Essay:Grand unified anti-feminist manifesto

Why aren't there more sources cited?
Empirical evidence is so overrated. There's not always a lot of academic research to back up the manosphere's positions, compared to what the ivory tower feminists churn out. But if you insist on sources, then go ahead and allocate to me a grant from the Violence Against Men Act funds to go study these issues, and I'll get back to you once the longitudinal studies are complete.

Oh, there is no Violence Against Men Act? You mean to say that Congress passed a law "mandating federal research by the Attorney General, National Academy of Sciences, and Secretary of Health and Human Services to increase the government’s understanding of violence against women" but hasn't passed any legislation ordering research into how men are systematically oppressed? Hmm, how convenient. And you still say there's no anti-male conspiracy, huh? Yeah, okay.

I see how it is. You want to starve the manosphere of any government funds by which it might conduct studies to prove its points, and then persecute the private sector Red Pill movement (by calling its members rapists and trying to get them fired from their jobs) in order to pressure it to disband; and then when all that is left are the most hardcore basement-dwelling neckbearded Red Pill extremists who have nothing to lose and won't be deterred no matter what you do, you say, "Look at these jobless, sexless losers, who are so much less respectable than these high-paid suit-wearing feminist academics, Congresswomen, etc. How are we supposed to take them seriously?"

That's like if the press in the Star Wars universe were to say, "We can't take this ragtag bunch of scruffy-looking nerfherders seriously; we need to instead pay attention to what these well-funded, clean-cut Imperial officers have to say. Oh, they just issued a press release saying that the outcome of the Devastator's interception of the Tantive IV was that the latter sent a distress signal and then all aboard were killed? It must be true, coming from such a reliable source." It couldn't be that maybe the powers that be suppressed the truth on purpose to deceive the masses.

Why is the tone of this manifesto so combative?
There are basically three kinds of situations we encounter. In a liberal country, the minority, however oppressed by the laws, still has a chance to make its views known without persecution. Both sides are essentially on a "peace" footing. There can be a civil and reasoned debate.

In an authoritarian regime, the minority's freedom of speech is infringed, and it has to either go underground or just shut up entirely, if it wants to avoid persecution. The government is on a "war" footing, deeming the minority to be traitors as opposed to just dissidents. They are not interested in engaging in a debate; they just want to wipe out the threat they deem their enemies to pose. The opposition is on a "peace" footing; it is submitting out of expedience, viewing the time for rebellion to not be ripe.

And then there's a situation where the two sides are on a war footing. They both are attacking each other with propaganda rather than debating each other calmly, taking care to avoid logical fallacies, and admitting that the other side has valid points. The goal at this point is to appeal to emotion and win over those who already are susceptible to being radicalized by that approach. Lots of exaggeration and hyperbole will go on. The idea is that one may as well demonize one's opponents and generalize freely about them, since there's no prospect of winning over the enemy anyway. They're not in a mood to listen.

Most situations have aspects of all three of the above, but lately it's seeming like there's war between feminists and neomasculinists as they attack each other pretty ruthlessly. This is the type of situation where blatantly one-sided manifestos get written that don't pay a lot of attention to nuance, but instead make points through sweeping statements intended to identify general patterns and propose radical solutions. The idea is that the feminists won't be won over anyway, so who cares about catering to their sensibilities. What is needed now is to muster the forces to defeat them on whatever battleground at which they can be successfully opposed.

Having said that, there still are a few who can be won over by logical argumentation, and the neomasculinist movement is always open to correction and refinement of its ideas, so dialog is invited; but just keep in mind this is mostly a war propaganda document like the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence didn't bother to point out all the good stuff that King George III did for the American colonies. It was very one-sided, because its point was to arouse emotions and inspire people to action against him, rather than to be a balanced historical account of the British Empire's doings in America. As the Declaration itself points out, logical argumentation had failed to achieve results, so it was time for war.

Why do feminists hold the positions they hold?
There are a few stances of feminists that I've always wondered about:

Why would feminists favor no-fault divorce?
Why would feminists think no-fault divorce is a good idea? Wouldn't it be better if, say, a husband cheats, to be able to get a court to officially say he's at fault for the relationship's breaking up, and get an even larger settlement than would be available under no-fault divorce?

In a monogamous system (in which men can't simply add a new, younger wife to their harem as their first wife gets older), women arguably have more reason to want to oppose no-fault divorce. Men might be tempted to trade up for a younger wife as her looks decline. Part of the traditional point of marriage was so that young women at the height of their beauty (and lacking a lot of marketable skills, due to lack of education and work experience) can immediately get into a comfortable, secure lifestyle of being supported by a man for life. Why give up that security, by making it so that men can easily dump them?

Feminists might argue, "Women should get an education before marrying, and then work alongside their husband, so that if he starts acting like an asshole, she can just dump him and set up her own household." This has the disadvantages that (1) she may be well into her mid-20s by the time she gets married, and some women would've been happier spending that time relaxing at home, cooking and pumping out kids, rather than hitting the books; (2) education is expensive, and she's going to be in student loan debt; (3) splitting apart from a husband means having to set up a separate household, which is more expensive than sharing a household; (4) not being a stay-at-home mom means having to give your kid over to someone else to care for, which typically means paying out the wazoo for daycare (since extended families usually aren't available to help in America), plus you never know if they're mistreating your kids when you're not looking; etc. (5) having two incomes requires two sets of everything required to earn those incomes, such as two cars, which will be accumulating mileage daily. Probably they're going to be eating out more, because they're both going to be tired at the end of the workday rather than feeling like preparing a meal. Etc., etc.

Most men won't be abusive assholes, so is it really worth going to such lengths to make divorce easy (which not only makes it easy to dump him, but also makes it easy for him to dump her) and to make investments in a career that essentially serve as preparation for divorce? Insurance is good, but sometimes it's more cost-effective to just roll the dice rather than trying to prepare thoroughly for every possible contingency.

The other factor to consider is that lifelong marriage is a good deal for not only women but also men (since men can be sentimental too and get attached to their wife), and the worse the marital deal becomes, the less interested good men will be in marriage, especially to women from cultures that are associated with a high risk of divorce. It's similar to how employers get less interested in adding lots of unskilled staff, the higher the minimum wage is raised.

Teenage girls
Originally, the age of consent was 10 or 12 years of age, and only applied to girls. The point of it was to preserve their value in marriage, since men preferred virgins.

Feminists were part of the movement that not only raised the age of consent (seeking even to raise it to 21), but also made it gender-neutral, applying to boys too. Why would they want to do this?

It's notable that raising the age of consent doesn't stop teenage girls from having sex altogether; it just prohibits them from having sex with adults. They can still get knocked up by fellow teenagers. I think, therefore, the point of raising the age of consent is to stop them from having sex with older men who might actually be able to support them. A girl who gets pregnant by a fellow teenager will have to live off of welfare, or parents, etc. because the guy can't support her. A girl who gets pregnant by an older man will likely end up marrying him (especially in the old days, when shotgun marriages in such situations were pretty much mandatory, both by law and custom) and being supported by him. Feminists HATE situations where women have to depend on a man for anything.

Another reason why older women would want to raise the age of consent is to eliminate competition from younger women. It's evident from the popularity of magazines like Barely Legal that there are a lot of men who prefer teenage girls.

Teenage boys
One could come up with many hypotheses, though, for why feminists would want to prohibit teenage boys from having sex with older women (or with older men). One likely reason is that teenage boys clearly crave and enjoy having sexual relationships with attractive older women. Feminists are generally interested in spoiling the fun of men (and boys) whenever possible, as a way of knocking them down a peg from their privileged position.

Another reason is that it would be hard for feminists to argue that underage girls are being taken advantage of by older men, if they didn't also argue that underage boys are being taken advantage by older women. It's a little embarrassing to the feminist movement when adult women are arrested for having sex with teenage boys, since it contradicts the narrative that men are the ones who dominate and take advantage of women. But feminists can just say, "It's only a few women who are doing this" much as they say "It's only a few women who make false rape allegations." The true rates of both adult woman-teenage boy sex and false rape accusations is unknown, because most of the women doing this stuff never get caught and convicted.

