Archive for April 2013

A Woman’s Right to Choose

April 30, 2013

“[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?”

Answer:

I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.

Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.

A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.

And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”

This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.

But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.
.
.
I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.

What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.

Feminists are quite aware that most un-informed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.

When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.

What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay.

Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.

But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”

In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman’s sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman “sold” her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as “payment” for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband’s children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman’s “property.”

In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.

But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, “A Woman’s Right to CHOOSE“? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?

So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.

Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”

So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joy-riding.

Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.

But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.

Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.

Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.

Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:

Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.

Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.

Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no “rights” to it!

You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.

But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?”

Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.

Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.

But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?

It is because of the woman’s right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!

And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.

What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.

If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.

But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.

So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.

And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).

But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.

So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?

If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility.

A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.

Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?

“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.

“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.

“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.

Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?

Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they’re toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?

Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”

It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.

What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

——————————————————————————–

Read more about this subject on Angry Harry’s site:

Rant Against the CSA

and,

Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?

Advertisements

Do You Believe Women Have the Right to Freedom of Speech?

April 29, 2013

Question:

Do you believe women have the right to freedom of speech?

Answer:

I believe all people should have the right to freedom of speech.

However, I am curious as to why feminists Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin should frame the question in a way to make it gender specific. Perhaps they feel that women should have free speech, but not men?

It is certainly not anti-feminists who are opposed to free speech. In fact, some of us are anti-feminist because we believe in preserving free speech. Feminism is the movement that wishes to make anyone speaking out against it guilty of hate crimes. Where Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin get the idea that anti-feminists are against freedom of speech can only come from the projection of their own feminist evil desires.

Who was it that became famous for wasting $75,000 of taxpayer dollars by creating a report for the Status of Women Canada which recommended that websites who opposed feminism should be placed on a “Hate Watch?”

Hmmm… who was that again?

Oh yeah, it was the feminist professor, Pierrette Bouchard, from Laval University. Mzzzz Bouchard, great feminist “thinker,” does not believe in free speech. (I know, I know. “Feminist thinker” is an oxymoron).

The danger of such laws as feminists have put forward are that they outlaw the truth. Yes, that’s right. What “Hate Crime Laws” do is make the truth irrelevant and illegal.

Under Hate Crime Laws, if say, an incredibly intelligent anti-feminist should quote domestic violence facts which illustrate that women are just as violent as men, such as those put forth by Stats Canada (the Government) itself, the truth does not make you innocent of committing a Hate Crime. You see, Hate Crimes are designed so that anything which is said about the protected group must be stifled, because even the truth can cause ill feelings towards them.

But yet, this is what feminists are trying to do to an unsuspecting population. They are trying to outlaw the truth because they know they have been cooking the books and slanting their position to such an enormous degree that even a quick glance will reveal their dishonesty and unravel their totalitarian agenda. Feminism can’t handle the truth because there is nothing truthful about feminism.

It is truly staggering to see the backroom manipulations, from our own governments to the United Nations, all trying to get speaking out against the political movement of feminism to be declared a “Hate Crime.” If feminist theories are sound, they should stand up under intense scrutiny, don’t you think? What are they so scared of then?

On the subject of free speech and freedom of the press, I do, however, believe that there should be some regulation to impose some badly needed checks and balances.

Yes, yes. I know. That goes against my general libertarian ideals. But, media is somewhat unique in its function of maintaining liberty. In fact, the media is supposed to be mandated to help maintain liberty by continually questioning and highlighting various aspects of society.

The whole idea of free speech is supposed to be a check and balance within itself, and this is what it is supposed to mean in our constitutions. It works on a free market type of idea.

It was originally intended that there should be hundreds, if not thousands of ideas and viewpoints put forth to the people with free speech. If someone believes in an idea, he should be able to buy a printing press, set it up in his garage, and start speaking and spreading his ideas around. If his ideas are sound, they will rise in popularity. If his ideas are stupid, some other guy with a printing press will write about it and his ideas will fall in popularity. All along, free speech from multitudes of sources should theoretically self regulate itself.

What was never intended, however, was a media monopoly, as we currently have. Here in Canada, we have only two companies who own virtually all of the media. In the USA, there are five companies, I believe.

