such pretenses any longer. The only lesson for men from this ordeal was to avoid women like Lorena Bobbitt, and to realize that maleness is unfairly held in widespread contempt.

fusillade of misandry was a muffled and chivalrous grumble.

It is fittingly symbolic that John Bobbitt slept while his wife was busy slicing off his penis, because it mirrored the slumber of Western men while feminism hacked away at the very concept of masculinity.

In writing this piece, I entertained the thought that perhaps the Bobbitt affair might present a lesson or two for men about domestic violence, and about how women view the world differently and that their viewpoint needs to be respected. After all, John Bobbitt was no saint. There was plenty of evidence that he abused his wife during the course of their marriage (of course, there was ample evidence that she abused him, too). I explored, and then rejected those notions as lacking any validity. The brutal act of mutilation, and the depraved reaction of feminists, the mainstream media, and, frankly, too many women, cannot be justified, or respected, on any reasonable, logical, moral, or other level. The celebratory reaction and tolerance for this most vicious act of vengeance was morally grotesque and seemed largely the product of feminist fear mongering about men as natural oppressors. It was an all too predictable response to the systematic maligning of a gender over the course of several decades. Any assertion that "feminism helps men, too" evaporated with the

Following the mutilation, men, as a class, were exposed to a disdain many had not known existed, and they didn't know how to react to it. But men's bewilderment was understandable. In the days just before the Internet explosion, men didn't know that they were "all" rapists. Nor did anyone bother to explain to them that they were the supposed beneficiaries of a "patriarchy" that made them undeservedly privileged. You see, most men were too busy working to make ends meet, ironically, to support the very people who actually believed those loony things. So when women shamefully applauded the vile mutilation of another human being a man who was not privileged, or smart, or wealthy, or lucky all that men could muster in the face of this

But since that awful night in 1993, the men's movement has grown by the proverbial leaps and bounds. The Internet has exposed countless men to an ongoing battle of the sexes that they didn't even know was being waged at the time Mrs. Bobbitt committed her vile act. If something like the Bobbitt case happened today, would it be met with a different reaction? Would it bring to the front burner the issues of femaleonmale domestic violence and false rape claims? No one can say for certain, but my guess is it would. Without question, the debate would be far more heated, and men would actually answer the bell instead of sitting on a stool in a corner of the ring, allowing women to win by default. Like Mr. Bobbitt, who was very rudely awakened by the cold, sharp steel cutting through his manhood, men, in general, are also awakening. They are still groggy, and they are wiping the sleep from their eyes. But soon, they will be wide awake, and with a little bit of luck, they will be able to grab the knife before they are completely emasculated.

Game has made a big splash in the manosphere in recent times. And of late I have begun writing on the subject myself, to one degree or another.

As a primer to the uninitiated, Game is ostensibly the tactics and methods of scoring with women while placing yourself in the alpha position among other males. I offer that definition simply from extrapolating what I have read on the subject, and as I have never found a concise definition from its main proponents.

juxtaposition to my beliefs as a mens advocate drew me into an intellectual tugofwar with myself that for weeks seemed to be a complete standoff. Its been a frustrating time that until now had left me with about 10 incomplete essays and nothing to post. But then it hit me. The tugofwar was self inflicted. And the only reason I was in struggling was because I was blinding myself to the obvious. Game doesnt really stem from PUA, it is PUA (which is also nothing new), just warmed over and rebranded with a catchy lexicon and a new and improved label on the bottle. In other words, its male pussy centrism, just like it always has been. HOWEVER,

potential for massive utility. Understanding the Evopsychology of women, and using it to your advantage, is an untapped gold mine for male sexual empowerment, and male protection from the gynocracy. For all their work, they have introduced us to the possibilities of Game, and now it is time to take those ground breaking efforts and move forward with a model designed exclusively with male protectionism in mind, both in public and private life. Lets face it. Pussy is power. It always has been. Pussy power is so great that women can have an entire world of men working like dogs and handing over their money, yielding seats on life boats, opening their doors, acting like trained seals for their approval, agreeing with whatever bullshit comes out of their mouths, and at the same time have those men nodding and agreeing when women claim that

On a slightly deeper level, Game purports to differ itself from Pick Up Artistry (PUA) in that it stems from an enhanced cognizance of human female sociobiology, and uses that knowledge to manipulate women into bed. I have to admit that I have been frequently stuck when trying to sort this thing out. Exploring the implications of Game in

Roissy and the others have unearthed, or at the very least articulated an idea that has the

men have all the power and need to do more to make things better for women.

under the pressure and influence of perceived scarcity.