Why would feminists oppose polygyny?
A prime reason why feminists would be opposed to polygyny is that men tend to enjoy having sexual relationships with multiple women, and would generally choose that option if they could. Any activity that involves men and women, that men enjoy, is automatically considered suspect by feminists as possibly misogynistic in nature. It's kind of like how, in a workplace, if a boss sees an employee who looks a little too happy, his suspicions may be aroused that perhaps the employee is goofing off rather than focusing fully on his responsibilities. Men are not supposed to get too much enjoyment out of their role as servants to women.

Restraining orders as weapons of blame and revenge
Our no-fault divorce system assumes that sometimes, relationships just don't work out because there are irreconcilable differences. Rather than put blame on anyone for it, the system will just let them part ways amicably and move on with life.

I'm not sure how often this actually happens. Usually, when a woman dumps her husband (and statistically, it is indeed typically the woman initiating divorce), she is very clear about believing him to be at fault for the relationship's failure. He, on the other, hand, often has to be dragged to divorce court kicking and screaming, as he insists that there are no irreconcilable differences, and that they could resolve their problems if they would work on the relationship more.

So the idea of "irreconcilable differences" is usually a legal fiction that people engage in just because they don't feel like fighting in court. Maybe he is trying to appease her by saying, "Fine, I'm such a nice guy that I'll let you have what you want. I'll show you that I'm not a controlling asshole, as you say I am. You want a divorce? Here it is. I hope you have a good life." In reality, he doesn't agree with what she's doing, and he believes that she broke her promise.

But wait, what promise? If divorce is readily available to all married couples, what kind of promise did she break, anyway? Everyone knows there's no legal or even cultural expectation that couples actually live up to the vow of "till death do us part". So what's the big deal? And in a no-fault divorce system, where all breakups are chalked up to "irreconcilable differences," why does the woman feel the need to blame her husband for the marriage's end?

The promises that make blame necessary
Women will often, in the course of their efforts to get a man to marry them, make a number of statements such as "I promise I'll never leave you," "I swear, this is till death do us part," etc. They both know these statements are legally non-binding; therefore, what is the point of making them? It is to reassure him that even if the law won't protect him, her honor will.

The implication is that if she ever does leave him, she's breaking her word, which would make her a bad person if she continues to insist on LANCB. But of course, there's always the obvious exception that if he makes a total ass of himself by abusing her or whatnot, she's justified in breaking her word because he didn't hold up his end of the deal either.

When feminists are attempting to justify the idea of no-fault divorce, they will usually say, "It's unreasonable to expect women to keep a promise that they made in their youth and may now realize was foolish." When women are actually in the midst of their own divorce from an unwilling husband, though, and seeking to justify it, they typically won't say that the promise was foolish; they'll say, rather, that HE was the one who broke his promise. It's not that they don't believe in lifelong promises; they think that he was the one who violated his end of the deal.

Restraining orders as methods of blame
Here is where restraining orders come in. In a no-fault divorce system, the court never officially rules that either of the parties are to blame for the marriage's end. But a restraining order officially says that one of the parties has done serious wrong against the other, and/or is unsuitable for marriage. The order enforces a separation, and says that he is the one at fault for it.

Men have no similar tool at their disposal for getting a court to officially place the blame for a marriage's end on the woman. If they apply for a restraining order, they will probably get laughed out of court. At minimum, they will look unmanly for claiming emotional distress from her behavior or claiming to be afraid of her, and pleading for protection. Men would usually rather say, "I can handle my own problems; I don't need cops to force her to stay 100 yards away."

By refusing to exaggerate the dangerousness of their partner and thereby play the victim, though, men forfeit the only opportunity the system provides for saying that she is the one at fault. Usually, the justice system will reject the idea that both parties are dangerous to each other; therefore, the first person to file for a restraining order is usually the only one who gets one.

Once a woman has a restraining order against a guy, she can wave it around for the rest of her life to anyone who will listen, and say "Look! This certifies that I was the victim, and he was the aggressor. THAT'S why I have a divorce on my record! It wasn't because I broke my promise. It was because HE broke his promise, by abusing me! If it were otherwise, the court wouldn't have issued this restraining order."

Of course, unless she's delusionally paranoid (which is actually the case with many restraining order petitioners, by the way), she knows in her heart that he wasn't actually dangerous or abusive. So then, what satisfaction would this give? Wouldn't it be like cheating in a board game, in that your victory feels hollow if you know that you didn't follow the rules?

Well, there are plenty of people who will cheat at a board game, just to fuck with the person they're playing against. You might be playing a game of D&D, and the DM is rolling dice behind his cardboard petition and claiming he beat you, when he didn't. He might just delight in seeing your frustrated reaction at being so absurdly unlucky over and over, especially if he doesn't actually like you very much but you were the only person available to play with.

Likewise, there is some sadistic pleasure to be derived from putting a mark on your ex and making everyone think he is an abuser. The orders are ridiculously easy to get, yet the public doesn't realize this. So the person getting the order can feel smug at being clever enough to figure out a story that will get the court to grant the order, and then to get everyone else to believe, based on that order, that the accused is an abuser.

She can chuckle at knowing that, whenever he says, "My first wife totally fucked me over by not only getting a divorce but a restraining order that makes me look like an abuser" everyone will say, "Well, you really must have been an abuser, because courts don't grant restraining orders unless the guy really was abusive."

Also, some people just take pleasure in rubbing in another person's face that they have no power to enforce a promise they made, or even to get others to believe that the promise was broken. If you promise someone to live with someone in marriage for life, to leave them and get a restraining order against them is to do the exact opposite. A marriage is the ultimate legal instrument of togetherness, while a restraining order is the ultimate legal instrument of separation, going even further than a divorce.

It's especially a useful instrument for those who don't have their lives together enough to be able to afford an attorney, since the process is designed to be idiot-proof for those who are representing themselves. One lawyer writes: "In my jurisdiction we often refer to domestic violence court as "poor people's divorce court." Time and again a person will allege domestic battery and obtain an order of protection that gives them sole possession of the home, possessions and cars. The case will get dropped but the order of protection will continue for two years. It is a situation where one party wants a divorce without paying for a lawyer, court fees or worrying about splitting possessions."

- Ross

If the average male worker were as productive as the average female worker, it would mean that men are inferior to women
Many explanations have been made for why women earn less than men. One is that it's to compensate employers for the cost of maternity leave, which men don't take. Another is that it's because women are more likely to delay their careers while having kids, or quit their careers early to have kids.

There may be some truth in that, but I think it's also important to take into account that there's a higher standard deviation from the mean, when it comes to men's abilities and success, compared to women's. Let's look at a representative sample of 10 men's incomes and 10 women's incomes:

Analysis
Note here that, among the five men who are actually employed, the average income is $60/hour. This seems to be double the average woman's pay, of $30/hour. But when you average up ALL men in this population, the average man is actually making $30/hour (the same as women), because five of them aren't working.

If the average income, among those men who worked, were $30/hour, then it would mean that the average income among ALL men in the population would be $15/hour, which would be inferior to women's. It would mean that the male population, as measured by what the market considers them to be worth, is actually less productive than the female population.

Ours is not really "a man's world" but rather "a successful man's world".

All in all, men and women have about equal power
It's sometimes said that men have more power than women because they're physically stronger, have more money, etc.

Strength
Superiority in physical strength is both an asset and a liability. It's like when you're an IT manager and have access to all the systems at your company. Theoretically, it's great to have all that power, because you can investigate anything, fix anything, etc. without hindrance. But if someone on the network says they got hacked, guess who is under a cloud of suspicion? You had access, so it could have been you. The people who didn't have access can't be blamed.

