FREE STUFF


The paradigm of most relationships with western women involves giving them free stuff. It may seem crude to simply say it. And there are plenty of nice names we furnish to take away the sting of disingenuousness from calling it what it really is. Free Stuff. And beyond free stuff, there is also free goods and services. Think about it, you go to a bar, see a woman you're attracted to, or you're taking your date out to dinner and without thinking too hard about it, you're buying her drinks or dinner. You're reaching into your wallet to pull out either cash, a checkbook or credit card. And before the night is over, you're diminished several tens of hundreds of dollars. Add to this the sense of foregone obligation to get into your pocket during holidays to give her more free stuff like jewelry, or some other expensive item. Then there is her birthday, and anniversaries and of course more free stuff  to prove you still have affection for her.

You know the old joke that women in America make only 70-80 cents to a man's dollar? Yet how often do you hear how much of that dollar a man makes that is funneled straight to women. I suspect once that is factored in, the supposed dollar a man makes compared to women would be well below 60 cents.

Yet if you watch any of the popular daytime TV shows, movies, or read the multitude of relationship advice column as well as see their videos they almost all uniformly preach the gospel of giving women free stuff. Of course it's never explicitly put in those terms, instead its dressed up in romanticist terms like "showing her you care," "keeping the spark alive," "making her feel like she's just as appealing as when you first met her." and the daddy of them all, "Being a gentlemen." Often the typical claim among these relationship gurus generally proclaim you must behave with the same intensity of pursuit as when you were first dating, (for those in long term relationships.)

At a point in the distant past, western women were given free stuff because the man who wanted to impress her, genuinely didn't mind furnishing the drinks, presents and dinners, because back then there was some reasonable reciprocation that made all this gift giving worth it. And I don't mean worth it exclusively with regards to sex, but a genuine and open expression of appreciation on her part. Back then you could observe that she didn't take a man's act of giving or buying stuff for her for granted. If he spent 1/4 of his annual income on a ring or necklace, it truly meant something to her and she held those items with priceless esteem. When a man put himself out to fix her car or pay for repairs to it, she expressed true sincere gratitude that typically resulted in something like a finely cooked meal or some form of praise that made those men feel special.

Today, on average, those dynamics of the past no longer exist in a meaningful way in the present.

Today, you're expected to provide free stuff, free goods and services as a prerequisite for first getting her attention, and maintaining her attention. Not only are you obligated as a matter of course to prove your worth to her by furnishing lots of material stuff, but as a man in contemporary reckoning, you have to do so with the knowledge that you are but one of several contenders simultaneously vying for the affections of a woman who solidly feels ENTITLED to free stuff, goods and services. The entire moral relativism determining what some call the traditional roles and what is presumed to be the challenge of traditional gender roles comes full stop at the free stuff paradigm. The likelihood of a woman earning more money than a man who buys HIM dinner, or expensive gifts, like cars, houses, jewelry, and other items of luxury is so rare as to be virtually non-existent. And there exist no serious effort from feminists to disparage women who insist upon the free stuff paradigm, but of course, men are frequently disparaged  for not giving women MORE free stuff. And it gets worse. The modern general relationship with a western woman also demands not just free stuff like drinks dinners and gifts, goods and services, but essentially increased physical labor. It's not enough for him to spend ten to twelve hours working a hard job, but he's now expected to come home to do the dishes, and other housework and so on. For reasons I cannot wrap my head around, decades of men mowing the yard, or cleaning gutters, or doing plumbing, or painting the fence, doing basic maintenance around the house mysteriously doesn't count as housework. So, I suppose he's expected to continue doing what he's generally done for several decades on top of all the other labors, which many women incessantly complain they have to do.

Now comes the kicker.

If the relationship doesn't work out, you may have to face the unpleasant fact that several months, weeks or years of material investment has absolutely no meaning. In other words, the romanticist self-deception that generated a false sense of belief that one can expect some sort of reasonable equitable remuneration has as much value as cold ashes on a hard winter day. Worse still, if he's married with a home. Upon divorce, in most cases, he will in all likelihood be forced by the state to continue subsidizing her life in the form of alimony. In most cases he loses the home, to her and is still obligated to pay the mortgage and property tax. And God forbid if children is involved.


Now that we've explored all the expectations men are encouraged to meet to satisfy the contemporary relationship paradigm, what are women in the west expected to do to earn or deserve all this free stuff?

Nothing.

Why? Because the setup operates on the basis that it is the man who pursues women, and not the  other way around. As a result, most modern western women base relationship prerequisites on the principles of demands, conditions and ultimatums. In other words, a zero sum principle. They themselves as the presumably pursued, have no obligation to give or do anything except exist. Sincerity, appreciation or even a modicum of praise for the man is non-existent, because from their point of view, the man in the relationship, however casual or not, is EXPECTED to exist in mindless deference to their needs, wants and whims. Then there is a rather silly idea that giving a man access to sex is reward enough. As if sex is a treat to be parcelled out like a WWII ration card or doggie treat if you perform enough tricks on command.


Which brings me to MGTOW

MGTOW is the end of free stuff for women. And when this is understood, one can easily observe one of the reasons why many western women  contemptuously complain about MGTOW stems from a realization that a growing number of men have decided to negate the average western woman's sense of over-the-top entitlements. In other words, since more men are refusing to pursue entitled-minded western women, the concept defining male value from a gynocratic paradigm becomes upended. On result of this is men suddenly have a lot more money to invest in themselves. And when a man  makes investing in himself a top priority, then many of the psychological and monetary issues that contribute to much of his anxiety, pain and self-esteem conflicts is dramatically reduced.

MGTOW can equal many things, one of those things is NO MORE GIVING WOMEN FREE STUFF.

                                         THE REJECTION and BITTERNESS THEOREM


Tell me if you've ever heard this before... "You hate women because you're bitter about being rejected."

Chances are if you're MGTOW or an MRA you're going to run across a lot of feminists and many women who respond to any critique of some women's faults and flaws with what I call the rejection and bitterness theorem. What is interesting is, how completely dismissive they are of men who have been rejected and they treat men's bitterness as something that's never justified. Sure, the feminist keeps saying, men need to express emotions and break the bonds of toxic masculinity so long as some of those emotions isn't anger, bitterness or resentment towards women. Now, when I say this, I'm not speaking of resentment towards women as a gender or a collective, but legitimate resentment at specific attitudes and behavior from women within the context of social relationships that is obviously problematic.

On a wider scale of internal emotional practice, contrary to feminist mystification appointing masculinity as the "toxic' pathology hurting men by subduing male emotion, men who prefer masculine qualities within their lives actually have no trouble expressing a wide range of varying emotions. One doesn't have to look far to see any man eagerly expressing emotion. just go to a ball game and watch the men's expressions when their team scores. Apparently, feminists seem to believe that the only emotion men express that counts is if he's perpetually shedding tears.

I mean, isn't that the near exclusive example of what they say men should be allowed to do to define what they believe is men expressing emotion? I mean, that  --- and weakness, vulnerability and and self loathing etc... I've pointed out in the past that feminist believe with absolute conviction that they and only they believe they are qualified to define and determine the lived experiences of men more than the men who actually live them. So it's no surprise that they feel qualified to define and determine for men the accepted range of what we feel think and believe. And that brings me  once more to the bitterness and rejection theorem.

When men discuss a bad breakup or divorce or hypocritical flaws within the ideology of feminism or the double standards within contemporary western relationships that critiques women's behavior and attitudes within the context of female fault and flaw, it doesn't take long before a feminist or women rationalizes that the reason behind such criticism stems specifically over bitterness at being rejected, as though rejection is so unbearable for men that we are predisposed to irrational psychic trauma leading invariably to misogyny.