True to their unfortunate nature, men will pass laws, lock each other up and brutalize each other to make sure that all these feminine biddings are done. If that isnt power, Ill eat my hat. And if you dont believe me, ask Sampson, Dillinger, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, the Duke Three, The Hofstra Five or any of about a million men, from average to powerful, who have had their heads handed to them by even the weakest of women.

Clinton was outwitted by a 19 year old bimbo, with a little help from feminist governance. And if he had been a republican, whoa Nelly, his ass would have been fried to a crisp. Am I making this up? I think not.

And that scarcity is just a perception because getting laid is the easy part. Hell, women these days are so sexually available that the whole idea of PUA would seem to be moot. There is no "artistry" to picking up women, and anyone who thinks there is should not be trusted with a box of crayons. But the traditional methods for men to attract women are, in fact, a product of real historical scarcity. And while the sexual landscape has changed dramatically, three million years of programming dies hard. But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce, they can both be as dangerous as they are pleasurable, and that an intimate knowledge of the forces that unconsciously drive women, and the ability to exploit it, can help men meet sexual needs and stay out of harms way at the same time. In the end, its not about getting women, but in being able to select them at will, and dispose quickly and safely of the unwanted and/or dangerous ones. You dont need a book or a series of articles on this. If you are a quick starter, you can get everything you need to know about attracting women from two eight minute videos. It isnt that I am that smart. It is that women are that simple. This isnt rocket science.

my time approaching women in bars and other places, trying to impress them or get their phone number when I could just pick among the women that were offering themselves up to have sex with me on a regular basis? Answer: I fucking wouldnt. And neither should you. Picking one woman and going after her is for men who cant get a room full of women to come after them. And the truth is that almost any man can own that room, top to bottom, if he wants to.

Perhaps there was a time when the fake power of manhood worked. Hell, it got us to the moon when I was 12 years old. But we live in a different world than when I was 12. The average woman in todays western culture should have a manufacturers warning tattooed just below the naval at birth. I suggest something like this: MANUFACTURERS
Use of this product can result in early death, suicide, clinical depression, imprisonment, false accusations, destroyed reputation, poverty, spousal support, child support, loss of property, joblessness and social isolation.

And the advantage to this is monumental. You find out things about women who are crawling into bed with you, and even before they do. You can, and should, take the opt out when the danger signs show up. Too entitled? Next. Two kids and an attitude about the ex? See ya. Whatcha gonna buy me? Hasta la vista, baby. All these women are problems, and bigger problems waiting to happen, but you can adios any of them before or after having sex with them. Why? Because there will be more waiting for you. And the more of them you pump and dump, the more the others will tingle when you walk into the room. They may hate you, or fear you, but they will want you just the same. And why should you want to dump them so unceremoniously? Remember that warning label? Well, it wasnt made up out of thin air. People always broadcast who they areif you are listening.


Those would do for starters.

And this is where Game, if we take out the 99% bullshit focus on chasing pussy, can have a dramatic impact that can significantly improve the lives of men by helping them weed out the most destructive females, which will be more likely if not

You see, the important thing here is not that I succeeded in getting laid. What was most important was that one, I put no real energy, or money, into the equation. And two, I turned the power dynamic between myself and women a full 180 degrees from what I had always known. I became the selector from a pool of willing women. No need for bullshit pick up lines.Why would I have wasted

If a woman you barely know thinks she is entitled to dig into your wallet just because she is going to sleep with you, then what do you imagine she would feel entitled to after sleeping with you for a year? After getting married? If a woman talks constantly about the abusive, horrible


men in her life, and men in general, how do you think she will end up talking about you? And to whom, the police maybe?

Da Rules

The thing is, contrary to popular feminist belief, men fall in love and dedicate to women at some point in their lives. And their tendency is to give everything. Usually the routine goes along traditional lines. Man spots girl, sets out to impress her and win her affections. He leads with his wallet, puts on his best act and ignores every warning sign she is broadcasting because he views her as a scarce resource. Because he feels like he has very limited options. So if she accepts him, he considers himself lucky. He has found the woman of his dreams, she has returned his love, and all is right with the world.