Similarly, if you have physical power over a woman, then if she wants to cry "rape" or "physical abuse" then she can make a plausible accusation against you. She can say that it happened a month ago (and therefore all the bruises, semen, and other physical evidence are now gone) but now she has finally overcome her post-traumatic state of shock and worked up her nerve enough to make an accusation. How are you going to disprove it? The taint of the accusation can follow you the rest of your life.

Women don't have to worry so much about getting falsely accused of rape or physical abuse, because they're not as capable of inflicting those harms on men (and when they are, men are often afraid to admit it, for fear of seeming unmanly and weak). That's a distinct advantage that counterbalances the disadvantage of being exposed to the possibility of actual rape or physical abuse. See also Essay:Restraining orders as weapons of blame and revenge

Money
As for men having more money, the fact remains that men tend to have a strong desire for female companionship, and women are the only source of it. Therefore, if women want money or the stuff that money can buy, then they can get it by trading their female companionship.

A lot of men who don't feel like working would probably love if they could find a woman who would buy them stuff in exchange for their male companionship. But it rarely happens. So in the end, who really has the upper hand?

Men have money because the market is willing to pay them for their services; women have the stuff money can buy because men are willing to give them that stuff in exchange for their female companionship. Both have a form of influence that is less available to the other. And both have to put up with someone's BS on occasion in order to get what they want. The only difference is, men have to obey their boss (or their customer), while women have to obey (or "please" if we want to use a euphemism) their husband.

There are some exceptions, of course. There are some women who support their husband while also giving him sex, and there are some men who support their wives without getting any sex in return. But these tend not to be the happiest of relationships. See also Essay:If the average male worker were as productive as the average female worker, it would mean that men are inferior to women

Antifeminism is the radical notion that women are people
Antifeminism is the radical notion that women are people — i.e., not intellectually infallible and morally perfect angels, but flawed human beings like everyone else. They are not always fair, truthful, kind, and mentally healthy. They are capable of being unfair, untruthful, unkind, and mentally ill.

Women's rights are not more important than men's, but rather women should be treated as equal. There is no reason why there should be a million different organizations, agencies, and laws based on protecting women's rights and interests but so few based on protecting men's, other than political correctness that says that men already have the upper hand in every way. Men have special issues too such as suicide that they are more prone to, just as women have, say, an elevated risk of breast cancer to contend with.

Women are capable of error, even gross error, in their thinking, just like anyone else, and a man's correcting them is not "mansplaining" if done respectfully.

Women are as capable of rationalizing mistreatment of others as men are. Women are not automatically more trustworthy than men; they are as capable as any man of getting carried away by emotions and making rash, impulsive decisions. Women too, like men, can be too weak at times to live up to their own moral standards; both sexes are capable of being sanctimonious and hypocritical, and a woman's stating a belief in admirable principles should not be mistaken for actual virtue, any more than if she were a man. Women may sometimes simply be less obvious about their misbehavior; maybe they won't use company time to surf porn on their office computer, but they might abuse the family and medical leave system to call in sick so they can go have fun.

When a disparity is found between a woman's wages and a man's wages, the possibility that the woman was not as productive as a man should at least be explored, since they are human and therefore capable of laziness, incompetence, etc. just like anyone else. It should not be automatically assumed that there was discrimination based on nothing else besides their sex.

The word of a woman is not to be presumed to be more reliable than that of a man, when they are in an adversarial court setting. Only a small minority of men are rapists and abusers, and women are not so uniformly morally superior to men that they would all be incapable of using a rape accusation to seek revenge, attention, sympathy, validation, control over a situation, or a feeling of power. Nor are women incapable of becoming psychotically delusional, or of making a mistake in their recollection. Facts, even when the case involves domestic abuse, should have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the accused's constitutional rights are taken away.

If women are statistically less likely to, say, get convicted of crimes (such as smoking pot), then the possibility should be explored that this is not because they are better or more law-abiding people, but rather that the criminal justice system gives them preference (e.g. by police officers' not profiling them and subjecting them to as many searches), or that they are more careful about how they break the law, to avoid getting caught. If they are less likely to assault people to the point of putting them in the hospital, this could be, not because they are morally superior, but because they are too physically weak to do it. Maybe they find other ways to assault people, e.g. through the court system.

Women should not be presumed by the courts to be better parents than men, and therefore worthy of getting primary custody of their kids, unless this is proven by evidence. Actually, evidence suggests that single fathers tend to raise their kids better than single mothers.

It should be acknowledged that women are capable of cheating for the same reasons that men cheat, and that they are as capable of provoking their partners to cheat as men are. It shouldn't be assumed that if a man cheats, it's solely because of his lust (rather than because his wife cut off the supply of sex and in general treated him like shit to the point that he had to get his physical and emotional needs met elsewhere). It also shouldn't be assumed that if a woman cheats, it's because her man mistreated her to the point that she was driven into the arms of another man; it could be that her man behaved decently toward her, but she simply felt attracted to another guy and felt like having sex with him. Women are as capable as men of having trouble restraining their polyamorous impulses, even when they know it goes against how they agreed to behave and that it will hurt their partner.

The real reason why more women are working
It seems like the manosphere usually claims that women's going to college and getting professional jobs, rather than being housewives, is because feminists have encouraged them to go that way so that they can be more independent, rather than having to obey a husband. They can throw their weight around in the relationship more by saying, "I can leave you whenever I want, and still earn a decent income."

Could it be, though, that what's really going on is that more families are in a situation where paying for the mortgage, health insurance, and child care requires two incomes? Granted, if the wife were a housewife, then they might not need to pay for child care, but that still leaves the mortgage and health insurance. Why is that stuff so much more expensive than it used to be?

By the way, despite the idea that a woman's being able to work can give her independence, a lot of single moms actually AREN'T doing that well financially, because despite the complaints about child support on both sides of that issue (i.e. that child support financially rapes men, or that men are refusing to pay their child support), actually child support collection is going pretty well in most cases; it's just that the amount doesn't suffice in most cases to keep up the costs of running an entire household that's separate from that of the child's father, and there's no backup plan in case the mother becomes too sick to work.

It should come as no surprise, then, that there's a lot of overlap between support for feminism and support for the welfare state. It has to be financially viable for a woman to be a single mother, in order for her to have true independence to leave her husband. Of course, women who are truly being abused will leave anyway, even if it means getting into a shitty financial situation, but what feminists are probably really after is getting women the right to leave their husbands for even the most trivial reasons. Then they can not only have independence, but actually control the relationship, because men tend to find breakups more emotionally devastating than women do.

The one who is more willing to leave a relationship tends to have the power in the relationship. Without the money counterbalance to women's emotional willingness to leave relationships, there really isn't much to keep women from dominating men.

Feminism's Achilles heel
Feminism's Achilles heel is that women can't just divorce men and prohibit them from having any form of contact with their kids, without running the risk of fucking up their kids. Without their dads, boys are more likely to become criminals (including rapists), and girls are more likely to have fucked-up relationships with men.

There's not really any way around that. The dream of almost every heterosexual feminist woman is to be able to control and dominate her husband by using the threat of divorce as emotional blackmail to get him to do as she pleases. (Feminists call this "equality" because on paper, he has an equal right to divorce her; but in practice, most divorces are initiated by women, because men typically have cooler heads and are less likely to devalue their partners and impulsively divorce them.)

Sure, women can just ignore the harms they're doing to their children by divorcing their husband and completely cutting him out of their children's lives. But the result of this is that feminist women will tend to produce children who can't compete with the children of non-feminist women. This is going to be more of a disadvantage in coming years as, thanks to the manosphere, more men become aware of the warning signs that they're dealing with a damaged woman who could do real harm to their lives if allowed to get too close. The daughters of feminists are going to have more trouble landing a high-quality man.

Should women be held collectively responsible for feminism's oppression of men?
Men are held collectively responsible for the bad behavior of a few rapists, abusers, etc. If a woman accuses a man of one of these offenses in civil court or before a college disciplinary hearing body, he will be presumed guilty based solely on her word, because there are a few bad men out there who did commit such offenses, and he must be held responsible for their acts. He will be deprived of any opportunity to have even partial custody of his kids, or he will be kicked out of school, or suffer whatever other penalty those courts are empowered to inflict. All men are put at risk of being victimized by women through the system in this way, as a way of punishing men for their failure to police their own by stopping their fellow men from committing crimes against women.

