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).” -- The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century
"...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
"...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  |
| Click for "The Amazon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)" |
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 is not going to change just 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. -- The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century
 |
| Click for "The Liberation of Men" |
”…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 benefaction 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.
"...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)
.
.
