Category Archives: Feminism: OOPS!

2205. Compatibility Axioms #731-740


  1. Loose and shapeless bras and sweats provide comfort, but unadvertised assets generate little curiosity. If she has no incentive to show herself off to the max, then he figures his max will not be required. So, she starts off in the hole. [253]
  2. Women dress erotically to capture a man. They attract attention and may be taken off the shelf and even taken home. But eroticism promotes sex, not loyalty for the whole product. [253]
  3. A keeper advertises and packages herself to keep sex in the background, because that keeps male minds focused on her star quality. [253]
  4. Cleavage draws a man’s eyeballs downward and his thoughts to nestling there. Good advertising works! Does the rest of her appearance sell her for much beyond sex? [253]
  5. Modern females make sloppy, careless, and slovenly fashionable. They slouch a lot as men do. They do this although men feast with their eyes, and husbands expect a wife they are proud to show off. [253]
  6. There will be never enough money until you have so much that ‘enough’ is never thought of. [254]
  7. Control of money will always be more important than amount available. It requires a decision process. We call it the pain that heals, or simply ‘budgeting’. [254]
  8. The budgeting process keeps a couple focused on improving their lives. With the force of self-imposed rules, it pushes them to do in the present what they need for their future. [254]
  9. Feminism promotes ‘get in his face’ as the way to protect a woman’s interests. It nullifies her natural strength for shaping a man’s behavior. [255]
  10. Men don’t voluntarily abandon the hormonal urge of being a man. But they enlarge their roles in life when coached to do so by one woman. Since improvement requires a man to change, respect is her key to the operating room, submissiveness her surgical instrument. [255]

1 Comment

Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!, How she wins

2203. Manosphere


NOTE: At a reader’s request, Gentleman Eric wrote this article. He informs us of some fallout of Feminism made radioactive by men set on revenge.

Others will say this better, but thank you, Eric.

————

Roosters, Gamecocks, and Capons

‘He rules the roost, she rules the rooster’. So it has been throughout history. Radical Feminism, encouraged by the Political Left, imposed a new paradigm which excluded the rooster. But the male gender did not disappear; however types of males who were once on the fringes rose to prominence.

Now a rooster follows the male nature; defending and providing for his roost, while performing other necessary work. But reactions to Feminism gave us the Manosphere which produces the Gamecock, a rooster who is bred for fighting and competition; and the Capon, a neutered rooster whose only purpose is to be eaten. The Manosphere—which once stood for the rights of men and the dignity of women—has fallen under the misogynist trends of these two types. The Gamecock is represented by the Game movement; the Capon from the so-called Men’s Human Rights Movement; both of which deny male/female compatibility, and both of which accept the terms laid down by the feminists as cultural norms. There is considerable homoeroticism latent in both movements, especially among the MHRM.

Both generally hold a form of gender supremacy, but it is the Game Philosophy which has the most pernicious effects on gender relations (the MHRM is essentially the mirror image of male feminism, which produces Capons as well, though of a different sort).

Not only does Game teach men how to disqualify themselves as suitable husbands/fathers, the male behavior it promotes reinforces the same negative stereotypes of men promoted by the Feminists. Why it is also dangerous is because, like feminism, it employs sexuality as a weapon.

Thus, the Gamecock, true to his namesake, treats gender relations as a war—not the healthy spirit of conquest which is part of the male nature—but indiscriminate conquest for its own sake. The Game blogs are replete with ‘relationship advice’ that sounds like psychological warfare. And to underscore the tendency, they despise all men outside of their movement as inferiors.  But stripped of their neologisms, pseudo-scientific rhetoric, and general pompousness, one sees a common thread running through all their writings: a genuine hatred for women in general. This, in spite of their obsession with sex, is deeply apparent. By extension, of course, the Gamecocks feel nothing but utter contempt for traditional masculinity. In fact, being referred to as a white knight or being accused of behaving with chivalry is considered an insult among their ranks—they laugh at men who respect or value women, because (to their minds), the female nature is inherently corrupt.