So then, is there any reason why the entire population of women shouldn't be held responsible for the excesses of feminism? Women too have failed to police their own. When women falsely accused men, and the system upheld those accusations and punished the innocent, was there a loud outcry from women? Or did women mostly ignore these occurrences?

In comparison to women's very poor record of stopping abuses by their fellow women, men have been pretty good about policing their own. If a woman is attacked in a public place, a man will usually come to her rescue. If an innocent man is attacked in the courts, though, women will usually ignore this.

Arguably, then, it is time to inflict a collective punishment on American women by denouncing them as bad people and boycotting them. If MRAs, Red Pillers, etc. are really evil, misogynistic pieces of shit, then women shouldn't mind this "punishment" at all. To the extent that these guys are loudmouthed about their views, that will just alert women who don't like that kind of talk as to what kind of guy they're dealing with, so they can steer clear of them. If these guys take the initiative to boycott American women, then American women who don't like that kind of guy can be assured that they won't be approached by them.

It will be similar to those libertarians who say they want to be like Atlas and shrug, except that it's a lot easier to boycott American women than it is to boycott the government-regulated U.S. economy as a whole. If libertarians really aren't very productive people who have much to offer, then even if they do decide to withdraw their services from the economy, it shouldn't be a big deal.

One other way, though, in which women can be collectively punished, is that men will simply become skeptical about their claims of rape. Red Pillers serving on juries will tend to acquit in rape cases unless the evidence is overwhelming. They will also tend to elect politicians like Donald Trump who will have little patience for feminist political correctness. They will join a backlash that may well go too far in its assertions that there should be a presumption that AWALT unless proven otherwise.

A lot of halfway decent women out there will suffer from this, but oh well! Men have been dealing with collective punishment for so long, and women have been so indifferent to it, that it's hard to have much sympathy for the "innocent" women out there.

Is a truly equal marital partnership workable?
Many people advocate that spouses be equal partners. How would that work, exactly?

An equal partnership is like communism in that it sounds like a noble ideal, and may even hold together for a while (the Soviet Union, after all, held together for seven decades and had many noteworthy accomplishments), but isn't necessarily the most efficient or conducive to happiness.

Most successful relationships involve one person or another being dominant over the others. The greatest strife is seen in relationships where the partners are in a position of equal power, as when siblings are fighting over who gets to watch TV at a given time. Harmony is created when they are able to be dominant within their spheres of authority, as when one sibling is given a TV as his property and allowed to choose who may watch what when, or when parents set rules about which child gets to select the TV channel during what hours.

A hierarchical corporate structure, with clear lines of authority, is usually the only one that works particularly well. Even in companies where two partners theoretically own an equal share of the business, one is usually more dominant and the other more submissive. In fact, in most major tech companies, one co-founder usually ends up edging out the others, if they won't submit to his authority.

How would the equality of a partnership be objectively determined, and how would equality be enforced?
The argument against male dominance in a relationship is that the man may selfishly demand what he wants without showing concern for his wife's happiness and well-being.

If the ideal is equality, though, who is to determine what is equal? Are we talking about procedural equality (equal power) or substantive equality (equal benefits)? Let's suppose it's equal power. The way that's usually enforced, in our current system, is that either spouse can leave if they feel unhappy. That works great with friendships, but not so great with marital partners who have kids, because divorce tends to be ruinous for the kids. It may be better sometimes than the alternative of two parents fighting, but it's inferior to the alternative of both parents having a harmonious relationship.

This becomes a hostage situation in which one parent can basically point a gun to the kid's head and say, "Obey me or I'm divorcing you and the kids won't get to grow up together with their two biological parents in the same household. They will suffer because you wouldn't submit to my will." This type of threat is not necessarily conducive to equality, because it can be abused to get the upper hand rather than to merely enforce equality.

There is also the factor of one's own emotional attachment to one's spouse. Some people will not feel they can simply break away without missing the person, because even if their spouse demands more than equal power in the relationship, they also have qualities that they'll miss, that were the reason why they got together. Regardless of their qualities, an emotional bond may have formed through shared experiences, shared kids, etc. Ironically, the spouse who is the least concerned about the effect of divorce on his kids, and who is the least sentimental toward the relationship, will be in the position of greater power in a system that allows spouses to divorce at will. A spouse could become more willing to divorce because of being mistreated, but it could also be because they're more ruthless and emotionally callous.

Say what you will about a situation in which the man has the final say being unfair — it can at least be objectively determined whether the two parties are abiding by the terms of the relationship and following the rules.

In a system of male dominance, what remedies do mistreated women have?
The classic approach of wives to the problem of ensuring their husbands would treat them well, was to treat him as well as possible, show happiness and appreciation when he treated them well, and make requests rather than demands. They would occasionally say, "Please, honey? It's really important to me" and act sad until he gave him, but this was to be used sparingly. And he would still reserve the right to have the final say.

Women were able to hold out the carrot of happy, enthusiastic submission as a reward, because happy women are more pleasant to be around. If women have unrealistic expectations of being treated not only well but like queens, and don't act happy when their husbands please them but are always instead focusing on his remaining shortcomings, then they don't really have that carrot to offer him as an inducement, and therefore they lose some of their soft power.

This is really one of the keys to how women get men to behave well in systems where men are dominant: by cultivating mastery of the use of soft power, to balance men's use of hard power. Another key is choosing a guy whose nature isn't to mistreat women when he's given power over them.

===Young, attractive women usually don't even want the type of guy who will submit to an equal partnership; also, desirable men are in such short supply that they can demand a relationship in which the woman is submissive=== Young, attractive women usually ignore the legions of "nice guys" out there and go for more dominant men. (Notice what I said there: Young, attractive women. I.e., women who are in a position to be desired by the most desirable men out there, as opposed to women who are in a position of having to settle for less desirable men.)

They are attracted to the relatively small number of guys out there who display qualities of leadership, decisiveness, confidence, etc. These guys will make better protectors and providers because they take the initiative to seek what they want in the world and rise of positions of power. They take firm stands and don't let anyone push them around.

They even go a step further and seek positions that will allow them to direct the activities of others, because they want the privileges that come with power and because they believe they can do a better job than others who aspire for the role of leader. The ones who succeed are those who inspire others to trust in their ability to run the group well. They have enough self-confidence and courage under fire to make people believe they will be a steady hand at the helm.

Are these the kind of guys who will willingly accept a position of equal power in the home, rather than wanting to take the lead? It's doubtful. They would probably be more likely to say, "Either I'm going to be in charge, or there won't be a relationship" because that is the attitude they take wherever else they go. They are the kind of men who reject participation in activities and groups unless they will have an opportunity to become the leader. Those who would reject their bids for authority, they deem unworthy of investing further time in. Followers are abundant, but leadership talent is rare, and not to be wasted on those who will not make use of it.

The laws of supply and demand dictate that these guys will be able to mostly dictate the terms of a relationship, and turn away women who won't agree to a submissive role in the relationship. These men, like attractive young women, are a rare and highly sought-after commodity. It is why the jobs at the tops of corporate hierarchies pay so well; the people able to fulfill those job requirements well are in short supply and therefore companies have to offer high salaries in order to attract qualified applicants. Women who want a quality man are also likely to need to pay him in the currency she is prepared to offer, which is obedience.

The simple fact is that there aren't a lot of desirable men out there. As the saying goes, "Men are nature's crapshoot, and women are nature's insurance policy." Men are more likely to have either extremely high or extremely low levels of ability, than women are. More men than women will go to prison, mental hospitals, or the cemetery in their youth. Men have a greater tendency than women to take risks, and some of these risks will result in failure. The fact that large numbers of men are unsuitable for a relationship means that the remaining men who are suitable are in short supply, compared to the number of women who want such a man. This means, according to the laws of economics, they are a position to ask for advantageous terms in a relationship, in much the same way that the owner of a highly desirable parcel of real estate can ask for a high price.