1. Leave your wallet in your pocket. If you want a whore, go to a massage parlor. They are guaranteed to put out for a fixed price, and they dont follow you around and talk when youre done.

some value to you without the female presence.

2. Dont date, women. Ever. Hang out with them. Party with them. Eat with them. But it is never a date. Dating implies financial responsibility on your part, and perhaps gives the impression of exclusivity before you desire it. You owe women nothing for their company or their bodies.

If you are a staunch conservative, dont join the Sierra Club thinking it is Zeta. Its not. Joining a group like that when you think they are all morons for the sake of being around women is fake, and it calls on you to start things off with a lie. I know what some of you are saying. Ha! Joining any club, even one you would like, with the idea of women in mind is just more pussy begging. All puns aside, I beg to differ. Avoiding pussy centrism does not mean you have to crawl in a hole or only go places that you think women arent. In fact, that can be as pussy centric, only in reverse, as practicing PUA. Living a life that presents sexual opportunities is normal for any man. Only a few are so jaded from being screwed over that they have ruled out any possibility of sex or relationship again.

He may spend the better part of the rest of this life finding out just how wrong he was. And in most cases, while he will find out that he was wrong, he will never know why. He will usually be incapable of figuring out that when you fish with stink bait, you catch bottom feeders. If you use your money to attract women, you get shallow materialists. If you use your willingness to sacrifice to her whims, you get narcissism. If you use deference and agreement, you get entitlement. If you use all three, you get the typical western woman.

Look at it this way. You can ask a woman out and spend a lot of money on food and drink. But if you take the social club route as I suggested in the video, she can eat and drink with the group on her dime (or some betas), vie with the other women for your attention, and then go home with you if you select her. 3. Never make a pass at a woman. Never. Stay Zeta and they will make a pass at you.

4. Remember Sleeping with a woman does not mean you owe her anything. Not a relationship, not a call the next day, not even a promise not to sleep with her sister. Notice something about these rules. None of them govern anything you should do, but simply show you what you dont have to do. There is nothing here that says do this or do that for women. It is just the opposite. You do nothing for them at all. You simply live your life without regard to them one way or another. They will show up offering their goods without you doing a damn thing. It is just that simple. When you join a social club, make it one that you would enjoy if it were just men. Keep it in your own comfort zone. Make it a group where you can and will make male friends. It has to have

Most men will keep trying. Either to meet sexual needs, or find a partner. And while I caution against the latter, I understand that it is going to happen whether I caution against it or not.

The techniques for helping you avoid that pitfall, and perhaps find someone atypical to hang with for a while, are simple. Once you have established yourself as a sexually in demand with the women in your group, there is a code, a list of four screening behaviors and attitudes that will help cull out the deadweight (almost all of them) and set you up to find what I call a manageable woman. More on that in the next Zeta Game piece.

So unless your goal is the complete removal of women from your life, which is understandable given what many men have gone through with them, then a sexual empowerment and risk management program is in order. When men dont operate out of a sense of scarcity, they have the opportunity to make better decisions. When they make better decisions, they have a tendency to get screwed over a lot less.

Book Review: "Knights Without Armor" (Aaron Kipnis)


Men live in an increasingly feminized world. Few male role models exist. Society regularly devalues and demonizes men and masculinity, derides male interests and hobbies as childish and selfish, and frames male desires as oppressive and sexist. Men who express emotion get labeled as whiners and babies, ironically most often by the women and feminists who pushed for men to express their feelings. This all occurs as men face the constant drone of talking heads, analysts, and researchers reporting the demise, uselessness, and needlessness of men. In such an environment, Knights Without Armor comes as a breath of fresh air. Although nearly two decades old, Aaron Kipnis treatise on the masculinity remains relevant. Kipnis offers a sorely missed positive view on

masculinity, one that affirms the necessity of masculinity while doing away with the pitfalls of modern social norms. Kipnis journey towards writing the book began as when he and six other men met in to play poker while coping with their history of substance abuse. Over time the poker game faded and the discussion shifted from the mundane to the personal. Each mans experience revealed to Kipnis that despite mens hard exteriors, many men bore internal wounds. Unfortunately, wounded men cannot heal because they cannot remove their armor. They live in a society that constantly requires them to remain armored up, and that society not only denies the existence of male pain, but also punishes men for speaking about that pain. The wounded male often turns to

risky behavior and drugs in an attempt to cope with his problems and with the stresses of fulfilling the role of the hero. While Kipnis criticizes the traditional norms forced onto men, he also dissects the feminized man, a man produced by womens attempts to modify or control mens thinking and behavior.