     By inherently corrupt, the Gamecocks do not mean the corrupted attitudes of modern women miseducated and disinformed by Feminist culture—what they mean, and explicitly state, is that to be born female is equivalent to being born with a corrupted nature. By their logic, it follows that men are completely justified in controlling that nature, either through force and fear because the corrupted feminine nature will not respond to goodness.

CSW [chaste single women] can avoid entanglements with the Gamecock by being, well CSW. The Gamecock’s only relationship goals are sex and control and he has no power over women who value themselves and their sexuality. Foiled in his attempts at manipulation, the Gamecock falls away and focuses his efforts on easier targets. Since he has no capacity to sustain a relationship, he typically has no desire to continue pursuit of anyone who doesn’t feed his narcissism.

The one type of Gamecock who does pose a danger to women is the one who wraps Game in a cloak of Christianity. The Churchian Gamer—and there are many of them—pose a threat because Christian women may be duped by the pretended Biblical sanction to the Gamecock message. Perverting such concepts as female submission, women as the weaker vessel, the husband as head of the household, &c the Churchian Gamecocks coax otherwise well-meaning women into the Game stratagems.

I use the term ‘Churchian’ because it must be understood that the religion of these men and their camarilla of disciples is Game and not Christianity. It actually resembles, in its teachings, contortions of Scripture most closely resembling the Gnostics. A good way for Christian women to avoid the Churchian Gamecock is to note the absence of a central Christian tenet: any discussion of Love. One can literally search in vain on Churchian Game blogs to find this word even mentioned. If a man talks endlessly about women’s Christian duties of things like submission and obedience, without mentioning either love or reciprocal male obligations, chances are he’s been influenced by Churchian Game.

By all means, stay CSW, if you deserve a rooster instead of a Gamecock or a Capon!
——

Separately, Eric adds some history to it.

“I actually coined the ‘Gamecock’ term back in my Manosphere days, and opponents of Game still use. It used to be that the Manosphere had an element of bloggers who were trying to fix the relations between men and women. There still are a few, but they are a minority.

“I thought the ‘Capon’ term fit for male feminists and their counterparts in the MHRM. The MHRM used to be A Voice For Men but they’ve largely veered into accepting feminism as the norm, but want feminist social/legal standards to equate to men: ‘Equal Injustice for All’ as their opponents aptly describe their position. It’s essentially male feminism that supposedly wants men to be equal feminists, unlike the traditional male feminists.

“Capons are more common in Europe, but it is a neutered rooster (it’s meat is considered a delicacy, they taste somewhat like pheasant LOL). So I thought it was an apt description of these types, since they behave like eunuchs, the same way that Gamers behave like gamecocks.”

56 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Feminism: OOPS!

2169. Chivalry — Recovery is Everything and Overdue


If you read the first post on this subject, #2168, why have we as a culture so readily accepted the intentional murder of chivalry at the hands of feminists? More importantly, how do we recover if the feminists were to let us? Or why should we even try?

I talk much about the character and custom-setting deeds of our forebears and how society’s female-friendly standards shrink. Perhaps chivalry could help right our sinking cultural ship, so I describe the road to recovery.

Chivalry indirectly leads to female happiness in one of life’s cause-and-effect natural phenomena. The process that follows is produced by both sexes following their hearts to live according to the natural condition they inherit at birth. It’s what instinct and intuition lead men and women to do naturally. It contributes greatly to general compatibility that leads respectably to enjoyable mating and indirectly to better fulfillment of girlhood hopes and dreams.

However, the practice has to be taught in childhood. That’s right. Both sexes need to have the benefits of following one’s instincts reinforced. God provides no owner’s manual until old enough to study the Bible. So, parents have to close the gap.