The greatest rulers will tend to be men, while women will tend to be more mediocre in their leadership skills. Of course, the worst leaders will also tend to be men, but those men are supposed to stay single while women are supposed to flock to the better leaders, having polygynous relationships with them.

Feminist economic arguments crash into biological reality
Someone might say, "Yes, but women these days don't need a man to provide for them, because they can earn their own money. Therefore, they're in a position to demand an equal partnership." The problem with this argument is that women typically don't earn a lot of money until they have spent years building up their careers (possibly after spending years in college). By that point, their physical attractiveness has begun to fade, and they are not worth as much in the mate market. Now that they are in a position to earn as much money as some of the most desirable men out there, they will not be able to attract those men, who are off chasing younger, more attractive women.

So basically, the choice for the vast majority of women (who aren't fortunate enough to inherit massive wealth) boils down to, use youthful attractiveness and a willingness to submit to get one of the more desirable men; or use financial independence later in life to attain an "equal partnership" with a less desirable man. There are always going to be women out there who will choose the first option.

It is noteworthy that even feminists will often lose attraction to less dominant men and dump them, or seek sexual relationships with men who show signs of dominant tendencies. Feminists are also very commonly into BDSM and rape fantasies. When their ideology prevents them from admitting that they want a dominant man, they will still want to play the submissive, while saying "This is just play; it isn't real!" Yeah, but why do they find that kind of play so fascinating and exciting? What's the psychology behind it?

Feminism is an obstacle to male dominance that women are rooting for men to overcome
Think back to the tests you've taken. Scholastic Aptitude Tests, driving tests, etc. They were set up in such a way as to present a challenge, but those who designed the tests intended for the qualified to be able to pass with enough effort and ability. They did not intend to set up an insurmountable barrier to your achieving what you wanted. They just wanted to require that you meet a standard in order to proceed further and take on a right or privilege that carried with it great responsibility only suitable to be discharged by those who had the right stuff. It would take not only desire, but motivation, preparation, patience, etc.

It's the same way with feminism. When men became weak, women became discontent and invented feminism as a way to challenge and motivate men to become strong if they wanted to re-acquire the benefits that come with male dominance. As we all know, women (especially highly desirable women) will endlessly and subtly test men throughout the courtship process to make sure that they're not some kind of indecisive wuss who's going to make an an unexciting sex partner and unsuitable provider and protector; eventually, they decided to form a movement to impose, through new rules and cultural standards, difficult but ultimately defeatable challenges testing men's ability to re-assert their wills over the situation in the face of organized female resistance.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous, if when you went to get a driver's license, and were told, "You can't have it right now because you haven't passed the driving test" you were to say, "Oh well, I guess it wasn't meant to be; society must not want me to have it" or if, confronted with an SAT requirement for entering college you said, "I guess this means I wasn't meant to attend"?

People who act that way when presented with a challenge forfeit the respect of all who observe how easily discouraged they are. Is it any wonder, then, that when women treat men badly, and men respond by becoming more submissive in an effort to appease them, that women respond by losing respect and treating them even worse? They're like drill sergeants who yell obscenities in recruits' faces while they're struggling against the physical adversity of the training program, and yell even louder at them when they get discouraged and let themselves fall to the ground exhausted rather than pushing onward to success.

It is important to recognize feminism for what it is: not a serious effort to impose some sort of unscalable wall in the way of men's advance toward re-asserting dominance over women, but as a challenge that can be met and overcome with a determined, organized, and well-thought-out effort. In fact, it is a test that is MEANT to be overcome; otherwise, it would be a poorly-designed test that would defeat its own goal of keeping out the inept or lazy from positions for which they're unworthy, while letting in those who have proven themselves worthy and rewarding them for their effort.

Already we see that some individual men are defying the standards of behavior that feminism imposes, and being rewarded with sex from attractive young women. This has been going on since feminism's inception, actually, and has always mystified those men who were taught by their parents to follow society's values and norms in order to avoid punishment and receive rewards; and were taught by society that feminist values and norms are right, good, and cultural expectations that must be followed. It is only recently, though, that some men began organizing as a community to analyze the underlying dynamics of what is going on and suggest solutions proven in the field to work better than what mainstream society recommends.

Limited victories are already being achieved by individuals, but a more comprehensive victory will require a more concerted team effort. Fortunately, it appears that the Red Pill movement is making excellent progress toward at least reaching some of the most the crucial insights that can eventually result in a successful solution to the problem. Culturally, the election of Donald Trump could be a major step forward for neomasculinity.

The recent attacks against Roosh V ended up only strengthening the resolve of the movement to stand together. One might wonder why feminists weren't smart enough to just ignore him, but the answer to that may well be what is stated in the thesis of this essay: even assuming, for the sake of argument, that feminists are strong enough to win, they don't actually want to; they just want to put up a certain amount of resistance calibrated to keep out the riffraff and force everyone else to a higher level of performance and quality.

And perhaps maybe part of it is just for their own amusement, since weak men who didn't pose any challenge were starting to get boring. Women's being surrounded by men around who are too readily submissive to their desires to be interesting is an archetypical first world problem.

What would polygyny in an advanced capitalistic society look like?
People often comment that the historical examples of polygamous societies tend to be less productive since they create a permanently disaffected underclass of men who have no hope of finding a partner.

I'm thinking that in a society where capitalism creates upward and downward mobility among the socioeconomic classes, men might not as easily give up on the prospect of being able to land a woman (or more than one woman). We might see more risk-taking as men give up stable but low-paying jobs that aren't enabling them to attract a woman, to start businesses that could either fail or make them rich.

Men who have a wife and/or kids will often opt to stay with a stable job so they can be a steady provider. Single men, on the other hand, may have more freedom to launch speculative businesses since they can put capital into the business rather than spending all their money pleasing a woman.

Who benefits and who suffers from feminism?
The conventional wisdom is that the beneficiaries of feminism are strong women who would otherwise be held back from reaching their full potential; and that the people who suffer because of feminism are misogynistic assholes who want to abuse women. Let's look at the true picture.

Abusive alpha men
Abusive alpha men will always have tons of attractive young women who flock to them. Even when they're in prison, they still have women writing to them and sending them money. The feminist-inspired laws, such as restraining orders, that attempt to curtail these guys' behavior don't actually have much effect because they can always just move on to another woman, and a lot of the women who get restraining orders against these guys end up later coming back to them anyway, whether he's legally allowed to be with her or not.

No-fault divorce benefits these men because when they cheat on their wife, or beat her, she can leave the marriage easily and he can then replace her with a fresh new woman to victimize. If it were harder to get out of a marriage, then men who abuse their wives would have to deal with the consequences (e.g. looking at a woman with a beat-up face for the next several decades).

If, on the other hand, severe abuse were considered a grounds for divorce, and it were possible to prove the abuse, then women could clean their abuser's clock a lot more thoroughly than they can under a no-fault divorce system that regards no one as being to blame for a marriage's breakup, and therefore treats them relatively equitably financially.

Weak women seeking someone to validate their delusions
There are a lot of women who marry a guy and then turn out to be a total deadbeat, because their mental health problems and laziness keep them from accomplishing anything. Not only aren't they fit for the career world (they call in sick way too often to last long there, and they can't get through college because they drop out in the middle of the semester), they aren't even fit to serve their husband in the kitchen or the bedroom. There are a lot of women who use a feigned headache as an occasional excuse when they're just not feeling like putting in effort to please their husbands, but these women take it to a whole new level, using their fake illnesses on a daily basis to get out of just about everything.

Then when their husband gets annoyed at this behavior, they cry "abuse," get the legal system involved, and use the documentation (police reports, restraining orders, etc.) to get everyone to believe they really were abused. They can then use the "trauma" from this abuse as an excuse for why they can't accomplish anything for the rest of their lives, and live on child support and government handouts forever without anyone criticizing them for it.