We might have multiple newspapers and multiple news channels on TV, but they are all owned by the same companies and they all spout forth the exact same message. This effectively destroys the part of free speech which is supposed to maintain liberty. Media is unique in the way that it is mandated to maintain liberty. The media has failed us horribly.

The way the internet is working, with thousands and millions of voices all competing with eachother is exactly how free speech is supposed to work.

It makes one wonder then, why those in government (ie. Nancy Pelosi) immediately charge forward trying to regulate free speech on the internet, often in the name of protecting political agendas such as feminism. The internet does not need to be regulated, it is self regulating just as free speech was intended to be. How come the government does not attempt to break the media monopolies to encourage more free speech? Rather, government is trying to stop the first breath of free speech we have heard in decades by trying to regulate the internet.

They are scared shitless of free speech.

They know that agendas like feminism are heavily based in Marxism and have been used against the people to socially re-engineer them.

They know that with free speech, these agendas will no longer be protected and permitted to go along unnoticed. There is treason afoot, and unregulated free speech from little ding dongs like me is fast revealing it. The millions of voices are getting louder and louder. Communist based agendas like feminism are coming under the microscope and are found to be lacking.

I don’t think there is any anti-feminist that is opposed to free speech. Quite the opposite.

But, I can see why feminists continually try to end free speech under the rubric of “Hate Crimes Legislation.” Feminism knows that if society is allowed to closely examine her silk panties, it will be discovered that they are soiled with skid marks.

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

Women Pursuing Their “Dreams and Aspirations”

April 28, 2013

QUOTING A FEMALE: “As long as mothers and/or wives don’t allow their careers to consume their lives and interfere with their God-given duties, then I don’t see a problem. Women have their own aspirations and dreams as well just like men (and no I don’t believe that the only reason people have careers is to make money).”

I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations.

Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.

One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesn’t?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.

Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.

But, look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).


A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!

And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?

Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot!

And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work fulltime jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances.

Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.

QUOTE #2, A MAN: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.

Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.

If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions.”


No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves, or their own sex.

And, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” And I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.

But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of society – including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.

And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

—————————————————————————–

Related:

Zenpriest #44 – The Box Feminism Builds For Women

Marriage is Fraud

April 27, 2013

[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?

Answer:

Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
.

I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?

Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.

Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.

When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:

Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.

The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.

In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.
.
So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.

(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).

This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife’s sexuality was no longer hers to give away.

This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.

This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”

For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”

You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man’s surplus labour.

And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
.
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.

She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.

Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.

So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.

Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.

Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.

Have a look around the room you are in.

Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.

Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).

Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.

Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.

So, back to the original question: “Do you believe women have the right to divorce?”

My answer is a resounding NO!

Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!

It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.

You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.

The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.

Yup.

But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.

The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!

MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!

MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!

DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.

Have nothing to do with them.

Do not oppress them with marriage.

Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.

Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?

Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.

Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking… now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.

Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.

And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.

Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else’s property.

You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.

You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.

Give them as few tax dollars as possible.

Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:

.
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn’t give milk? Let alone pay for one.

DON’T MARRY!!!

It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.
.
Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

——————————————————————————
.
Read more on this subject in the following online book, The Case for Father Custody — by Daniel Amneus

The Fish and the Bicycle

April 26, 2013

”The most insidious effect of affirmative action quotas is a kind of psychic castration… the removal of the source of a man’s identity. By contriving the nonsense that women can do whatever a man can do (which they obviously can’t), they’ve leveled men’s purpose to the extent that men effectively have no purpose. The equivalent would be to remove women’s wombs, and render them sterile.

It’s not just messing with the laws of supply and demand and cheating men out of their rights… its about annihilation of identity and purpose.”codebuster, from a comment at The Spearhead

”I remember the first time I saw the slogan “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”, I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman’s life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.”zenpriest, Hate Bounces

”The problem here is women are totally lying about wanting to be empowered. To have power, one must have independence and be self-reliant. This is the exact opposite of what women and children have been for most of human history. Instead of being independent and self-reliant (ie having power) they have been dependent and relied on men for everything. In return, there is a bunch of stuff they are expected to give men…..certain roles they must perform for the system to work.