It never occurs to them that an assessment of some women's treatment of men has nothing to do with bitterness or resentment but a statement of observable and experiential fact. however one reason why so many feminists and western women in general default to the theorem is to avoid facing some extremely uncomfortable truths about themselves. saying a man is bitter and resentful basically trivializes and dismisses any perspective he has that indicates unfavorable verdicts on western women in the context of relationships social or intimate.

Think about it. when you see a movie or TV show that features a female character screwing up, what's the first thing she hears more than anything else regardless of the depth of the screw up.

"It's not your fault."

Over and over and over again, women in life and media, cinema or otherwise is told like an incessant mantra "it's not your fault."  they hear this from blue pill men, feminists and social institutions.

You got unexpectedly pregnant because of a bad choice in the man you decided to lay down for...

... it's not your fault.

You falsely accuse a man of rape or sexual assault and the truth comes out...

... its not your fault.

You  underperform at an appointed job task...

...it's not your fault.

You make occasional bad decisions and choices resulting in problems for other people...

...its not your fault.

30 plus years of a steady diet of nothing ever being the fault of women has logically generated a conviction in most western women that they are somehow without fault or flaw and any error of personal judgement can simply be externalized towards men.

 A woman murders her boyfriend or husband in his sleep. The patriarchy made her do it by oppressing her and making her lash out in desperation.

A woman didn't get a promotion over a better qualified man. The misogynist sexist patriarchy impeded her with a glass ceiling.

A man breaks up with her  or files for divorce because she cheated on him. Its his fault for not meeting her sexual and emotional demands, conditions and ultimatums.

So while men have spent centuries developing the ability to self reflect and practice introspection of himself and other men, modern western women have not. Feminism  taught them it's easier to blame men for THEIR insecurities, THEIR emotional issues, THEIR bad habits, choices and decisions. However as much as most western women are eager to assign men blame for everything, you will never hear any feminist within the mainstream give men credit for anything.

If a man runs into a burning building risking his life to save several trapped women and their children , he's not appreciated because under the feminist entitlement mentality, he's SUPPOSED to risk his life as part of a societal obligation. So he get's no credit for his efforts.

In other words western women take western men for granted generally speaking and this is part and parcel of the whole male disposibility system from which even many men have so little value or their own lives they think their existence is for the purpose of throwing it away to appease women who nonetheless expect them to happily sacrifice themselves for their sake as a matter of course.

So what happens when enough women take men for granted and treat them badly and with so much entitlement that they eventually become wholly unappealing? Do they self-reflect on what  they contributed to some men finding them unappealing regardless of physical appearance and intelligence? apparently not. Instead they run for cover behind the nothing is ever a woman's fault paradigm and chalk up the reason some guys want nothing to do with them as bitterness and resentment at past rejection.

 

MEN ARE GOOD, FATHERS ARE GREAT

                                         MEN ARE GREAT, FATHERS ARE GOOD


MEN ARE GOOD! How often do you hear that these days? How about FATHERS ARE GOOD. How often do you hear that these days? Probably not a lot, if we're honest. And when we do hear it, its usually spoken in an unconvincing patronizing manner and often in a tone suggesting "yeah, right."

In today's society women as a gender are repeatedly told over and over and over and over again that they're great, strong, brave, powerful, beautiful and indispensable. The media push to empower women isn't a recent thing. it's the continuation of a thing that has many decades behind it. Female self esteem must, in terms of contemporary thought, be constantly bolstered, apparently from birth to death. In feminist terms, absolutely no criticism of women is tolerated. Any criticism is strictly and immediately viewed as misogyny and sexism. The feelings and emotions of western women is considered sacrosanct, so much so that in all expression, western women can only feel empowered if they are firmly perched on that metaphorical pedestal. The gynocentric role of men, as feminist would have it, is that he must exist in exclusive deference to women by becoming and maintaining a metaphorical foundation, base and pillar of the metaphorical pedestal I've mentioned. His existence, as many of us have experienced, is not as an autonomous individual living for his own sake and benefit, but instead as a resource to be exploited by western women (and other elements of contemporary society.)  Practically from birth, a man is socialized to accept a type of psychological obligation towards women in which what defines his virtue is his collective participation as a support system for the pedestal on which western women are perched.

This dynamic extends to mothers, daughters, and any woman in general. And not only are men socialized to provide the living material for the multitude of pedestals on which entitled western women reside, in feminist terms, men must LIKE our role as support material. Any deviation from these obligations is thus described by feminists as the source of all societal problems. And they describe these societal problems with a selection of terminology that invariably genders problematic social issues wholly as that which is the fault of men. All solutions advocated by feminist, literally advocated, involves only men who have to change. But the change is always in one direction --- and the direction is always in the form of, yes, you guessed it, accepting deference to women  through further acceptance of a psychological obligation to become the material, which shapes the pedestal supporting western women.


The compulsory, "LIKING " part is essentially to keep western women's self esteem afloat. They must be constantly complimented, rewarded, and their vanity satisfied no matter what she does or doesn't do. If she's a mother, it must be assumed she's a great mother, and if she uncharacteristically feels one day that she may not be, it is the responsibility of men to furnish her with assurances that she's not only a GOOD mother but the BEST mother, even if clearly she's not. Whatever obvious faults and flaws western woman has, is to be downplayed, or rationalized completely out of existence. Any deviation suggests too much diminshment reducing the pedestal on which entitled western women demand they remain permanently perched.

Yet can contemporary western  man expect equal repricosity?

Any honest observation reveals the answer is no For decades western man has been fed a steady feminist diet of himself as the sum total of all that is wrong, evil, bad and unnecessary in the world. In fact we're so used to hearing  about how we're bad fathers, and evil men many men truly believe it and live in a cocoon of self loathing. When western contemporary man sees images of fathers on TV and in movies, any example of a GOOD father or GOOD husband or GOOD man is mostly the exception rather than the rule. How do we kn ow this, because when a positive image of a father is exhibited in media, most of us are genuinely surprised to see it. And you can only be surprised by something if you're not used to experiencing/seeing a particular thing that consistently exhibited in one format that appears predictably normal.

Take for instance several decades in which TV sitcoms featured almost without variation, the dumb, incompetent bumbling dad. It's bad enough that sitcoms are filled with immature, brain-dead manchildren, who are supposedly reflections of men and fathers in real life. but to compound matters, we now have many men who truly believe the worse about themselves and sometimes will  regurgitate to the mainstream media these aspects of male identity as though no other positive aspect is manifest. One incarnation of self-loathing men is in the form of male sitcom writers. Over and over again they fuel the feminist predisposition that men are innately childish, sexually confused, intellectually void, emotionally stunted and barely cognitive enough to figure out how to cross a street intersection without the saving grace of brilliant flawless, intellectually superior women whose saving grace is how much they tolerate our infantile nature.

Some feminist will say, they are opposed to the bumbling man  incompetent father trope that is frequently a feature of male gender in TV and movies. Yet I find it difficult to believe them. They externalize the negative portrayals to "patriarchy." (Another way of blaming men as a collective.) Despite the fact that it was feminists in academia and society that pushed the bad man, bad father paradigm into modern social consciousness. Well, it's not as if you see groups of mainstream feminists openly protesting against TV shows and movies on behalf of men with the same passion as they exhibit when seeking to destroy the careers and livelihoods of men who depict women as less than appealing in anything including motherhood. Want to test it? Give it some thought. How many feminist openly protested  the daytime talk show called "The Talk" which had a five minute segment praising Catherine Kieu and mocking the man whose penis she destroyed the same way they protested Don Imus for making an insensitive comment about an all female basketball team. Did the feminist openly call for the hosts to lose their jobs? Did the feminist take to mainstream media to spotlight the intolerable sexism practiced by the "feminist" hosts of "The Talk" Did they wage a sustained campaign to destroy the reputation and define the hosts, and its creators as misandrists for life?