As Kipnis notes, many men try to cope with changing social norms and stresses by shutting down, becoming hypermasculine, or simply following womens directives. He offers an insight into why this happens:

All these strategies for coping with the modern changes in mens roles are reactionary. They are not affirming positive, creative choices for men generated out of mens own inner search and inspiration. They


are rmerely attempts to adjust to the changes women have made. Reactionary roles do nothing to further mens psychological and spiritual development, heal our wounds, or increase the range of our personal freedoms.

Sadly, much of the move toward so called femininity is a product of shame. The shame of being male is aggravated by the type of feminist invective cited in the preceding pages. In reaction to patriarchy (the sociopolitical belief that the rule of men is a higher authority than that of women) and in feminist to feminism (which often promotes women as morally superior to men), many men have sought initiation into soul through the feminine.

and men crave. They provide the guidance, support, and security boys need in order to become solid, selfaffirming men. It is the uninitiated, typically feminized male who wreathes destruction. Kipnis used Hamlet as an example:

This has resulted in a more sensitive, receptive, gentle, conscientious, and socially responsible male, Yet many of the socalled new, changing men are often powerless and ineffectual in the world. As a result, women today are asking, Where are all the real men?

Kipnis speaks of the lost fathers, the gods of old. He suggests that men have lost their connection to the sacred masculinity. Only the stern, distant skyfather remains. Likewise, male sensuality and the male body get framed as dangerous, undesirable, disgusting, and evil. This further produces shame among men and keeps them from exploring broader aspects of masculinity. The need for male role models and male bonding is central in Knights Without Armor. These two concepts receive a host of negativity from society at large, especially from feminists. However, as Kipnis points out, males crave male attention. Boys seek out male role models, and when those men are not present, boys substitute them with other males, many of whom do not provide positive influences. Kipnis suggests that these groups provide the needed initiation boys

In Hamlets case, almost everyone around him dies.The narcissistic male, unable to wield the power of the father, cannot generate and protect life or transform the world, only devalue it. this is often the position of the modern, new male. Hes educated, sensitive, and aware of the corruption in the world. Yet he cant establish himself in the world, hold the reins of power, and effect dynamic change. The feminist perspective is that Hamlet is dominated by patriarchal, masculine values and unable to respond to feminine, lifeaffirming influences. However, from the perspective of authentic masculinity, which affirms and protects life through the committed actions of an ethical warrior, just the opposite is true: Hamlet appears to be overly feminized, in the manner of many New Age men who are emerging from a culture in which the influence of an initiating, nurturing elder male is almost completely absent.

the community simply regards males as flawed and deviant, even when men experience the same problems that women do. This results in more boys and men being incarcerated, institutionalized, drugged, held back in school, and otherwise forgotten.

The only flaw of Knights Without Armor is that the book is nearly twenty years old. Since the books publishing, boys and men struggle in an environment even more hostile to masculinity. More so, attempts to address masculinity in the manner that Kipnis promotes in his book get met with antagonism and mockery. One wonders about Kipnis opinions on these issues. Nevertheless, Knights Without Armor presents an excellent treatise on what men ought to strive for. Kipnis does not weigh down his ideas with lofty theories nor does he present a politicized, feministinfluenced view. Kipnis affirms masculinity as something good, valuable, and worth saving. He presents an image of the wellrounded man, a man who takes all the good qualities of the men of old and modifies them to work in todays world. Rather than shaming and vilifying male bonding, Kipnis supports and encourages it because it is only with aid and guidance other males that boys can become men.

Kipnis also focuses on another aspect of the modern male: the codependent male. The men from his group shared stories about how they worked hard in order to provide for the women they were with only to find that those women were ungrateful for the mens sacrifices.

Society tells men that their worth lies in their ability to acquire and please women. Men who fail at their relationships often feel they are not men because it is their job to please women. Male psychology also comes up. Kipnis states that the psychological community emphasizes femininity. Sexism against men occurs openly within the community. Without a positive approach into the male psyche,

Likewise, he shows the importance of males having femalefree spaces to express themselves and bond. Knights Without Armor offers a path towards achieving the well rounded masculinity so many men and boys crave. It is unfortunate that in the twenty years since the books publishing so few followed its suggestions.