Now, a handful of women have always been an exception. I can totally see how more women would want to have power by becoming self-reliant and independent. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING! Instead, they want to be empowered but still rely and depend on men for everything. They think they can do this by creating various ways and means to force us to take care of them, both as individuals and a society, without giving anything in return. They don’t want marriage but they still want money from men via alimony and child support. They want to vote but don’t exercise wisdom in what they vote for. They want jobs but are pathetic as employees, but God forbid you fire them, you’ll get sued (plus they will trade sex for promotions).”Bonecrcker #78 – Women Are Lying About Wanting To Be Empowered

“…Traditionally, the raw sexual and economic facts of marriage have been politely concealed by superadded ideas such as romantic love and gallantry. In the years following the Second World War, such antiquated fashions were with increasing rudeness torn from the sexual act by fraudulent sex “scientists” and pornographers. But the economic realities have not similarly been dragged into the light of day. On the contrary, our prosperity has made it easy to downplay them even more than in the past.

An example of such polite concealment is found in the traditional etiquette with respect to greeting newly married couples. It was customary to say “congratulations” to the man, but never to the woman; to the bride one offered only “best wishes.” The pretense was that the man was receiving an unmerited windfall. The reality, of course, is that the man assumes the principal burden in marriage. For women, it is an economic bonanza.

One factor in the disintegration of marriage and sex roles is that, spoiled by prosperity, women actually came to believe the chivalrous pretense and forgot the underlying economic reality. They expect men to be grateful for the opportunity to support them. … It is a case of gallantry being abused by its beneficiaries. Under such circumstances, men cannot simply go on behaving in the old manner as though nothing were wrong. It is incumbent upon them to fight back against the forces arrayed against them, in part by emphasizing some home truths about the economic realities of marriage. Perhaps it is time for young men to stop paying for dates and coyly explain that they are “saving their wallets” for marriage. If that sounds cynical to a traditional sensibility, my answer is that such cynicism may simply be the price for reestablishing the natural family as the basis of our civilization.”F. Roger Devlin, Home Economics II

”In truth, women are no more “independent” than they ever were, but because they’ve transferred the job of protecting and caring for them from the men they personally know to the State, they can pretend to themselves that they no longer need men. Modern women are as “independent” as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. All that’s changed is that men, who still do all the dirty, dangerous jobs that must be done, and pay all the taxes and alimony and child-care payments, and fight the wars, etc. etc., that enable women to have the comfortable world they want, no longer get the respect we used to get in return. In the long run, this is a recipe for disaster. We may be stupid, but we’re not harmless.”Philalethes #27 – In the Battle of the Sexes, If She Wins, She Loses

”Women only have what rights we give them. The real core of the problem with women is other men. The men who open their wallets in a snivelling desire to get laid. The men who pass foolish draconian laws to solve problems that don’t exist. The men who promote women in return for sexual favours. The men who marry obviously inferior women. And most of all, the men who swallow the most outrageous of lies, rather than bother to think critically about what is happening both to them and everyone around them.

The bottom line is women have no real power, no intrinsic power. They are totally, completely and permanently dependant on men for power. This situation is deeply rooted in our biology and not going to change because some wacko broads think it should. We created this hobgoblin ourselves, feed it and keep it alive despite its obviously odious nature. The very moment we stop, it will evaporate in a puff of smoke. Women know this. Their biggest fear is we will wake up and know it too.Bonecrcker #121 – Women Only Have What Rights Men Give Them

”…there is no equity between the sexes. They are indispensable one to another, but one is the leader and the other led. The ram is the master of the ewe; the reverse would be an aberration and monstrosity. The pride of the American women will bring about a reaction; for whatever these ladies are they owe to man. If the latter wearies of his generosity and leaves them to their own merits, the expiatory plunge will oblige them to measure the immensity of their ingratitude.

Nature has willed the subordination of woman. Civilized man dignifies his companion, submits willingly to grace, sweetness, frailty, creates for her the right to protection, gives her a privileged place. But the condition is such that, if she denies the bene- faction and claims to have earned what has been given to her and to be indebted to no one, her benefactor may bring this course to an abrupt end.