Women who would actually be willing to put in the effort to have a successful marriage
There are still a few women left who have the skills to please a man and who recognize that if they marry a good man, they will get out of marriage what they put into it. Good women have no way of assuring a man that they aren't going to treat them terribly in a marriage and then run off with the kids and half their stuff. Prenuptial agreements, at best, only limit the damage from divorce. The emotional harm (both to the dumped guy and to the kids) may be irreparable.

Good guys' being reluctant to marry leads to a lot of good women having to settle for worse guys, or having less fulfilling relationships of casual sex rather than committed relationships.

Alphas and greater betas who would've actually made good husband material
Alphas get plenty of sex under the current system, but sex is all they're getting. Eventually, they're going to want to settle down, but many won't feel it's safe to put their trust in a woman who could easily betray them.

Women who are attracted to alpha men
Feminist-inspired culture teaches men that it's okay (and maybe even preferable) to be beta, and therefore there are more beta-acting men out there than there otherwise would be. Women who are attracted to alpha-acting guys (which is perhaps the majority of the population of younger women, when you look at the kind of guys they actually are willing to sleep with, as opposed to what they may say is the kind of guy they're attracted to) therefore have fewer alpha-acting guys available to them.

Beta men who verge on omega
Beta men who verge on omega can barely get any woman at all, and therefore are in a perfect position to be sought out by and mistreated by mentally unstable women. As soon as they encounter any woman who is willing to sleep with them, they think they've found the holy grail. These guys are often naive about such women, won't understand the driving forces behind the unhealthy relationship dynamics that develop, and will ultimately be left not knowing what hit them. As mentioned above, many of these women will cry "abuse" and be believed by everyone who hears the story, and these guys are in for a world of hurt when that happens.

Kids
Kids in many cases don't get to grow up with both their parents; no-fault divorce encourages parents to behave recklessly toward each other in their relationship, knowing that if the relationship fails, they can dissolve the marriage easily. People argue that it's better for parents to split if they are arguing constantly; but what is making them argue constantly? Could it be that they don't have to fear living with the consequences of trashing their relationship, since they can just give up on it and walk away?

Boys, instead of having a father to teach them how to be a man, get to hang around their mother who is probably sleeping half the day, and watching TV the rest of the time, when she isn't slutting it up with countless random guys while collecting her child support and welfare checks.

Feminism tends to support handing over custody of kids to mentally unstable women who cry "abuse." This is mentioned multiple times in this essay because it's a big and often-overlooked problem. A single dad would often be a more emotionally stable parent, and produce better outcomes for his kids, than a single mom who left her husband because she is disloyal or can't handle the emotional ups and downs of a relationship. If she has the kinds of bad qualities that would cause a marriage to break up, she may also be a shitty parent as well.

Fathers, feminists, and battered women
Feminists don't seem to be particularly interested in acknowledging the role of fathers in influencing their daughters to become feminists or battered women, as opposed to preparing them to have healthy relationships. But I will not flinch from conducting such an analysis:

The formation of normal women
In the ideal conception of a society led primarily by men, both fathers and husbands are benevolent rulers. At marriage, the right and responsibility of taking care of a woman passes from her father to her husband. She can look for the same qualities in her husband as what she observed in her father, that produced her healthy relationship with him; and there will be a smooth transition from being ruled over by one man to being ruled over by another.

A normal woman will test men to see if they have enough strength and self-respect to push back and assert their boundaries. She will leave decisions to them to see whether they can lead when given the opportunity, or if they become indecisive and ask to be led. If given the choice, she will prefer men who are natural leaders. However, since such men are rare, if she has to (e.g. because she is not desirable enough to attract a better man for a committed relationship) she will settle for a husband who is less dominant.

Benevolent rule is characterized by gentleness (the "benevolent" aspect) and firmness (the "rule" aspect). The benevolent ruler listens to his subject, takes her wishes into consideration, and seeks to accommodate her when possible. However, the reason is he is ruler is that (1) someone must be in charge; it can't be an equal partnership, and (2) the person who is in charge generally should be the man, because a healthy man tends to be less given to emotional responses and the resulting self-serving rationalizations than a woman. Men tend to be more capable, if given relatively untrammeled power over another person, of using that power fairly, than women are. Emotionality immerses people in subjectivity, and therefore men tend to be able to be objective, a key characteristic of good leaders.

All of this may be part of the explanation for why single fathers tend to have better outcomes than single mothers. Another part of the explanation may be that, since most breakups of committed relationships are caused by women (which, again, is typically caused by emotionality on women's part making them feel like they can't tolerate the ups and downs of a relationship any longer), single mothers will tend to have more tendencies toward disloyalty and mental health problems than single fathers.

The formation of some feminists
Feminism is in many ways and cases a revolt against father figures (literally, the patriarchy). An overly strict father may provoke his daughter to distrust men's ability or tendency to be benevolent rulers. She will then likely become promiscuous, having casual sex with men rather than deep relationships in order to avoid forming an emotional attachment, or other kind of entangling commitment, that she would fear could put her at risk of being oppressed. She may cut her hair short as part of an attempt to be more manly, and seek the independence and self-reliance that come with playing a more masculine role in society.

Eventually, her beauty fades to the point that she can no longer as easily attract decent men even for short-term flings. Or at any rate, she has built her career to a point where she feels she can safely settle down without compromising her independence too much. So, she marries a weak man (i.e. a man who views himself as having few romantic options outside of her, and who typically has naive views about women and their tendencies) whom she can dominate. However, she despises him for being weak, and at any rate her insecurities are such that she can never trust him and will have to make up a grave transgression on his part if he does not actually commit one. He then gets dumped as a preemptive strike against an imagined intention on his part to become abusive.

Any man would likely be devastated by being treated this way, due to the emotional bond that she has so callously severed, and the inconveniences of a divorce (including, if they have kids, the breakup of the original team of two biological parents). But it will probably be all the worse for the weak man, who will regard himself as having few other romantic options, and whose naivete will cause him to readily accept the narrative of his being to blame for the relationship's failure. He will likely begin by going in the direction of self-blame and doubling down on his submissiveness in an attempt to appease, before possibly later waking up to reality that he and his children have been treated poorly without good reason, and going in search of explanations and solutions. Or he may never wake up to the truth, and just be a broken man for the rest of his life.

Feminism serves as an ideology that justifies all of this behavior on her part and says that it's good and normal. To the extent her life is unhappy, feminism allows her to blame that on men's misbehavior and on the fact that feminism still has not totally eradicated the last traces of the patriarchy.

The formation of some battered women
Many battered women were, as girls, ignored by their fathers unless they misbehaved. When they misbehaved, he then beat them within an inch of their lives before feeling guilty and offering them attention and love in an attempt to salve his guilty conscience. These girls then learned to misbehave as their only way of attracting attention. The seeds of the classic cycle of abuse that will define her future relationships — i.e. the cycle of building tension, violently explosive abusive episode, and romantic honeymoon — are planted in childhood.

As these girls reach womanhood, they find normal men boring because they don't offer the "high" of the honeymoon stage in the abuse cycle. In the words of Mustapha Mond, "Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability."

These women, then, bypass all the "nice guys" and normal men who are lacking girlfriends, opting instead to seek out abusive men. Once they get with those men, they can provoke them to abuse by misbehaving for no reason, just like they used to do with daddy. She may say, "By the way, I fucked your brother last night" or something else that will challenge his masculinity and leadership. He's probably dealt with unstable women like her in the past, and knows on some level how her mind works; he knows that she will punish him by escalating misbehavior and/or by leaving him if he acts weak (e.g. if he says, "Why would you do that, honey? That hurts me so much" and tries to appease her) and reward him with sex and devotion if he not only asserts his boundaries but resorts to controlling violence.

These women, remember, were attention-deprived as children. Since society does not condone abuse, his abusive behavior presents an excellent opportunity for her to get lots of attention by telling the police about how she was abused. In the courtroom, she is the star witness and although the judge may secretly regard her as trailer park white trash, it would be politically incorrect for him to say so.