No.

In fact, when it comes to sexism against men that hurts men, feminist default into the "Sexism doesn't harm men because the oppressor (men) cannot suffer the same as the oppressed (women).

So when you hear  or read about feminist who claim to disparage negative images of father in mainstream media, consider how they never seem to want the creators of those negative images to
suffer sustained public censure.

There should not be a sense that good fathers are the surprising exception to the rule when the inverse is true. Men and fathers should take the lead and declare over and over and over again our virtues as a gender. We should not be afraid of openly claiming our accomplishments and achievements in terms of what exemplifies the qualities of masculinity and male identity. We need to tell out boys they are special and as boys part of something unique and magnificent. Fathers need to be consistently praised, respected and vigorously defended. At every opportunity modern man need to say MEN ARE GOOD, FATHERS ARE GREAT! Especially to feminists. We should shout it defiantly and mean it with a level of sincerity that tolerates none of the feminist narratives expressing otherwise.

 

MGTOW and CONSCIOUSNESS

   When it happens, it may happen suddenly, or gradually. But when it happens the world no longer looks quite the same. The thing that happens is realization. And as a man this realization is part confrontation with the truth of things and part realization of one's precise place in a world where the rules, laws and policies not only are formatted to work against you, but work to engineer a perverse manufacture of self consent to gain acceptance in a society that is open in its contempt for you, and where you have less than zero value as a full human being. It can be shocking for some , the realization is similar to a person who has tried for years to do the right thing for someone or some principle, only to discover, usually by accident that those with whom you expend yourself has no respect for you, while also engaging in the very wrongs with which you are told isn't right to practice.

   Imagine putting a woman or women on a pedestal and existing to appease and ingratiate these women through personal sacrifice, while upholding conditions that require proof of your devotion through devaluing yourself in every aspect. For a long time, you probably imagine that your efforts will be appreciated,Surely respected, more than likely praised in some way. You may even accept a dynamic,which requires you to avoid articulating any expectation of fair repricosity, because doing so infers that your efforts lack true sincerity and therefore is invalid.

   Then one fine day you discover the woman or women collectively laugh behind our back, they mock you and freely admit to one another that your only function is a dupe whose affections are to be mercilessly exploited for the wholesale benefit of that which he places on a pedestal. Not only do you discover that everything you attempt to do to raise the standard of women's ( or a woman's) lives  means nothing to her as far as you're concerned but in reality she and they have only sheer contempt for you and can barely stand your presence.

   This discovery is pretty painful for any man who experiences this sort of revelation. And although for brevity sake, I'm conflating a bit in a generalized description of modern western male-female relationship dynamics, this is a basic description of what informs the reality of many relationships between men and women in the west. Now, one can understand that such realizations can be so painful that some men choose as a matter of psychological preservation to embrace several rationalizations to offset the glimpse into reality. Some, perhaps many will retreat further into self-deception whereupon such contempt for them by the women they sacrifice and give deference to is somehow deserved on the basis of one or more constructed flaws and faults they attribute to themselves. The result in most cases is this man probably feels he needs to work even harder to sacrifice and exist in more deference to that which cares little for him.

   The alternative is,of course to fully confront the reality refuse to retreat into self-deception see things for what they really are with regard to contemporary western relationships with western women in a general sense. This degree of realization is not easy. Think about it, a part of this realization and confrontation involves admitting how many years was wasted navigating in the dark on a hamster wheel to nowhere. Moreover, one is faced with the meaningless loss of time, money and activities that could have enhanced one's life. One also faces a truth about the how modern relationships are structured to promote an existence for men on diminishing returns, while the principles, rules, or expectations from you is acquiescence to a zero sum game. One result of realization with many of the deceptions, exploitation and disposability derived from the western woman's prerequisites and requisites of ultimatums, demands and conditions is sheer unadulterated anger.

   Then while you're angry and express that anger with words, you are further insulted by feminists who characterize your natural anger as inappropriate. What's more you're told over and over and over again that just for expressing any anger at women it makes you a pathetic loser who is bitter and irrationally resentful. Meanwhile feminists make no complaint about some of the extreme responses against men by women for petty grievances that sometimes result in his home being burned to the ground, car wrecked, or any number of costly revenge tactics used by women to either permanently ruin or destroy his reputation livelihood and relationships with his children if he has any as well as his health. Consider an incident from a few years ago. A man requests a divorce from his wife. She retaliates by drugging the man to incapacitate him and while placed on a bed, proceeds to cut off his penis and destroy it in a garbage disposal. Later, feminists on a reasonably popular TV daytime show, mock him and praise the woman who destroyed his penis. At no point did a single feminist call fora boycott of the show, and the utter destruction of the careers of the women on the show who mocked the man's mutilation. You know like they definitely would do were the situation inverted. In fact there was no commercial, public or meaningful condemnation by feminists nor mention in the media about the hosts of the show's decidedly sexist behavior. Yet a few years prior, Don Imus was fired from his long running radio show for making a petty insensitive comment about an all female basketball team, The outrage delivered by feminist would accept no result other than Don Imus' complete dismissal from his job and more than that to utterly define his entire life based upon one insensitive comment about a group of women that had absolutely no power to adversely affect them on any observable level. Contrast this with the psychological anguish a man must feel knowing that something so painful, permanent and life changing is portrayed as the butt of a national joke by western women. If one seriously ask, in modern times, is a man's life, health, ideas, perspective, and efforts hold any value for western woman the realistic answer would be absolutely not.

Apply this to dating and relationships, employment and economics and general pursuit of happiness, and one can easily perceive the arena of disposability with which western women in general regard men. And what else can it be but continuing contempt for men when man's pain, destruction, dismemberment and loss is regarded almost wholly as a source of comedy, so much so that even some men join in to laugh at the anguished pain and disenfranchisement of other men.

You break up with a woman, society under feminist gynocracy says you're a jerk that deserves every evil done to you under the sun. She breaks up with you, she's an empowered women who decides to pursue her independence. (Usually after she's got from you what she needed or when you can no longer meet the increasing material and monetary demands she requires.)  In any case, your feelings as a man maters little and whatever reaction you have other than tacit acceptance of the situation is belittled and trivialized.

In other words, you as a man either face the harsh uncomfortable truth that up until realization, you served as nothing more than a utility to be exploited and later discarded as a utility of disposibility, or fall into self-deception to preserve a false sense of value to and for those who do not value you beyond superficial utility. If you decide to confront the truth and possibly endure the anger and anguish that naturally arrives with discovering the truth, you may also decide to use the opportunity to reorient the part of your life where continuing to participate in the same environment and conditions amounts to little more than rinse, fold and repeat.