Addressing 'Good Christian Women'

by: Gonzo

I want to address something to all the "Good Christian Women" out there. Ladies, grab hold of one ear. Good. Grab hold of your other one, too, now. Got a good grip? Okay. NOW PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.

stupidity, such as when you imagine that chanting that somehow makes you immune to civil laws and secular society.

There's an epidemic of stupidity among you all, to wit: You are all big on the whole "Man Up" routine but when anyone proposes altering the Social or Legal status quo in such a way as would make this possible, you oppose it. Then you chowderheads every last pair of swinging tits of you blame men for not doing it.

Let me take the case of Jim and Pam to illustrate my point. I knew Jim and Pam from way back. They met in the Baptist church, courted, and got married. I was one of the attendants. I toasted them at their wedding, and they were the textbook Christian couple. Jim worked as a factory foreman, and Pam parttimed at a dress shop and did some volunteer work with the ladies of the church. Pam got pregnant, stopped working, and Jim started taking overtime. Pam had the baby, and by that time Jim was putting in 60+ hours a week. Plus lunch, plus travel. Often he was gone almost 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.

I get the whole "Be in the world, not of it." It's fine, but there's a point when it becomes blinkered

Jenny was their neighbor, who attended a "progressive" new agey church who blessed gay unions and all the politically correct things. She waitressed evenings at a nightclub, and when Pam was home days, their relationship progressed from waves "hello" and short smalltalk chats to morning coffee, shopping trips an adult to talk to. And boy did Jenny talk. She ran Jim down. He was never there for Pam. Never did "his half." Left her "all alone" with the baby. Not a frontal attack, but the usual "poor dearing" when Pam was frazzled. This eventually bled into spats where Jim was a sonofabitch if he didn't come home and immediately start in on "his half" of housework and diaper changing. Just shut up and let me finish. I know what you are saying and that is not the point.

Pam turned into a seething ball of resentment, and the marriage grew strained, with her kicking him out of bed to the couch which Jim, as a "loving and understanding" husband did, but with his own resentments.

was off in "enrichment" classes or book clubs. She needed space, loving and understanding Jim gave what she DEMANDED. Intimacy went to zero. And then it came out that some of those nights had been spent in Jenny's nightclub where Jenny first encouraged Pam to "enjoy it when a guy flirts with you" to full on adultery. After 3 months of no intimacy rejected by Pam Pam turns up six weeks pregnant. BUT WAIT, there is MORE! What happened when Jim wanted a divorce? Pam dragged him to more counselling, where he was browbeaten by the ladies of the church to forgive his wife, she is sorry for her sin, think of your vows, she wants to rebuild things, it's Christlike to forgive, that child is innocent, you shouldn't publicly

shame your wife, scandal of divorce, etc. etc. etc. You know the drill, So Jim stayed with her. For three years. And she refused to have another child "until they were right" and finally they had a blow up, where Jim shouted at her "I've taken your little bastard you had with another man as my own, but you won't give me another child?" Two days later, Jenny drove her to get an ex parte restraining order she was "afraid" of what Jim might do to "her child.". Jim was out of his house. I won't bore you with the litany of the divorce, which Jim dumbass, even after all that tried to fight, and she stonily refused to negotiate. He lost his house, and is still paying for half. He's paying support on a child not even his, and she's taken up or brought is

They went to couples counselling at their church, which was "Beat up the man". Let the girl win. Weaker vessel, be more gentle, loving, and understanding, yadda, yadda, yadda. Pam wanted to take classes, wanted to do some home improvement, needed "me time" so Jim agreed. To pay for it, Jim had to do some double shifts. Sometimes every other day. "He's not there enough, I want, he has to work more to pay, "ME, work? I'm a Full. Time. MOTHER!" More resentment. When he wasn't away working at night, she

out in the open her former relationship with that child's father. It's six years later, and he's a mess, emotionally and financially, and was ostracized from his church for the "scandal." She's going to the "progwessive" church now. This is just the background. So I will ask you this what would you have had Jim do?