She even has an opportunity to exaggerate what happened for maximum drama, because feminists will viciously attack any skeptic who attempts to argue, "Come now, he didn't really try to KILL you, did he? How did you manage to escape with your life, if he had you in such a vulnerable position and was seriously attempting to murder you?" Those kinds of questions are deemed to be at best insensitive to already-traumatized victims, and at worst a malicious effort to discourage the reporting of domestic violence.

In search of fresh thrills, she will need to go back to him or to another man like him, if she wants more of the intense "honeymoon" highs. No one will openly criticize her for doing this, because that would be blaming the victim. Her excuse for making the same "mistake" over and over is that abusive men are just so convincing with their lies that she fell for his promises to change.

These women are basically junkies, but unlike heroin users, they are given sympathy rather than condemned and punished for their behavior, despite the fact that her role in causing the abuse consumes a lot of resources in medical costs, domestic violence shelter costs, court and law enforcement costs, etc.; and puts their children in a precarious situation.

Review of Foamy the Squirrel episode "Gamer Chicks"
At 1m33s: "And seriously, who cares if I spit or swallow? If you're gettin' a blowjob, does it really matter where the jizz ends up? Just be glad a woman is touching your disgusting genitals, you prick."

- Gamer Chick

My responses:


 * 1) Since when did fetishes have to make sense? The point is, for whatever reason, your partner wants sex a certain way, and this is your opportunity to take pride and have a sense of accomplishment in doing the best job you can pleasing him, and maybe even inspire him to reciprocate.
 * 2) If a guy were to say, "I don't want to eat your pussy because I find its smell repulsive; just be glad there's a guy who's willing to fuck your nasty snatch at all" he would be considered VERY rude, selfish, and arrogant.

The problem is, there are a lot of thirsty, supplicating guys so desperate for a few scraps of sexual attention that they'll accept any kind of frigidity or other mistreatment from their relationship partners. Therefore, women have learned to have contempt for them. They would never behave that way toward the guys they're actually attracted to; in fact, women will often even accept mistreatment from that kind of guy because he's higher up in the sexual hierarchy than they are.

Review of 50 Shades of Grey (film)

 * Caution: Spoilers of the 50 Shades series ahead

Obviously this film is primarily designed to appeal to female viewers, and to be acceptable to those with feminist views, so that women can feel like they can openly admit they like the film without feeling like traitors. Christian Grey is intended to come across as a dream man, rather than a chauvinistic psychopath. Although he talks of domination, it's all just fantasy; when it comes time for actual negotiation, Anastasia almost always wins, just by announcing her position is inflexible. All he's able to get her to do is sign a non-disclosure agreement; she remarks that she wasn't going to reveal their doings together anyway, so it's not really much of a concession on her part.

Throughout the whole process, she has him almost totally pussy-whipped. For example, she's able to provoke him to chase by acting distant and uninterested. She constantly whines and bitches, as though what he's doing for her isn't good enough (for example, complaining "I think I've reached my quota of surprises" when he is trying to create a sense of suspense before introducing her to the exciting, romantic and probably expensive experience of flying in a glider together).

One wonders, why would this guy pick a girl like her, rather than someone who would give in more readily to domination? Presumably he enjoys the challenge. But it's clear that by the end, he's not having fun anymore, as she fulfills the ultimate feminist fantasy, which is to get a guy to hopelessly fall for her, and then break his heart, thereby wreaking revenge on men (and especially the successful men at the top of the patriarchy) for their transgressions. If he intended for it to go this way, is it because he's some kind of emotional junkie who craves unnecessary drama in relationships?

It seems that in the next installments, she'll be fulfilling other feminist fantasies by actually suckering him into marriage (after having treated him worse than garbage) and then fucking him over still further. I haven't even read the books yet, but I already know this has to end with him finally crossing some line that requires her to leave forever (with all the blame being on him), like in 9½ Weeks. It can't possibly end with a fulfilling lifelong marital relationship in which they raise kids together as a happy family. It will be interested to see whether he can get her to sign a prenuptial agreement, though; my guess is that he won't, since that would be counter to the whole point of the movie, which is to appeal to modern-day female fantasies.

One of the critiques of the book was that it mentions using cable ties as restraints; this practice is not approved by the BDSM community as it can impede circulation. They could've fixed this in the movie, but they didn't. What's up with that?

A couple aspects of this movie that are cool: (1) Christian, as a teenager, has a (probably illegal) sexual relationship with an older woman, and he counters Ana's criticisms of this as exploitation (which feminists will likely have mixed feelings about; see earlier section on the age of consent); and (2) Christian does at least try to set up a contract to specify expectations of male privilege to which he's entitled, which are no longer considered part of the standard marriage/relationship contract. This is probably a good practice for men these days, even though the promises are non-binding. Ultimately, though, he can't get her to sign it anyway, though, despite all the concessions that he granted her (e.g. no genital clamps).

Why Christian doesn't want to sleep in the same bed as her (as opposed to just banging her) is kinda mysterious. I was about to say that it's fun to wake up next to a beautiful young woman and have some morning sex without needing to leave the general area of master bedroom and bathroom. Maybe he's just one of these guys who doesn't sleep well with another person in the same bed. Hard to say. Perhaps it's explained in the book.

Divorce and adultery are very close to the same concept
I notice that a lot of the same women who say it's okay to frivorce a husband, also say that it's okay to cheat on a husband. Often these women have a history of doing both, and are unashamed.

It's unsurprising. Sexual promiscuity and frivorce both stem from impulsivity and undependability (one might almost say immaturity). Also, cheating can help lead to divorce. A woman who is unsatisfied with her relationship can either try to fix it and/or make the best of it; or leave and be alone; or find someone else. Finding someone else while you're still with your husband makes it easier to leave (and stay gone) when you make that decision; you have emotional (and maybe financial) support and a sex partner from the get-go.

Surveys say that Americans still oppose cheating more than they oppose divorce. I'm not sure why. Divorce, like cheating, often involves the woman who promised lifelong fidelity to you going off to ride some other dude's cock. Yeah, you can find someone new too after you're left, but that doesn't mean that you're not going to suffer the consequences of the betrayal. You now have a divorce on your record, and people will assume you're the cause of that relationship failure. Your kids will grow up without seeing their father much. (Maybe they'll have a new dad, but it won't be the same.) You're going to have to take some time to get over the betrayal and find a way to trust again, if you can.

Both divorce and adultery undermine the institution of marriage. Whether you spend a 20-year period divorced from your husband, or spend a 20-year period cheating on your husband, the fact is that you're in continuing breach of your marital obligations during those 20 years.

What's that you say? Marriage can't be reasonably construed as a promise to stay with your spouse for life, because the law allows divorce? Well then, what is your basis for saying that it can be reasonably construed as a promise to stay faithful until the marriage is dissolved? The law allows adultery too. My point is, there are legitimate moral standards that transcend the law.

Both divorce and adultery are justified on the grounds, "I have a right to be free and to seek my own happiness!" Cheating is usually covered up with lies, but so are often the true reasons for divorce. Women will often tell their next partner what a horrible abuser their previous husband(s) was/were, because if they told the truth, no other man would want a relationship with them.

The bottom line is, a lot of men would NOT marry a woman if they knew she reserved in her mind the right to frivorce him, just as they would NOT marry a woman if she reserved in her mind the right to cheat on him. Women know this, and it's why they don't explicitly say at the outset that they reserve these rights; otherwise, they'd be spinsters. When men are led to believe they won't be dumped frivolously, and then they are, they're being "cheated" out of what they bargained for, just like they would be if their spouse committed adultery.

Double standards
Feminism is replete with double standards. For example, both divorce and beating your spouse are violations of the marital contract, yet it is only considered acceptable for women (not men) to punish their spouse's violations by committing violations of their own. For example, people will condone a woman's leaving a husband who beats her, even though this is based on a principle of "two wrongs make a right." It was bad for the kids to see their father beating their mother, and according to feminists' warped mindset, the situation is improved by the wife's subjecting the kids to the complete loss of their father, on top of what they have already experienced.