Male Nature:

  • Women are born to earn happiness over time. Men are born to earn satisfaction through daily achievements, and chivalry provides significant opportunity for both sexes.
  • His actions generate his feelings. A male who practices chivalry develops over time a deeply-rooted belief that he should unconditionally respect females, which includes the desire to give unconditionally, which enables him to eagerly find favor with a female, which energizes him to put his convenience momentarily at the disposal of a female, which makes him feel good about himself, which earns self-admiration, which provides satisfaction that he did the right thing. His chivalrous actions program his heart with those feelings (so long as the process isn’t interrupted by female signals that his effort isn’t welcome, in which case his will power and determination have to say ‘don’t quit’).
  • To boy or man brought up to be chivalrous, it becomes a duty. They are automatically responsible for distressed or otherwise discombobulated females. Fulfilling one’s duty is not an event that deserves reward, and men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. Consequently, women don’t know much about rewarding a chivalrous act, even though mere acknowledgement is sufficient when a guy does his duty.
  • It’s a hard and fast belief developed in childhood. Teaching boys that females are weaker and, therefore, to be protected makes males feel stronger, which opens the male heart to helping, which opens the door for chivalry, which defines a new duty, which energizes males to earn female favor, which produces a male at her disposal, which makes females feel superior, which puts her in the role of boss, which confirms she’s not the weaker sex, which guys can accept unless it’s verbalized.

Female Nature:

  • As you’ve read so often on this blog, women are born to be happy but they have to earn it. It comes from each woman’s gratitude for herself compounded by gratefulness for others in her life. Treated chivalrously, she becomes grateful for who she is and what she deserves, which adds to her sense of self-importance and ability to pass her gratitude on to others.
  • Chivalrous actions make a female feel superior. Her heart becomes programmed with respect and gratitude, which makes girls and women more grateful for themselves, which contributes to their happiness. Indirectly, chivalrous men help women find happiness. Also, his actions program her heart with respect and appreciation for males.

However, the foundation of chivalry is a delightful charade based on male eagerness to deceive themselves about females. Men are extremely unwilling to acknowledge any superiority to women; it’s inconsistent with their natural sense of dominance. By focusing solely on physical abilities and calling females the weaker sex, men can ‘prove’ to themselves that any superiority attached to the female gender is inconsequential. Chivalry confirms the weakness of one sex, which strokes the ego of men, and lifts any burden from men to admit otherwise. That’s the female-friendly charade that men develop to win female favor, but also to protect their own sense of significance.

Which begs the question, isn’t Feminism designed to highlight the superiority of women? Sure, but it doesn’t work except with the power of government imposed for legal, political, and economic advancements that become toxic when brought into both social and domestic relationships by well-meaning women with unrealistic expectations.

History proves the sexes can live compatibly. Men can’t and won’t do so when women impose their superiority to get their way. Either women keep their superior nature to themselves and avoid reminding men that it even exists, or men resent, resist, and often retaliate. To admit women are superior is to admit manly insignificance, which by nature is a man’s greatest fear that ranks with her fear of abandonment, which is what he does when she goes too far.

I submit that men or boys who are raised to be chivalrous, are not the same males who are abusing and disrespecting women and children on a regular basis. True chivalry, when ingrained in a boy, serves him throughout life. It provides a sense of satisfaction when he is able to help, please, win their favor, or delight women and children. It also serves as an internalized insurance policy against him becoming an abuser. Men can’t hit women, if taught to be chivalrous in boyhood.

Observe these Italian boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OcKQ_mbiQ and watch to the end.

You saw with the Italian boys how easily a charade can be turned into more safety for females. One simple admission, females are weaker, which enables males to ignore female superiority as long as it remains inadmissible as evidence for females to get their way. It’s easily and best taught in childhood. That’s next as this series grows from two to three installments.

 

13 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!

2168. Chivalry — Another Casualty from the Dark Side of Feminism


There’s more coming on mid-life dating, but let’s take a break. Guy Jr. and I collaborated on this subject and two part series for weekend reading.

Women are givers, men are takers. Right? However, bet you never thought of these social processes that leave women craving better men made worse by the death of chivalry.