Have you ever heard the expression, "get back on the horse?" Don't you ever wonder why you should get back on a horse that has no interest in keeping you in the saddle?  Well in a way that's what modern relationship dynamics tell men. If one doesn't work find another, try again and keep on trying until you find the right one. Yet at no point does society ever question the rules, environment, expectations, requirements, demands, conditions, ultimatums and random constantly shifting standards men face in a zero sum situation. What you're really being told is, "get back on the hamster wheel to nowhere. Do the rules of the plantation benefit the slave master or the slave? Think about it, what makes a "good" slave? Really give it some thought and you'll find its almost identical to what makes a good boyfriend or husband under contemporary feminist gynocracy. Does a slave on a plantation have any value external to what explicitly benefits the slave master, his family, the surrounding society and that slave master's sense of authoritarian superiority? What's more likely happen to a slave when after years of service he is no longer able to physically supply it? More often than not he's put out to pasture, and if being put out to pasture has about as much meaning as simply living out the rest of his life on the plantation sans work, keep in mind his basic economic and material existence remains the same or worse. At no point is the slav retired or not permitted to better himself because the act of bettering himself is tantamount to achieving self value that may not be easily exploitable by the plantation master. Similarly you see this dynamic at play with feminist's idea about MGTOW.

Observe how they bitterly complain when some men simply decide to walk away from the gynocracy plantation. How often do you hear from them and others that such men are losers, pathetic, bitter, resentful because they can't get laid, or indifferent to adding to the structure of family, marriage and all the things that exclusively benefit women at his expense with no intention of any form of sincere repricosity.

Think of the logic behind many western women who complain that less men approach them in bars. At no point do they ever meditate on why that sometimes happen. But after decades of sadistically rejecting men for laughs and self empowerment and labelling any man who dares approach as creeps and  generally humiliating them in public and treating them with barely disguised contempt, why should men in general continue to subject themselves to entitled, spoiled not very nice women who overinflate their value to a point where they believe it gives them license to abuse men with impunity and without any shred of consequence?

Suppose things have gotten so bad that its no longer worth it for men who value their own worth to no longer subject themselves to conditions, demands and ultimatums from which they derive zero personal benefit. And what's the response to men checking out of marriage, relationships or participating in a societal system that doesn't value them?

More contempt.

Unable to self-reflect on their entitlement mentality, female feminist academics resort to writing highly inaccurate esoteric tomes called "The End of Men" or "Maning Up," while espousing endless articles and talking points deriding the "slackerman," the "manchild," and other similar negative stereotypes and associations about men without ever considering for an instance what feminism and western women's entitlement contributed to the environment that has rendered western women very close to something toxic, so toxic that whatever alluring attributes remaining is simply minimized to such a degree that any alternative yields far better results than dealing with people who no longer have the capacity to truly appreciate and mutually support good guys in a fair and equitable manner.

The challenge for men who wake up and come to the realization is how to reorient one's life after a lifetime of living under one dynamic and relationship paradigm.  Going back to the metaphorical plantation is not an option, so on the open road away from the familiar how can a man going his own way navigate an uncertain and unfamiliar terrain? For each man the resolution may be different, but as MGTOW truly provides, there is a resolution and the resolution, unlike the conditions of a gynocracy, is not the conditions of diminishing returns. Just as kicking a long habit of cocaine or alcohol abuse is initially difficult, the addicts life can only be better the further he goes from the habits and environment that gave him a previous impression that he couldn't live happily without drugs or overabundance of alcohol. All alternatives to addiction is increasing returns, all addiction to poisonous substances guarantees only diminishing returns.


Similarly, general western standards for contemporary relationships with western women guarantees very little return on emotional, psychological and economic investment for modern western men in general. As the losses stack up, so does the loss of self-esteem, sense of self, sense of worth, sense of personal value and like the addict addicted to Crystal Meth, over time he resembles less and less the former vitality in appearance and judgement he may have possessed prior to entering the relationship. The steady decline in judgement, his anger and mounting frustration that repeatedly is suffocated under the paradigm of disposable utility, sometimes contributing to irrational explosions of violence and self-destructive behavior, modern relationships with western women under the present gynocracy provides no daylight where he emerges better than when he entered it.

The "good" slave is never better off for being a "good"slave.Only the slave owner is better off. And why? because look at who is compelled by force to do all the heavy work. But what if the modern symbolic equivalent of the plantation is something you can walk away from. you know, just drop the hoe, the shevel, the yoke the chains and just walk away? Why should the slave be more concerned about the health of a society that doesn't value his health? Why should the slave have an interest in preserving the traditions, culture and philosophy of a society that doesn't recognize his common humanity --- and has zero interest in sharing the fruits of that society he is chiefly responsible for providing? Translate this into the economic health of bars and restaurants, vacation resorts and hotels. Why should a man continue to patronise a bar where the female bartenders talk trash about the male patrons to women who spend the least amount at the bar for drinks. Translate this to the economic health of many restaurants who depend on men to pay for two or more meals yet openly disparage the male patrons to females who are given free meal  after expensive free meal over the years. Consider the economic health of most jewelry stores who depend upon men to spend several months pay on diamonds, yet remain silent on the fact that the women who get these items often think little of the men who purchase their jewry. Do they ever speak up for men? Has anyone noticed?

So why should a man care to support  bars, restaurants and other venues that add nothing to his benefit? What if more men decided to wake up and rationally serve his own interests for his own benefit, while supporting the value of other men without deferring to western women to validate his value and worth.

Imagine it, and think about this. If men did this, what reason would he have to condescend into pathology, abuse, and psychological discontent?

                                I COULD BE CONTENTED, I DON'T NEED TO SUFFER




From cradle to grave, most men  in the west are socialized to view personal sacrifice as the epitome of highest virtue when it comes to relational values with modern western women. He is taught through various avenues such as media, TV shows, movies, literature, folk tales, relationship gurus, talk show hosts, panelists, and feminists academics, feminists actresses, feminist teachers and numerous other cultural philosophies that the measure of his "goodness," is in direct proportion to his willingness to sacrifice for society and more explicitly for the sake of western woman. He is socialized to equate his sense of worthiness in terms of what he can give and at the extremes, what he can sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice being his very one and only life. On and on throughout a modern western man's life, he is compelled as a condition of moral obligation to tie his sense of self with an acceptance that he must be supremely selfless as a measure of ethical compass. Simultaneous to this, his added validation arrives in the form of refusing to expect or demand equitable repricosity from women, particularly women of the west. For instance, he may indeed take time out to assist a woman with a flat tire who is stranded on the side of the road in the middle of winter. He may put forth the required physical effort involved with changing her flat tire, but the convention of good manners impose that he must refuse any and all offers of remuneration, because, well, that would threaten to dispel the sincerity of his previous assistance.His motives must remain, in the eyes of a modern western women, pure, there can be no inference  from him that suggests something, however deserved and reasonable for his service. That is to say, in refusing to accept or ask for remuneration he is communicating that his help is derived from an expression of high chivalry, or to put it in modern terms, his giving something and accepting nothing in exchange is an observable example that he cares about women, at least on that particular day.

For the next day he must set out to prove he cares again, and the next day and the day afterwards, on and on ad infinitum.  And the single day on which should care is lacking, the singular moment will out-measure all the accumulated days, weeks and years from whence his care proved the overriding preoccupation of his existence will count for less than nothing. A perfect track record of sacrifice need only one lapse and the entire judgement of his character is rendered with the harshest indictment by modern western woman. He can rarely receive forgiveness and any future on which the relationship is maintained with her, must of course come with his appeal for a second chance, a second chance accompanied by a stream of promises for the kind of emotional, psychical and yes monetary expenditure of which she is to be the exclusive recipient. If one needs evidence of this rather well worn narrative, it can be found in the bulk of narratives supplied from nearly every genre of cinema, plays, books and relationship advice given by academic con artists, who believe their field of expert charlatanism, under the childish guise of clinical sociologist manifests concrete solutions for the poor western man who lapses in his faith from social relationship orthodoxy.