Yet what happens when the father follows this "two wrongs make a right" principle by using physical violence to punish his wife for leaving him? This is somehow considered abusive, even though the underlying principle is the same: breaking the marital vows in order to gain control of the situation.

What is the difference between frivorce and regular divorce?
It's known by both parties at the outset of a marriage that they're dealing with an imperfect individual who is going to occasionally behave badly or make mistakes, and that patience, tolerance, and forgiveness will be needed in order for the marriage to survive. It's also known that there will be some conflicts in the spouses' preferences, goals, etc. that will require some sort of accommodation, compromise, understanding, etc. in order to resolve. It's also known that circumstances will take unexpected turns that require adjustment and sometimes letting go of some expectations. It's also known that there will be times when each spouse will think, "Did I make a mistake in marrying this person?" and that the marriage's survival may depend on answering that with, "Either way, I made a commitment, and I'm not giving up till I've exhausted plans A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z for making this marriage work."

A frivorce is done as if all these realities are somehow unexpected news, or as though there was no morally binding commitment from the beginning to make the sacrifices involved in accepting and dealing with these realities in exchange for the benefits of a lifelong partnership. A frivorce is a giving up after trying plans A, B, C, and D for making the marriage work, rather than exhausting the rest of the alphabet.

In a marriage, it is NOT acceptable to say, "The costs of exhausting the rest of the alphabet outweigh the likely benefits." You have to keep trying till you've tried everything and nothing has worked, or your divorce is a frivorce. To women, it's usually going to look hopeless when it's not, because their emotionality tends to get in the way of seeing the situation clearly and empathizing with their spouse, and their friends and family influence them to "dump that jerk" rather than offering moral support to hang in there, and advice on how to fix the relationship.

If your spouse crosses certain bright lines, like cheating, then it's okay to dump them. But it should be noted, for every issue that would've been a "bright line" to one couple, there's another marriage that has survived behavior that crossed that line and gone on to be a happy marriage.

Just like how it's better for a thousand guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted, it's better for a thousand shitty marriages to continue "till death do us part", than for one marriage that could've been saved and become a happy marriage, to be broken up by frivorce. Why is this the case? Because once you open the door up to divorce without some very clear bright behavioral line (like cheating) having been crossed, women will be frivolous about their choices of men to marry, and frivolous in their behavior toward their husband, because they can be frivolous about their reasons for getting divorced. Overall, the quality of marriages will tend to go down, not up, because people won't be taking it as seriously.

"To Catch a Predator" is an anti-male conspiracy, with Chris Hansen as "house nigger" traitor to the male sex
One of the arguments for statutory rape laws is that there's a power imbalance between an underage minor and an adult. In a scenario where a 13-year-old is approaching an adult online, volunteering his address, and inviting the guy to travel across the U.S. to have sex with him, is there a power imbalance? What is preventing the teen from fending the predator off by saying, "No thanks" and blocking him, as opposed to saying "Here's where I live; don't forget to bring the condoms, and remember, I like strawberry peach-flavored wine coolers"? To me, that sounds like it's the teen who's really calling the shots and getting the adult to do what he wants.

The son of a friend of my mine used to brag to his mom about how he could easily find gay men who would pay him several hundred dollars a night for sex. In that way, he was able to afford a lifestyle where he wasn't financially dependent on his mom, and she couldn't tell him any longer, "As long as you're under my roof, you obey my rules." (His mom was a lesbian who had him by some random guy she got to fuck her so she could have a kid, which adds further support for my argument that dads are NOT as dispensable as feminists would have people believe.)

At what point do we have to conclude that it's really the teens who are in the driver's seat, and behaving in a way that borders on exploitation of horny adults who have no choice but to obey their instructions and pay exorbitant prices if they want to fulfill their fantasies?

People often say it's adults who are able to prey on teens' desire for affection, approval, etc. How is that a stronger drive, that renders people more susceptible to manipulation, than adults' sexual urges? It's one thing to bring up teens' physical dependence on adults for the necessities of life, but once we get into the territory of factors that make people susceptible to psychological coercion, it gets really iffy because some adults have as little self-control as teenagers.

Therefore, "To Catch a Predator" is a feminist conspiracy whose disproportionate targeting of men rather than women is no accident. Men are the ones who are more desperate for sex (due to their disproportionate difficulty in getting laid) and therefore are more susceptible to getting caught up in stings.

Let's replace "consent" with "marriage" as the criterion for when sex is lawful
Women must have their behavior and decisions controlled by men. It's evident from how commonly women regret sex afterward, that many (if not most, or all) women are not able to handle the responsibility of making decisions about sex.

Not only that, when women make a bad decision about sex, they often can't even admit responsibility for the bad decision, but instead feel compelled to blame the man and call him a rapist. Women do this to get out of trouble (e.g. for cheating on their boyfriend or violating their parents' rules), or simply to avoid feeling guilty or stupid for a regrettable decision. Even when the circumstances suggest that they initially were DTF, they can claim that they they were too intoxicated to consent or that they withdrew consent at the last moment (after they'd gotten undressed and worked the guy up to an eager state of sexual excitement) and the man selfishly forced himself upon them rather than stopping.

The fact that there are a lot of women claiming that they said "yes" only because they were drunk, or that they withdrew consent at the last moment and got raped, suggests that they are foolish, indecisive and prone to changing their minds based on arbitrary and capricious whim. Would you trust a person to make important decisions affecting you, who often makes important decisions while under the influence of alcohol; or who is always changing their mind and cancelling important plans at the last moment that they've gotten others to buy into? (Presumably, having sex is an important decision, or the state wouldn't be punishing people with long prison terms for unlawful sex.)

The courts usually won't be able to sort out whether consent was in fact freely given and that it remained in effect at the time sex took place. After all, many of these rape reports are made weeks, months, or years after the alleged rape, when the evidence is mostly gone. At any rate, typically no breathalyzer test is conducted, and no notarized consent form is signed, at the moment of penetration. Inevitably, either a lot of rapes will go unpunished, or a lot of innocent men will be found guilty, depending on what the burden of proof and the standard of evidence are.

Therefore, I propose that we simply eliminate from the rape statutes any mention of the woman's consent to sex. Rather, it should be the father who consents to give his daughter in marriage to a husband who then is entitled to have sex with her whenever he wants. Having sex with an unmarried virgin woman should be considered a violation of the father's right to give away his virgin daughter to a man of his choosing. (Similarly, having sex with someone else's wife would be considered a violation of the husband's right to exclusive sexual access to his wife.)

"Marriage" as the criterion for when sex is lawful would be a more objective standard than consent. The marriage would be duly recorded in front of a notary while the contracting parties (the groom and the father of the bride) are of sober mind and have probably given the matter a great deal of thought, unlike a woman's consent to sex which is often decided on the spur of the moment and signaled implicitly by her nonverbal behavior, and could be subject to after-the-fact distortion. It is rarely claimed that marriages took place under conditions of duress (since there are so many witnesses who can attest to the circumstances of the marriage and the contracting parties' state of mind); in contrast, women are quite often claiming that their acquiescence to sex occurred while they were under duress.

Prohibiting sex with unmarried women will give every unmarried woman security that if she can prove that sex occurred, there will be justice if she is raped. The man will not be able to get away with rape by falsely claim that she consented, because the law will not recognize women as being competent to consent to sex. (The legal environment is already moving in this direction anyway, so we may as well codify it.) Alpha men will have an incentive to settle down and get married at a young age, rather than playing the field, so that they can legally have sex. The removal of these alpha men from the sexual marketplace will mostly eliminate the carousel and give horny women a reason to get married at a younger age as well.

Of course, some men could still be falsely accused of having sex with an unmarried woman, when in fact they didn't. One way to help prevent this kind of false accusation would be for men to be chaperoned at all times while courting their prospective brides, and for men to in general avoid being alone with women they aren't married to.