The illusion consists in this: superiority constitutes a moral duty on the part of the superior towards the inferior, but inferiority does not constitute any legal right on the part of the inferior over the superior. Generosity is beautiful and noble, but it is optional; the cripple who demands that he should he carried dispels one’s desire to aid him. Man enjoys protecting woman, but when woman imperatively summons him to serve and protect her, he whom an entreaty would have softened loses his inclination at once.

By substituting the legal sphere for the moral sphere, the emancipation of women will desiccate society, as legal charity destroys real charity, as love by command would sterilise the marriage-bed. –In asking more than civil equality and economic equality, women are playing a dangerous game. Equality in services will be demanded of them, and this will serve them right.”The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, August 8, 1876

“…That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.Arthur Schopenhauer – On Women (1851)

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

Hypergamy and Briffault’s Law

April 25, 2013

I think it’s true that women are hypergamous – in that they always look to “marry up,” or in other words, they are in relationships for the benefits a man confers upon her, thus, Briffault’s Law comes into play as well as its corollaries:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

The Corollaries to Briffault’s Law:

1 – Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 – Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 – A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

What this means is that a man cannot simply hand over all the benefits of associating with him over to the woman. He must keep the benefits he bestows upon her under his control, and learn to say no often, as she will naturally try to get him to pass them on to her. No, I won’t spend $100 for roses on Valentine’s Day. No, we’re not going to Hawaii for a vacation (unless you are paying, Toots!) No, you cannot move in with me. No, you cannot move in now that you’ve been evicted – that is what your girlfriend’s couch or your parent’s spare room is for. NO! We won’t get be getting married. No! You are not going on the pill so we can have bareback sex. No. No. No. No! NO! NO!

The man must keep the benefits, or the lure of the benefit, completely under his control. Once they become her domain, it simply doesn’t matter to her and becomes “What have you done for me lately?”

Our culture and its laws have made it very, very difficult for a man to maintain control over the benefits he bestows upon women. No! is the most valuable word a man can learn in a relationship.

And, while it is true that women are quite willing to trade up when it suits them, and while it is also true that women’s “love” for a man is rarely as deep as the man’s love is for her, what a lot of the game community is ignoring is the fact that humans naturally pair-bond.

Yes, it is true, mating behaviour is mediated in the brainstem and spinal cord (the old, or reptile brain) and not the cortex (thinking brain), but what is left out is that humans naturally pair-bond because of our mammalian/middle brain. Now, the mammalian brain (which causes mammals to have emotion) is not as old as the reptilian brain, but the mammalian brain is still a factor in human behaviour – and thus why humans have exhibited pair-bonding for a few hundred thousand years now (lol, however those brilliant Ph D-tards calculate such timing).

Men and women both naturally pair bond. The problem comes in that women’s pair-bonding feature is not for lifetime monogamy, but rather based upon a four year mating cycle called “Rotating Polyandry,” – or serial monogamy – where she seeks a birth-spacing/love cycle of four years (enough time to fall in love, get pregnant, give birth, recuperate, then wean the child until it can walk, talk and feed itself), each time this is complete, she moves on and seeks to pair-bond with a different male to ensure genetic diversity.

But, she still pair bonds. The only thing you have to realize is that her pair-bond is designed to be time-limited. Once the timer runs out, her interest in you becomes dark and sinister. Also, one never falls in love as much as one does the first time. It is like sticky tape – the more you apply it, peel it off, and re-apply it, the less sticky it becomes. (Thus why a man, should he try to marry, ought to choose a virgin or one to two previous partners at the most – and you can never be sure, because women lie as easy as they breathe). A woman who has ridden the cock-carousel with 30 men does not pair-bond very easily anymore, and the time-limit on her relationship with you is drastically shortened.

Once a woman’s time-limit is up and her interest in you becomes dark and sinister, this is when she goes into a “binge and purge cycle.” She starts with-holding sex in order to manipulate you. Lots of husbands fall for this and think she’s not interested in sex anymore – this is not true. What she is doing is starving her own sexual desire in order to drive up her sexual value to manipulate you. (Once a woman starts refusing you sex, it is time to dump her – she does not have pure interests in you anymore). Then, after about a year or so of her denying her own sexual desires, she gets rid of the man (and tries to keep all of his benefits) and THEN goes on a sexual binge where she fucks thug after thug, trying to satiate her starving sexual desire. Once she has done this, she again looks for a more suitable long-term mate who confers “benefits” upon her, she pair-bonds again, and the whole cycle starts over again.