He had no legal leverage. No fault, community property, her misbehavior irrelevant to the proceedings, so on, so forth. "For the sake of the Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren......"

enough, then?" you dodge. I'd have an easier time nailing jello to a wall. Or maybe it's his fault for choosing a bad woman. Really. I'm not a fan of "Marriage The Secular Institution" , but I'd have bet on Pam. Pam got poisoned.

He tried talking, and counselling. He forgave her betrayal. He even set himself up to be the father of a child not his (Man up! Man up!) He never laid a hand on her, worked his ass off, provided for her, his son, another man's son adulterously concieved, gave her what she asked for. Specifics. Not banal platitudes, and generalities. How specifically could Jim have "gone into battle" more for his family?

He's undatable. He works a job and a part time job to keep a small apartment and a beater vehicle. All you "Good Christian Women" cluck about how unfortunate he is, and urge him to keep plugging away and be the man. Some woman will see him for what he is someday. When his obligations are through. When he can provide for you alone, and you not have to live on his income less $1,700 a month child support. Just not you. Maybe when he is fifty and too late to start a new life, eh? But you can enjoy his retirement as if you were there through the bad times? I bet if I proposed changing the law so her bad behavior was relevant, so that her groundless protection order was relevant against her, so that she didn't have virtual automatic gaurantees of custody and property, or so that a man known not to be the father of a baby wasn't on the hook for supporting it, where a man known to be the father was identifiable I'd be called anti woman and a misogynist. Of course, I'm sure you "aren't for" what Pam did but change the social or legal status quo so that she was accountable for it? OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Jim had no tools or support to fight against it. Because feminists long ago, progressively nickel and dimed them away. Because some women are abused. Because the child is innocent. Because, because, because.

I'd have bet on them. Jim decorated Desert Storm Vet, never a Hell Raiser or womanizer. Pam a 3rd generation choirgirl. While I can't speak for them, if you had told me that they were both virgins, I'd not have any evidence to contradict it. In fact, Pam once called Jim "the first and last man for me." So how would you arm Jim, Rebecca? He talked, begged, pleaded, reasoned, and prayed. (Or did he miss his prayers one night after working a sixteen hour shift, so God said no?) He laid down the law. I can hardly think of anything more loving or forgiving than to take an adulterine bastard as your own and raise it. He stood with her when she denied him affection and didn't force himself on her. His church threw him to the wolves.

Every step of the way, we warned you. We told you what vile snakes these feminists asking for "just this one little thing, it's Oh So Reasonable" were. They told you their agenda to destroy the family and you turned a deaf ear. When we fought back against them for the ravening wolves they are, you got offended "because they are still LADIES!" You told us to tie our hands because of that. You begged and cajoled us "Well, this isn't a bad thing, we'll just stop with this. Well, this. Okay, that." And when we did fight anyway, you called us wimps, scared of strong women, your turned your backs on us, and worse yet, sided with them SIDED WITH THEM as they encroached and took away our male spaces, our ability to provide for our family, to defend them, to be the authority of the family, and said we weren't necessary. You betrayed us. And now you have the nerve to accuse us? Woman, heal thyself.

It's a movable goal, because no matter how far Jim went, you'll just claim "he didn't do enough." That's how I know the goalposts move with you "Good Christian Women" because trying to get you to say "Where is far

Recommended Reading:

Men's Issues Websites:

PUA: Pick Up Artist good with women, usually a practictioner of Game in one form or another.

Terms and Definitions:

Game: Practical understanding of the base natures of women, and what they respond to. MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way men who have decided women aren't worth the trouble. MRM: Mens Rights Movement MRA: Mens Rights Activist

Men today face more obstacles and barriers than ever before. Men face diminished employment prospects, barriers to obtaining a quality education, even demonization of their very masculinity. Socially, men as a group occupy increasingly devalued positions. The destruction of the 'Traditional' male role, along with the removal of the Father from the family, has led to generations of men with little guidance, save the voices of those who hate them. The everpresent media neither represents their views, nor does it even accurately portray them. Rather than being seen as half of society, men are increasingly portrayed as occupations, or archetypes, their humanity carefully hidden from view. For decades, men were forced to keep quiet. For decades, men thought they, and they alone, 'felt that way'. But no more. With MenZ Magazine, you will be exposed to ideas and arguments you will assuredly never hear on your television, or read in your local paper. These are the views of men, and women, who are tired of being spoon fed misinformation. People who want YOU to know that you, as a man, matter. So please, join us.