The reality is, from cradle to grave the principle philosophy imposed as critical dogma for men is the philosophy of  sacrifice. Even the demarcation of what is considered a "good man" and "bad man" is easily drawn within distinctions whereupon the "good man" is obviously "good" on the basis that he must be willing to surrender his sense of individual self-worth and in an necessary extreme throw away his one and only life at the behest of modern western woman. Any lesser extreme will invariably involve levels of personal sacrifice of ideals, beliefs, principles, objects, activities, and even friendships to qualify and maintain her romantic attentions, potential or otherwise. No habits of satisfaction for him can be allowed to remain unless that habit or activity viscerally results in a major benefit for her, usually more than he. Western cinema is filled with narrative tropes and cliches that illuminate several instances where the male character or characters must depart with something meaningful to him to gain a female character's affection. He must enter into a nightmarish often humiliating and debasing series of mostly rigged trials and tribulations that the narrative informs us is necessary for his "growth" to be worthy of her love. In comedies, the male protagonist must depart from an entire lifestyle deemed irresponsible and childish. In other words, his life is constructed to reflect any number of infantile preoccupations, drinking and getting drunk, living at home with parents, indulging the life of a slacker, playing video games and behaving irreverently to serious social and political realities and of course the extreme sexism that reduces virtually every encounter with a beautiful woman to a comedy of bad manners and inappropriate remarks accompanied by rude gestures and badly thought out gestures meant to convey the innate character of the male identity that can only be "fixed" when the protagonist wises up and abandons all ideas of individual male identity and allow himself to be reshaped into the appropriate appliance of selfless deferential animal whose only guiding philosophical aim is to serve the interests of a female character with complete fidelity that he must be willing to die for her. This is generally the same in action movies. The adventuresome protagonist must relinquish the life of a loner, that is, he must learn to place the value of a female character, or characters above his own, and he must also be willing to adopt the occupation of protector whereupon he enters a series of increasingly challenging risky scenarios where it isn't uncommon for him to endure torture, injury and the loss of other male allies to ensure the safety of female characters who mostly exhibit open hostility and ingratitude for his efforts. Worse still is that in many action movies a man surrenders himself to a western female character who then proceeds to utilize him as a lethal weapon against other men. He thus becomes an instrument by which she can accomplish a multitude of proxy killings. Entire legions of male antagonists are mowed down with indifference  for her sake to satisfy the requirements of  the archetypal "hero."

Films within the drama genre will almost always feature the male protagonists as a man in some sort of identity crisis that can only be resolved when he accepts a conviction that he is "nothing" without her. The empty void filled with different variations of self-destructive tendencies to escape some sort of confrontation with whatever unpleasant existential  truth is shown to find its preferred resolution with the so-called "right women" who has magical capabilities by which he is able to find meaning in living, and of course the meaning for living is frequently expressed with an admission that she is the meaning of life and the course or his life must become devoted to living at the mindless service of that which becomes the source of his secular religion of unshakable faith.

So now I draw  your attention to a consistent pattern within every genre of cinema and media, under no circumstance is the female character required to sacrifice anything. You will not find within an of the aforementioned cinematic examples a regular plot device where it is she who must sacrifice, or offer up her life for the love of a man. generally speaking, the majority of western cinema does not require the female protagonist to undergo any sort of  discomfiting ritual or trial by fire to obtain the affections of a male protagonists. At no point does she arrive at a crossroads where she must choose against her friends, hobbies, preferred occupations habits or personal beliefs. On the rare cinematic occasions where such instances suggest she choose the male character at the expense of the aforementioned personal preferences, the narrative mainly features her rejecting the male character and maintaining her previous preferences under the narrative paradigm of maintaining her "independence." He wasn't the right one, he was too controlling, he was selfish, he wanted to  change what is unique in you, are some of the frequent variations on the theme to justify her decision to remain free.So the dynamic is, he must surrender his freedom and independence or be labeled selfish and infantile. But she does not have to and when she surrenders nothing, she acquires the label strong and independent.

Given that many of these patterns evolved from social constructs developed by feminists to easily explain male behavior, or at least their interpretation of male identity, a characterization was further developed that put forth the least sympathetic notion about the value of men's lives. He must prove himself against the unsympathetic notion, which is he must fully abandon an individual male identity and in the preferred view articulated by more than enough feminist, adopt a feminine mindset, which in various ways they believe with complete conviction is the absolute solution to all social, political. ethnic and economic problems.

This is not so unlikely as it may appear on first glance when one takes into consideration an entire social, political, economic and gender reduced to extreme simplifications utilizing a process of praise or condemnation in wholly absolutist terms. A man siting on a subway with legs spread is an act of misogyny perpetuated by a patriarchy, jokes unapproved by feminists is misogyny, a man disagreeing with a women is misogyny, The act of seeing from a man, particularly when observing a woman is sexist and misogynist because in the psychic conviction of feminists they know precisely what is on every man's mind when a woman crosses his line of vision. Complexity and nuance never features in feminists discourse when they speak about men and male identity. Only women suffer, only women are oppressed, along with gays and trans, and whatever suffering men endure is either deserved and a product of entertainment to feminists who gorge themselves in revenge fantasies where emasculation, torture, and sadistic forms of mental, material and sexual destruction of men is a source of  advocated desire in fiction and non-fiction. So is it any wonder that the only avenue remaining for men to appease their feminist masters is to 1. embrace mindless unrewarding sacrifice, 2. work with feminists to throw other men under the bus, 3. exist in mindless deference to western women at their expense across the board and 4. devalue their own existence by allowing feminists to determine for them what validates his identity.

One of the many reasons why feminists detest MGTOW as much as they do, is chiefly because, MGTOW do not rely of western women and feminists to validate their lives. Another reason is because MGTOWs refuse to prioritize deference to western women at their expense with no hope of even a particle of reasonable reciprocity. This leads to a real problem for feminists who depend upon men's complete affection for western women. Without the total affection of some men, means a greater diminshment of exploitation by which western women use, deceive, manipulate and later discard men as disposable resources of utility. It signals the potential end of the free ride for which, so far not even the long stream of emasculating shaming tactics no longer is effective. That there are some men who regard their existence with worth and value is an initial step towards a form of physical, and psychological liberation. Thus, the true end result leading to MGTOW lives is a life that upon observation, exhibits a remarkable improvement in the lives of men who no longer prioritize women's issues, nor places himself in unnecessary relationships with western women. His personal happiness  within reason is actually more likely with extremely limited interactions with western women. Certainly no marriage and certainly no children under terms he cannot completely control.

In future posts, I'll speak about the benefits of a new MGTOW lifestyle.  

MODERN FEMINISM IN A NUTSHELL

  It may be helpful for those choosing to go the path of Mgtow to have a reasonable picture of what counts as modern feminism and feminist ideology. So while its expected that many men prompted to take a better look at the current environment and face a harsher reality that its more gynocentric than patriarchy, thus coming into awakening with either a general view or a vague uneasy understanding of what represents modern feminism, its probably not  altogether possible for a man to approach MGTOW  ideas without having to confront in some degree the topic of feminism and feminists. And while there may be some MGTOW who aren't bothered by feminism, for the most part on average many do see the ideology as a major contributor to the gynocentric environment that continues to impose upon mainstream society the present paradigm similar to a metaphoric plantation where what's expected from men, at least what's expected from men who want to be considered "good men" is nothing short of mindlessly existing in deference to women, at his expense, as a tool of disposability, while accepting the relationship on terms that do not obligate women to reciprocate equal deference. A "bad man" as feminist practice articulates in numerous ways is a man who chooses to not exist in mindless deference to women and who refuses to offer himself up as a tool of disposability.


