Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
In contrast with Poiuyt and John Dias, I think real golddiggers are worthy of scorn. They are worthy of scorn because they consciously use the chivalry of men and the family law that developed from that chivalry to enrich themselves.
Heather Mills apparently told a friend or two that she was going to go after Paul McCartney for his money. She fleeced him royally. She is a golddigger.
Anyone want to defend her or say she is not worthy of scorn? 'Cuz she's just a girl following her genetic instincts? Have at it.
QuoteNo they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.
Get going your own way, guys.
QuoteOh please! You are generalizing to the max. Not all young women seek out thugs. There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that. The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be.
thats very good dr e i am very happy for you--but it seems to me that succesful marriages nowadays are few and far between--there is a new phrase i read somewhere,where women now initially get married to "practice husbands" such as RookhKshatriya describes.
Getting around the anglo-bitch, her femaleist sponsors and her institutional enablers. Call their bluff and put them out of business for ever.
Perhaps one of the ways for males of the masculine gender class to get around femaleists, their victim-parasite clients and the institutional state enforcers of gynocracy is through adoption and professional surrogacy.
Through the contract of adoption and professional surrogacy services, a man can have a stable family and also leave heirs and heiresses in posterity. He will also be able to remain in his own home, applying his own resources to his children as he sees fit.
Indeed a man using adoption and professional surrogacy services will never ever run the risk or gauntlet of todays misandrous greiviance mongers or misandrys states enforcers. These malign influences will simply be eliminated from the equation where no girlfriend, wife or ex-wife is allowed to enter the equation in the first place.
Contractual Surrogacy or Adoption is a viable alternative to a man whom wishes to live and die in peace. That is if he wishe to be surrounded by children of his own choosing and commitment plus a loving and involved extended family.
The mens movement must start to think of ways, beyond the marriage strike or homosexuality, to call feminists bluff and put their inordinately miserable clients and enforcers out of business.
I agree with poiuyt's analysis.
Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children. In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate. It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.
Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men. Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men. Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress? It's the waitress, of course. An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.
Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors. Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.
No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.
Get going your own way, guys.
Oh please! You are generalizing to the max. Not all young women seek out thugs. There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that. The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be.
QuoteIt sounds harsh, but defeating feminists (and Anglo-Saxon women in general) is our primary concern.
Defeating Anglo-Saxon women in general? What? I was with you when you refer to feminism as being an enemy but women in general? I would urge you to clarify this and explain to me how this is not pure misogyny or retract it. Otherwise you will not be welcome to post here.
I agree with poiuyt's analysis.
Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children. In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate. It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.
Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men. Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men. Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress? It's the waitress, of course. An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.
Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors. Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.
The social science of sociology contains the key to understanding the success of feminist strategists thus far. It is an amazingly versatile and adaptable discipline, containing vocabulary that covers just about anything to which it is applied. I have even heard the term 'clinical sociology', referring to the application of sociological concepts and methodology to the field of mental health. The word "cool" has a sociological definition!
The word Patriarchy also has a sociological definition(http://www.webref.org/sociology/p.htm), as do the terms gender role and consciousness-raising. Interestingly, misogyny has a sociological definition ... misandry does not! [ ... ]
Continued: http://swisssubmarine.blogspot.com
I agree that change is coming slowly, but the only ones needing to change are not just hippies and feminists and alphas. Our problems run much deeper and need the sort of grass roots education/change that we are starting to see. Blaming any one group is short sighted and misses the main battlefield.
The misandry we face is spouted by automatons of both sexes. The devaluation of men and the masculine is enforced by both males and females. Ideas that encourage men to die for their "country" are an example. If any other group were expected to die there would be riots...but men are so devalued and seen as disposable that no one gives a crap. If you have ever tried to lobby for anything that might be of service to men you will quickly find out that those blocking your path are not as much the women, it is much more often the men. My experience has been about 25% of the women legislators were anti-male and about 90% of the male legislators. I have seen this repeatedly. YMMV. The fight we face is against both men and women who unconsciously and automatically maintain misandrous attitudes and behaviors whether it is domestic violence laws, circumcision, selective service, family courts etc etc.
I have often found that many of these misandrist male assholes tend to be baby-boomers who came of age in the Sixties. The Sixties was a pile of elitist bilge masquerading as something radical and revolutionary. In reality, all those hippy turds in SF, LA and London were just bourgeois elitists patronizing 'the masses' and most of their values were covertly reactionary - indeed, close to the core of memes of Anglo-Saxon culture (women on pedestals, religious salvationism and exclusionary class elitism). Most ex-hippies are Anglofag misandrists and their pernicious influence continues to block our transformative agendas. Ex-hippies continue to be prominent in the media, a particularly troubling fact, as they can use this to promote the NAMWO (New Anglo Matriarchal World Order) at every turn.
The slimy bastards.
Our problem is that those who are brainwashed and unconsciously expecting men to serve women and be "disposable" are not just an elite, they are the majority. Most men and women unconsciously are misandrous. We are up against a huge wall since the politicians want to please the masses and the masses are brainwashed with misandry. This is not the sort of problem that is caused by this or that group, this is a problem with the generic mode of thinking of a culture.
Holding either sex as responsible for our present mess is short sighted. The rad fems have made a living off of blaming men for the problems we face. When I see mra's blaming only women I will call it every time. Women/feminists are not the sole nature of our problem. It is much more complex and obviously a big part of our trouble has to do with chivalrous men.
Fully agreed with; for example, VAWA wasn't passed or reauthorized (a couple of times) by any women- or feminist-majority legislature.
Holding either sex as responsible for our present mess is short sighted. The rad fems have made a living off of blaming men for the problems we face. When I see mra's blaming only women I will call it every time. Women/feminists are not the sole nature of our problem. It is much more complex and obviously a big part of our trouble has to do with chivalrous men.
It's dangerous to judge a president until many years after he leaves office. There are too many things that we simply don't know. Bush may be an example of that, we just don't know at this point.