It is true that “all women are available” but what is not true is that “all women are available all of the time.” This is why the PUA-sphere (the ones who actually know what they are talking about) are always looking for IOI’s (Indications of Interest). What you want to do, if you are a “player” looking for easy, commitment free sex, is be the second guy to screw her after she splits up with her long-term mate. The first guy is usually an emotional tampon, or an orbiter, who ends up getting royally screwed because he is usually only being used as an emotional sounding board, or as a tool for the woman to gauge her sexual market value. To be a good “player,” you want to be the guy that catches her in the middle of her binge phase. This is the phase where she goes nuts and sucks and fucks up a storm and does things her ex-husband/boyfriend never dreamed she would do. But, it is very time limited. Once her “binge” is done and she has satiated herself, it is back to Briffault’s Law.

It works just like people being in the market for buying a car. All people are in the market to buy a car… but not all people are in the market to buy a car right now. There is a “buyer’s cycle” that takes a few years. You first buy a new car and are very happy. (You are no longer “in the market’). After a couple of years, you still don’t mind your car, but now it is becoming ho-hum, but it’s still ok. Then after four or five years or so, the new models are out, your “old” model has a few dings and scratches… the ads on TV are starting to attract you… you go to a car dealership after hours to peruse what’s available, and finally you work up the courage to go in during business and take one for a test drive… now you are “in the market” again. To the salesman, you are a “hot prospect.” (And by this time, you are). The same thing goes on with women in the “dating market.” The key is learning how to find the small pool of women who are “in the market right now.”

In the old days, before Father Custody was destroyed in the 1870’s, the principle of Briffault’s Law was enforced and overcome/fulfilled because if a woman left the husband, she lost both her children and access to Dad’s paycheck. Since then, she has been able to use the children as “mutilated beggars” to rob Dad of his paycheck through the courts in order to fund her children. This is where the divorce craze began, not in the 1970’s when No-Fault Divorce was introduced.

”There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers”. — Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce” — James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.

No-fault Divorce in the 1970’s merely simplified things. Before that, it was kind of a joke in that even if there was no “fault,” you could still divorce under the fault of “cruelty,” which could basically be anything, just like “abuse” can be anything today. An argument that makes her cry (He was CRUEL to me), he didn’t do this or that for me (He was CRUEL to me). Even Belfort Bax talks of this being a joke a century ago. So, rather than having to go through the whole ridiculous process of finding fault in “cruelty,” it became “just give her the damn divorce already.” (It wasn’t THAT difficult to divorce before the 1970’s – lol, look at Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe).

What really happened in the 1970’s was that women entered the work-force in large numbers – thus, it further undermined Briffault’s Law (Dad’s paycheck was not as much of a “benefit” as it was before) and also, hypergamy again came into play – a woman making $60,000/yr does not find a man making $40,000/yr to be attractive because of it. She needs to find a man making $100,000/yr to hypergamously “move up.”

Foreign women are indeed a better bet than the typical Ameriskank or Mapleskank (sorry, don’t know what the rest of you guys call your skanks). The reason they are a better bet is because you have better ability to be hypergamously desirable to a larger pool of women – putting you in better control of choosing a suitable, high value mate, and also, you are able to enforce Briffault’s Law and “keep her around” via the “providing a benefit to continue association principle.” Although, if I were to seek out a foreign chick, I would tuck all my money safely away in a numbered account in the Turks and Caicos Islands so it is 100% safe from her being able to get her hands on it – that “benefit” is then securely under your control, and then go abroad and stay there. Once you bring her back to Western Culture, she quickly adopts the attitude of the women around her – no matter her background – go to live in her country and don’t bring her back here.

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..
 