Of course there are plenty of feminist men out there who accept the mindless deference paradigm because from their point of view, generally speaking not only has feminism and feminist have all the answers to societal ills, but they accept, usually without question or critique the feminist presupposition that as male they themselves are guilty and embody all the negative associations placed on men by 30+ years of feminist gender discourse. So like the feminist they voluntarily remain on the metaphorical plantation as the embodiment of the house slave whose loyalty to their master is exhibited by an eager willingness to report to their masters any and all information or plans suggesting plans from field slaves seeking to runaway. This of course follows from the male feminist manner of logic from which he believes that his show of loyalty by throwing other men under the bus will gain them special privileges and rewards from a grateful feminist master. The male feminist tacitly believes the gender phrenology of feminist rhetoric that advances a string of pseudo science, generalizations and determinism that men by innate gender character can not be more then the sum of the most negative stereotypes and associations.

The world as the male feminist sees it, is a reflection of the fun-house mirror image of the male gender distortions provided by his obsessive need to be validated as a person of value from his feminist masters. And like his feminist masters his entrenchment in feminist misandry and self loathing is unlikely to consider any wider more objective consideration of what embodies the complexities and nuances of the male gender.


Modern feminism and feminist in general insist that feminism by dictionary definition is equal rights for women social, political and economic, that feminism embodies a pursuit of social justice. This definition feminist use to defend themselves against an association with man-bashing and hating men would have some currency if it were not for the fact that far too many reasonable men and women observe feminism as an ideology by feminist across the board PRACTICE man-hating and male bashing every chance they get, and within the present gynocracy, that chance is frequent to the point of mainstream indulgence. Academic feminist write long esoteric literature filled with basically the same universal anti-male theories, assertions, proclamations and self-important notions of  dialectic that when taken together as a summery of men when males are the subject of discourse, communicate basically the same thing, regardless of  much they claim feminism and feminist are diverse and have different approaches and so on. A reasonable person reviewing the bulk of feminist literature, lectures, speeches, films, or an form of protest, marches, and public advocacy will easily observe a consistent unbroken subtext when the male gender is the subject of discourse. It doesn't vary and never will. Without exception modern feminism and feminist reduce the totality of  man's character and male identity to just three primary states of existence. 1. Rapist, 2. Abuser, 3. Oppressor

One can easily observe in every branch of media and virtually every branch of feminism this trilogy of main assertion that are deterministic of the male identity which they ruthlessly add negative associations to the male identity. Masculinity is toxic, Testosterone=violent, pathological. Father =abusive pedophile, and so on. You will find it extremely rare in the bulk of feminist literature or media any serious concentration on male virtue, achievement or accomplishment. In other words, don't expect feminism to credit man for nothing positive if it doesn't exclusively involve men deferring to women as sacrificial tools of disposability, and  certainly not if you're straight and white. At present there is no existing branch of feminism that does not enjoy the practice of laying the fault and flaw of every aspect of society's ills at the feet of men. Meanwhile you will probably never hear a single feminist seriously mention female culpability, preferring to cry victim blaming if the subject ever arises. and let's not forget the feminist method of debate. if you disagree with a feminist, then you're a misogynist. That's it. In this way the practice of modern feminism as an ideology operates no different than that of a totalitarian philosophy. It accepts no critique, criticism, question of its ideology and treats any resistance to its simplistic view of gender and the world as evidence of misogyny and therefore no alternative perspective can hope to see the light of day. Modern feminism and feminist practice a kind of three card Monty shell game where they practice misandry, then deny it then continue to practice it while shuffling the shells to appropriate different definitions and meaning discarding and picking up areas  of social pronouncement on men and society as they see fit according to what's convenient. Under one shell is the insistence that feminism seeks equality and justice for all, in another shell is the equality assertion contradicted because you can say equality and define an ideological practice by admitting to concentrating only of women's issues.Under the third shell is the frequent  practice of feminist to add more anti-male laws, policies and legislation under the guise that men must be treated like dangerous animals whose every move and thought must be tightly regulated and restrained, usually through over the top punitive measures.


When you get down to it, once every objective investigation into modern feminism and feminist is observed and experienced by conscientious men, it turns out that the oversimplified cartoon caricature of men that feminist pass off as the standard model has only one reasonable conclusion.

Feminist don't know anything about men. And aren't capable of  knowing anything about men other than the cartoon caricature that dismisses male complexity and nuance.

Rapist, abuser and oppressor is the long and short of entrenched feminist ideology and there exist no known observable variation  suggesting otherwise. And though feminist attempt to deny this view that feminism is essentially misandric, anti-male in practice, actual lived experiences of many men when encountering feminism, communicates quite a different take altogether.That is unless you're a male feminist then there's nothing that can be said to you, and any attempt to reach you is an endeavor of futility.


The academic feminist, before labeling me a misogynist will say I provide no citations. I could, but I see no reason to validate myself to a feminist to whom citation or other proofs would simply be dismissed, trivialized or rationalized into semantic meaninglessness. The greatest citation is my lived experiences, but of course men's lived experiences as recounted by men have no meaning to them and only what they determine defines the live experiences of men is considered the only legitimate designation for accounts for every single reason why men do or don't do a thing, feel, think or express a thing.  In other words feminist believe with absolute conviction that they and only they are qualified to define and determine the lived experiences of men and thus make their prejudiced over-simplifies determinism of what defines the male identity and male experience the foundation for all of their gender social theories, which of course concludes with the equation women=good man=bad. And from the negative associations and presuppositions about male identity come the numerous statistics whose methodology openly utilizes confirmation bias to correlate a preconceived demonic assessment of men and male identity.

When called out on this practice, virtually no feminist ever admits their participation choosing instead a series of reliable defaults to externalize  culpability, typically using men and the male gender as the scapegoat to which they externalize their hypocrisy. So you'll hear  things like, "You need to be educated on feminism," or "You'e uniformed on what feminism is all about" or"We hate the patriarchy not men," Which is odd since in feminist terms the patriarchy is nothing more than the collective blame of men rather than the individual blame of a man.  The defaults of externalization range from accusations of victim blaming to the the usual excoriation that if all else fails label the man racist, sexist and a misogynist.

Feminist have depended on this line of defense and offense for so long that they are incapable of change except to a more totalitarian version of the former slightly less totalitarian ideology.


For men who are beginning to awaken and see the underlying reality that reveals your chains and the vastness of the plantation of which you have been its slave and sacrificial appliance, realizing that society is now a gynocracy can be jarring, So jarring in fact that it can make you angry, Awakening to realize that you were a slave all this time to a system of which you obtain no personal benefit can also be depressing. And then there's the thing that is within the psychology of most slaves. If slavery is all  you've known from birth to the present, what frame of reference do you have for what liberation embodies? Angry, confused and disorientation is normal for a newly enlightened MGTOW. And part of this blog is to assist that new MGTOW towards orientation, while keeping in mind that assistance isn't dogma, it isn't me telling a man going his own way what to do or how he must live. MGTOW isn't about me deciding what's best for another free man within reason.its about doing something that the plantation of feminist gynocertricism cannot by policy advocate on any level and that is reveal to men and MGTOW that your worth and value no longer has to depend upon the sanction or validity of entitled misandric feminism. The chains are off and all it takes is the courage to walk off the plantation.

AN INTRODUCTION TO MGTOW PHILOSOPHY


I'm going to start this introduction with a short story.

One Friday night a man of even temperament entered a local bar close to where he worked an average 9-5 job. He felt like having a drink before going home. The local bar had been one he frequented when he was in his early 20's. A part of him felt mildly nostalgic and he liked a few people who worked as bartenders of which he was pleasantly acquainted. It being Friday evening the place was attracting its usual crowd, mostly early 20 somethings, a few early 30's He decided to sit at the bar and watch a few bits of amusingly distracting entertainment on the flat-screen positioned in the upper corner wall behind the bar while sipping a Cutty and water. At some point an attractive young woman took a seat on the stool next to him and after pantomiming around in her purse, she sweetly spoke to this man, saying confidently, "I'll bet you'd like to buy me a drink."

Turning slightly to look, he saw a woman with salon perfect hair, artfully applied make-up and the kind of alluring attire that displayed her body in a naturally appealing fashion. On her face was a nice sweet smile and her eyes glistened and her voice possessed a tonality suggesting an upbeat disposition. She was truly beautiful, and within that beauty lay the flattering sense of pride over having been selected by so one so beautiful that out of all the men in the bar, she was allowing him the privilege of buying her a drink.

The man inquired of her in an even voice, "Why do you bet that I'd like to buy you a drink?"
He watched her expression take on an impulsive reaction of confused incomprehension. Blinking, she
stuttered, "Well, because that's what a gentleman does for a lady."
At which point he inquired further, "And what does a lady do for a gentleman?"
Again, her face flushed scarlet with confusion. "A gentleman wouldn't require a lady to have to do anything, that's the point of a gentleman."
  "I see," he calmly spoke, adding, "Let me see if I have this right. A gentleman is a man who buys drinks for ladies and the lady is exempt from any kind of reciprocation because the proof of gentlemanly virtue  is to give something for nothing.
  "You're not giving something for nothing, you're getting the benefit of my company."
  "And the benefit of your company requires I buy you a drink or drinks and what happens when I can no longer buy you drinks?"
  She smiled nervously, sensing something wasn't going quite right. " I think you may have the wrong idea about me," she protested.
  "That helps," he said, "because it infers having your company isn't about the drinks I buy you."
  At this point she had had enough, it was clear this man was not going to buy her a drink so she inquired with a hint of derisiveness, "You're not gay are you?"
   "No."
   "Why are you being so difficult.?"
   "How?"
   "I'm giving you an opportunity to buy me a drink and you're acting all bitchy. What's your problem, you don't have any money, you're poor is that it?" She sneered.
   "No, do you want to know why?"
   She glared at him.
  "I'm not poor because, I don't buy girls drinks who believe their looks entitles them to
have me subsidize their night out. I'm not poor because I don't subsidize women who believe that they're doing me a favor by bestowing on me what they think is a privilege for subsidizing their night out. You've hit the wrong target miss, I'm not suffering from self esteem issues so your comment about me being too poor or gay has no meaning for me. I don't have self esteem issues for you to use your beauty to exploit for your benefit at my expense."

   He says these things to her calmly and without malice. He then gestures for the bartender and she watches him pay his tab and leave a generous tip before departing. She;s seething in hot anger. Did a man who wasn't in her league just up and leave without buying HER a drink? Yet despite her anger, she couldn't help but notice his disposition. Even, calm, with a voice that suggested no snark or sneer and his body language assured and confident. Worse still is he looked at her like he knew every inch of her life, while revealing nothing in gesture or rebuke about his own. He didn't harshly tell her "No, I'm not buying you a drink," but why should she bet he would." In truth she wasn't able to give a sufficiently rational reason why, and even when he asked what did she have to offer for that drink, her answer was equally irrational. She had played this game with men long enough to know that the guys with low self esteem placed a high value on just her company and they were only too happy to subsidize, as he put it that high value. But didn't he say to her plainly that he doesn't subsidize women's drinks because he didn't have any self esteem issues? Didn't he plainly state that her beauty was not a qualifier as something equitable justifying subsidizing?

Sure she could approach the other suckers in the bar, Hell, she could even wait for the many offers to buy her drinks guaranteed to pour in, but now she was bothered. Just last week one of her girlfriends, mentioned this jerk of a guy she too solicited for drinks at a bar across town. "He wasn't interested, and what's more he acted like I wasn't even there." Ordinarily she wouldn't care, a jerk is a jerk, but this guy, he rejected her, no that's not right, he didn't see her didn't regard her as someone worth making a fuss over, like SHE was the one that was unattractive

As the night wore on and other lesser men did subsidize her drinking, her mind stubbornly returned to that guy. She tried to convince herself that he probably hates women, She further concocted in her mind several imaginative scenarios where his hatred of women stemmed from bitterness of past rejection. However no sooner than the comfort of such ideas appeared to bring balance back to her world, a nagging replay of her encounter with him never allowed a point of sufficient corroboration suggesting anything like a hatred of women. Still, without that preferred conclusion, what remained was something she did not have the capacity to conceptualize. And it is in this no man's land of not knowing, a resounding sense of something disturbing plagues her mind. Despite his plainly communicating the reasons for his lack of need for her, a virtual lifetime of easy breezy entitlement, has simply made it impossible for her to put it together. Eventually, she will convince herself that he was a jerk after all that hates women. In the days and weeks after her encounter with him, she will recount her encounter to her female friends with a far different narrative. For within her ever altering account the man will take on increasingly demonic features. It would be HER that rejected HIM when he offered to buy her a drink. It would be HE who complained and behaved as if buying her a drink obligated her to oblige him sexually. His average appearance would be continually reduced  as she recalled the story again and again to her female friends. Now, he would be compared to a short overweight gargoyle attempting to play out of his league. He would become the creepy dude that won't take "no" for an answer, he would become evermore the wide specter of not an individual human being, but an increasingly dehumanized type who exemplified the general denomination of creepy pathetic losers that proliferate the innately male identity. His entire life would be given a fictional biography from which every savage criminal impulse, every sadistic sexually perverse impulse is attributed.


A year or so later, this woman will stand in front of crowd. Maybe it will be a woman's empowerment forum, maybe it will be on a stage at a university as a speaker in a gender studies program, maybe it will be at a Ted talk, maybe it will be through a series of articles written for The Guardian, maybe it will be part of a continuing feature of a feminist blog. She will recount her road to feminist empowerment through the use of her widely disseminated version of the single story, which has now expanded into several separate encounters with misogynists men, whose "everyday sexism" will include even the slightest gestures and words as intolerable weapons of violating assaults upon the autonomy of her physical and emotional being. She will be invited to co-author a book then later a series of books that will become the primary source of feminist academia. She will reap the financial rewards of emerging celebrity through a carefully crafted lucrative field of victimology of which she will make an impressive career as a professional victim. She will be recruited to appear in local media then increasingly national media to extol her harrowing journey through the sexist jungle of dangerous insane sexist men who cannot cease their ongoing attempts to offer her drinks at bars no doubt laced with the newest popular incarnation of a date rape drug. She will regale her female listeners with horror story after horror story whereupon she adamantly cautions young women on college campuses to be suspicious of every seeming act from men because that kindness and that drink comes with a heavy price.

Years later her memory of the one inaugural encounter with the man will have been successfully transformed. Perhaps she will see him from afar and in a fit of overwhelming panic she will cry out to her friends with her, "That's the man I met at the car who sexually assaulted me!" She will say this with tears spilling from her face. Her body will shake in near uncontrollable seizures.Her PTSD will spring into overdrive.