————————————————————————–

Related:

Any Gal of Mine

—————————————————————————

“It is almost a tertiary sexual character of the male, and certainly it acts on the female as such, that she expects from him the interpretation and illumination of her thoughts. It is from this reason that so many girls say that they could only marry, or, at least, only love a man who was cleverer than themselves; that they would be repelled by a man who said that all they thought was right, and did not know better than they did. In short, the woman makes it a criterion of manliness that the man should be superior to herself mentally, that she should be influenced and dominated by the man; and this in itself is enough to ridicule all ideas of sexual equality.” — Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Characteristics

The Jiggly Room

April 24, 2013

 

.

Ah, yes. Boobs!

.

Two things that are constantly on the minds of both genders are a woman’s breasts. Of course, fembots have been convincing women that men are pigs because they can’t keep their eyes off of a woman’s chest when they talk to her. Bad, bad, men! They treat women like nothing more than sex objects!
.

.

Yes, men are pigs!
.
But, why aren’t women considered to be pigs when they expose the fleshy globes for the whole world to see? Does anyone really believe that a woman “innocently” didn’t realize that she was advertising her jahoobies when she pulled on a blouse like this in the morning?
.

.
Women, unlike men, never buy clothes without trying them on first. When the above (appropriately faceless) woman bought that blouse, she first pulled it on in a dressing room, stood in front of a mirror, and I guarantee you that her eyes were fixed on her boobs in the mirror’s reflection. It is no accident when a woman displays cleavage. It is not like accidentally walking around with your fly unzipped.
.
Back in the day, before I unplugged from the fematrix, I used to make damn sure that I never looked at woman’s boobs when talking to her, no matter how flagrantly she displayed them. I listened to the ceaseless propaganda about how degrading it was for a man to talk to a woman’s chest instead of her face, and I let non-logical PCism cloud my mind and not think about the woman’s role in all of it.
.
Women are intensely aware of their boobs. Before puberty, girls ache for their first training bra. Flat chested teenage girls are viciously jealous of the girl who blooms early and receives male attention for it. At the same time, the earlier bloomer hears the propaganda about how degrading it is for men to like her breasts and goes into her first, of many to come, victim modes and allows her clouded female brain to be contradictory by believing she’s a victim of her boobs while secretly loving it and playing on her sexual power over the boys at the same time. Of course, the woman who remains flat chested into adulthood believes she is equally victimized because she doesn’t receive similar male attention.
.
Women buy bras that make their boobs look firmer than what they are, that lift and separate them to make them more appealing, there are padded ones to make them bigger, and they can even buy ones with built-in hard nipples. Women are intensely aware of their boobs and the power that they wield. Boob jobs are the number one plastic surgery done in our femi-narcististic world.
.
When this woman left the house in the morning, she knew she was putting her boobs on display for the world. Go ahead. Have a good, long look at them! That’s what she wants – no matter what her flapping gums might be currently whining about.
.

.

“Talk to my face, not my chest. Pig!” Says the appropriately faceless creature.
.
This reminds of what I once read in Jack Kammer’s excellent book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make All The Rules, http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf in which Mr. Kammer makes a keen observation about the difference between Men & Women’s sexuality. He says that when a man “comes on to a woman,” it is like dealing with an annoyingly pushy door to door salesman who targets one customer and digs his heels in trying to convince the one person in front of him. But women’s sexuality is advertised like annoying junk mail (or internet spam). It is ever present. You cannot escape it. She advertises to the whole world and whether the recipient wants to recieve her advertisement or not is of little concern to her. She targets everyone and plays the numbers game of “if I advertise to 100 people, I will get one nibble – and if I advertise to 1,000 people, I will get 10 nibbles.”

.

So, let’s get it straight. Women who show off the jahoobies, are trolling for sexual attention. It is very rare for a woman to “accidently” let someone see her fleshy globes. A woman who wears a tight, form fitting blouse like the following, fully well knows that her blouse accentuates her breasts:

.

.

And when a woman leans forward and “accidentally” lets you look clear down her blouse to her belly button, like the following, it is no accident either.

.
.