She will lead a campaign to have the man arrested and charges, she will conduct a populist witch hunt that will attempt to dismantle this man's reputation in the popular press, she will seek with obsessive vengeance to orchestrate the destruction of his business, she will launch numerous protest rallies where she will scream to her audience the injustice resulting in the slow arrest, indictment, prosecution and conviction of her rapist. She will pressure the authorities, bully them into making an arrest to prove that they take a charge of rape seriously. His name will be dragged through the mud and as far as anyone is concerned he's guilty sight seen. The rush to judgement will see him arrested, jailed, ans months later facing a crying woman on the stand revealing to the jury in ferocious blow by details the horrific night several years ago when at a bar during her early 20's how HE approached HER and offered, no insisted upon buying her not just one drink but several drinks. She will mention that she was a trusting sort and was flattered by the attention though in no way did she feel any attraction to him that would persuade her to sleep with him. To the sympathetic jury she will spin a narrative communicating that she believes in treating people, no matter who they are or what they look like with human decency but that didn't give that man a right to assume kindness equated sexual availability. She would mention that she started to feel creeped out when he kept touching her in elevating inappropriateness. And by the time his words became crude and lewd she knew that all she wanted was to as far away from him as possible, but she felt lightheaded, like something had been put in her drink and that she felt sick and he was taking her by the arm out of the bar. She will tell the jury that repeatedly through a slurred voice she just wanted to go home and not with him.

She will describe in lose detail a generic alley behind the bar where he took advantage of her inability to move. She will stop several times during her testimony, breaking down in heaping tears. She will suddenly relate that afterwards and for years that followed that she was overcome with confusion, sorrow, fear and an overwhelming belief that somehow it was all her fault. But with support of family and friends and an new awakening provided by the confident guiding council of feminism she realized her rape was not her fault and that she has a responsibility to finally come forward to prevent other young women from suffering the same fate as she. She will propose that she was assuredly not his only victim and that like herself they too may be too afraid to come forward.

The attorney representing the man will cross-examine her and suddenly she sees in this attorney a familiar almost extinct recollection of the calm self-assuredness similar to the dim almost faded memory of the man she accused of rape of having. In fact a glance at him in a nice suit sitting up straight, attentive but again with a face that suggested nothing resembling concern or worry, part of her feels very uneasy. He simply inquires of her evidence to corroborate her allegations. She insists that it happened, and he insists upon proof. She cries some more and, in a performance worthy of an Academy Award she explains to the jury her nightmares, her bouts of depression, her occasional desire to commit suicide, the feeling that she's helpless within an abetting rape culture that does not respect women enough to punish the male predators feasting on non-consensual women with impunity. His attorney asks her questions specific to the night she described. He uses her very specific memories as previously stated by her to mine for further details that should be there but suddenly cannot be furnished for any number of increasingly absurd reasons. He will question the feminist sexual assault expert who will say that survivors of sexual assault will have experience significant trauma that it is not surprising or uncommon for usually expected details to become scrambled or contradictory. She will forcefully announce to the court that survivors of sexual assault endure a degree of trauma that causes the mind to want to blank out the violation or even forget the entire assault altogether. She will reiterate the feelings of horror, guilt and shame, the not wanting anyone to know and how passing time and buried memories can resurface piecemeal with seemingly unexplained associations like becoming anxious when a a few friends decide on the way to someplace they choose to take a shortcut through an alley.


The attorney for the defense will eventually point out his client has no criminal record, no past history of sexual assault, and nothing in his demeanor to suggest a habit of going to bars and getting women drunk or drugged. A parade of character witnesses testify to the man's integrity and what's more point out the fact that he actually has little interaction with women and at no time does he appear to display anything but a sense of self-satisfaction happiness and an even calm disposition.

The questions posed by his attorney reveal several gaping holes and inconsistencies too obvious to merely cover up with missing and confused areas of traumatized states. When he is found not guilty for lack of evidence, she will shriek and she will see him shake his lawyers hand and depart the courtroom without so much as a backwards glance. She will soon after hold her experience in the courtroom as yet another example where a woman is not believed, and that the misogyny of patriarchy shields men in a rape culture that refuses to acknowledge the human dignity of female bodily autonomy. Weeks will pass, and she will wear an empress crown of celebrity victimhood, call herself a survivor and with the help of other feminists she will construct a popular feminist play, that tells her story. She will create several feminist art installations that give abstract form to narrative. She will then receive  enormous government funding to produce an X-rated film dramatizing her rape and the nightmare she endured featuring herself in the film stripped nude in an alley and forced to endure unspeakable acts of sexual abuse illustrated in graphic cinematic detail.

A few years will pass. She will look in the mirror and see reflected back at her a stranger. A distorted fun-house mirror version of herself. A modern day version of the picture of Dorian Gray where her reflection instead of a painting exhibits the cruel twisted visage of a person who has taken on the appropriate aesthetic of the monstrous gargoyle her mind constructed of a man she attempted to destroy so long ago. She is now defined by the status professional victim. Few men speak to her, She's noticed an increase of men disengaging with women. They seem to no longer publicly verbalize their discontent but instead, silently work behind the scenes to shape policy. They hold women at arms length many choosing not to marry or enter traditional relationships.

It is as if a once reliable means of communication with something dependable has been cut of. And the explainable sense
of unease seems to be invading. She hears from more and more women that men don't approach them in bars like they used to, and that more and more men are foregoing dating and fewer and fewer men express interest in wanting children. Some of her feminist friends in academia have even begun speaking in a strange unorthodox but wholly unconvincing manner imparting that feminism isn't misandry and that suddenly miraculously its about working with men and more improbable that men are to accept without question or critique that feminism is responsible for every moral and ethical good under the sun and that with the growth of totalitarian gynocentricism feminism has actually been the sole salvation and benefit to men. (provided they know their place.)

She is rich, she has turned professional victimhood into a new lucrative profession. And yet she is unfulfilled. A part of her recognizes the enormity of self deception, lies and outright deceit to herself and others necessary to arrive at her present station of life. Yet in the midst of her own demonic reflection cast by a mirror more honest than her self-centeredness will fully allow, she sees the abyss of which she created her own dark internal prison. She recalls seeing his face and the calm confidence of a man lacking no faithfulness in himself. A man whose value never needed her validation, a man whose worth is measured by his own rational standards, a man who never allowed the circumstances of a public trial impose self doubt within him. She sees with screaming envy that which took her several years to finally understand and now cannot attribute to herself. He was a free man, He was a MIGTOW.




I relate this story to communicate aspects of the world in which may men will recognize. I say men and not women because, for many men, its a feature of modern gendered society served up by decades of feminism that in parts higher and lower imposed a separate narrative that
does not consider a perspective that is not shape by feminist gender ideas about what composes the lived experiences of modern western men. Facts are routinely altered to corroborate a feminist preconceived notion of what drives men, what men feel, think, express and do and typically as exampled in the vast majority of feminist discourse, men are characterized with almost exclusive negative associations. This is why an encounter with a MGTOW by a modern western woman will often result, in an inability of most women to conceptualize something well beyond anything they've
ever encountered. Therefore it is necessary for most of them to default to a kind of contemporary DOUBLETHINK that allows them to impart comforting misandrist stereotypes to explain why they are not able to make heads or tails of a man who no longer defines his value and worth on her sanction, approval or disapproval. She cannot attribute his lack of total deference towards her, of which 30 years of feminism has cemented within her consciousness an a priori entitlement philosophy. So it must be because he hates women and only misogynists hate women and sooner than later the encounter with a MGTOW will be augmented with several bits of confirmation bias until a completely different reason for his refusal to bow to the gynocentric master allows her to resume life through a feminist-backed set of distortions describing the shape of the world.   Until next time gentlemen remember, your life has value and worth, you don't have to sacrifice it for western women who cannot see you beyond a utilitarian resource to be used and casually discarded. The greatest crime to a feminist is a man with the power and will to think for himself.