Don’t believe me that it is no accident? Then ask yourself why only women with “boobs to be proud of” allow this. How come flat chested women never “accidentally” flash the mammaries? How come older women, whose boobs are well passed their prime years, are never giving you shots like that? How come men aren’t wearing shirts that show off the man-boobs every time they lean over? Because the women whose cleavage & boobs you do see are quite aware that they are “accidentally-on purpose” doing it. That’s why.
.
“Now, Rob,” you say, “what’s the big deal?”
.
Well, as some of you may know. The only Television I watch anymore is the Business News Network. A few weeks ago I was watching and listening for business reports of various natures when, in typical TV propaganda fashion, the filthy TV programmers decided it would be prudent to have a short 5-minute interview with some stunned female academic who was “an expert” on workplace etiquette. It didn’t take this harpy with a BS in Academia more than one breath after introducing herself before she femi-moaned about sexual harrasment in the workplace, like when male co-workers are looking down a woman’s blouse.
.
I just can’t tell you how much it annoys me that the only “intellectual” thing that “academic” women seem capable of discussing, when interviewed, is women’s victimhood in some way at the hands of those awful males. I taught the TV screen a few things about how foul my mouth can get when confronted with sexist women like that.

.

But it reminded me of a place where I worked once, and where I had a lower-level manager who was a woman.
.
Now, this woman came to work each day like a tarted up little whore. Her blouses would be unbuttoned down to the maximum point – as in, undo one more button and she would be displaying below the bottom of her bra – you know the type. This woman, every day, wore very short skirts – very short. Short enough that everyone knew she was wearing stockings instead of pantyhose, because the lacy top of the stockings would sometimes come into display if she bent over to pick something up etc.
.
But what this woman, a manager, used to do to me was complete sexual harassment. Passive sexual harrassment. On several occasions, when in her office discussing various work related issues, this woman would lean back in her chair, locking her hands behind her head like she was stretching – and lean way back, with a short skirt, legs open, and display clear shots up her skirt of the crotch of her panties.
.

.

I don’t believe it was an accident. Exhibitionism is a top female sexual fantasy.
.
And here becomes the situation: You have to talk to a woman, out of work related neccessity, who is either leaning forward to talk to you, and fully displaying her cleavage to you – or she is leaning back and talking to you, fully displaying the crotch of her panties. Yet, you are expected to only be looking her in the eyes while she is displaying herself like a Penthouse Centerfold. She is looking at your face, and if you should allow your eyes to betray that you are fully aware that she is displaying herself sexually, YOU could be charged with sexual harassment in the workplace and not her! You could lose your job, wind up being sued, and have difficulty securing another job – the stakes are positively huge!
.
Now, the thoroughly corrupted feminist legal system has ambiguously defined Sexual Harassment in the Workplace as “that which would make a reasonable woman uncomfortable.” But what about men? This woman made me uncomfortable in the workplace! I even contemplated discussing it with higher level management but I decided against it, contemplating that if I allowed them to know that I had been seeing down this woman’s blouse and up her skirt, that I would get the boot for sexually harassing her. So I kept my mouth shut and endured the tightrope that this sexually flagrant harlot forced me to walk. And it did affect my professional performance, because I dreaded dealing with her, and that did affect the bottom line profitability of that particular business. I go to work to make money, not to ogle women. And the owner of the company started the business to make money, not to provide some tramp a venue to fulfill her exhibitionism fetish.
.
And here is where we get back into “amorality.” As I previously pointed out, women don’t put themselves on display by accident. All women know this. Women are very aware of how to hide their bad features and accentuate their desireable features. The boobs you see are boobs you are meant to see. Yet, should some woman level a charge of sexual harassment against a man for looking at the boobs that you were meant to see, all the other women will quickly rally around the “afronted” woman and support her over the male pig. Even though they full well know “the game.” At best, the other women will remain silent and not call the exhibitionist woman on her bullshit and let the man go down in flames. That is amoral behaviour.
.
Women should be discriminated against in the workplace until they all start dressing for business instead of dressing for attention. It’s about time that women start showing up in suits, and with a tie, so that they are forced to “button up.” Otherwise, given the sexual harassment bias of our legal system, coupled with female sexual fetishes and natural amorality, women are a profit draining lawsuit waiting to happen and it is justifiable to unemploy their asses.

Previous Index Next

………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

———————————————————————————

Further Reading:

Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise Is Deafening