The spirit of Feminism stirs masculine indignation against feminists; which spreads as non-feminists fall for propaganda and adopt feminist values and expectations; which causes masculine disappointment in womanhood; which stimulates loss of unconditional respect for the female gender; which over time morphs into fury and anger at individual women who show men disrespect; which stirs ambitions for revenge; which intensifies as women blame men for social ills and domestic incompatibility; which convinces men that female uniqueness is valuable only for sex; which kills masculine desire to be more giving; which terminates incentives for gentlemanly behavior and energies for chivalry. Even momentarily, men are unwilling to yield their convenience as symbol of higher regard for women than themselves. Self-centeredness, selfishness, and more taking prevail among men.

Domestic incompatibility soars as women face off against men made uninterested and inadequate for helping to fulfill female hopes and dreams.

History records it this way. The suffragettes planted the seeds, Women’s Liberation fertilized it, and feminists reaped the political fruit trying to emasculate men and thereby destroy patriarchy. Due and well earned in legal, political, and economic arenas, women’s advancements at men’s expense spread toxins into social and domestic arenas, which today makes couples incompatible.

Feminists killed the social construct of ladies as cultural opinion leaders, which pushed men to abandon gentlemanly behavior. Feminists rejected unconditional respect for females to symbolize their demand that men accept the political superiority of the female gender. Needing to appear as dominant leaders, feminists rejected chivalry, belittled gentlemanly courtesies, and shamed the unconditional respect of men for the female gender. (I can open doors myself, I don’t need you.)

Women accepted feminist propaganda and watched as ladyhood died of feminist ridicule. Women abandoned femininity as a featured attraction to capture a man for mating. Men lost interest in female hopes and dreams.

In the name of attacking manhood, womanhood was victimized by radical feminists. Chivalry disappeared along with the death of masculine thoughts that women deserved special attention and treatment just for being the weaker sex. Feminists could not admit to being the weaker sex, even though it’s a misnomer based solely on physical differences. As women proclaimed less need for men and greater strength for femaleness, they got what they wished for. Independence from men except for sex, which also nullified any need for chivalry.

I think it purposeful. Feminism killed the unconditional respect of one’s gender for the other sex that our forebears had developed and had become the greatest protector ever devised for women and children—respect solely because they are women and children (and who gets in the life boat first). Mutual respect for the opposite sex was demeaned and lost trying to benefit women at the expense of men.

Loss of mutual respect at gender level magnifies the loss at individual level. Undesirable relationship outcomes for females depletes the benefits of men in their lives. Witness the death of chivalry, fading away of gentlemanly behavior, and disintegration of harmonious family life—all tied together in a neat radical package.

The fallout today? Boys taught to be chivalrous such as in scouting discover they are emasculated in the eyes of girls and women. After a few unsuccessful efforts to demonstrate gentlemanly or chivalrous behavior, they just quit. Without female encouragement, they turn to easier ways. For example, this ultimate insult for women as quoted from the Manosphere, “there is unanimous agreement that you should never buy dinner for a woman as a date before you have had sex with her. This is probably the most unanimous point of agreement across all Game material from all sources.” Can you think of a bigger opposite of chivalry?

Chivalry triggers unconditional giving of oneself by a man, which minimizes masculine selfishness and neutralizes his role as taker, which symbolizes unconditional respect of women, which recognizes a certain superiority of the female gender, and which puts his convenience momentarily at the disposal of a woman. No wonder women appreciate chivalry and wish they had it again.

 

10 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!, Sociology 101

2100. 7th Anniversary, Tempus Fugit


Seven years ago tomorrow I posted my first article as declaration of war against Feminism. I titled it “Feminism Indicted.” I copy it here as still appropriate and the birthmark.

——

  • Feminism Indicted: Feminism is the philosophy of envy of men, the creed of anger at men, and the gospel of politics in relationships. Its inherent virtue merely equalizes unhappiness for women seeking or living with a man.
  • Femininity Acquitted: Femininity is the philosophy of attractiveness for men, the creed of faithfulness with men, and the gospel of devotion to one man. Its inherent virtue civilizes men, balances male dominance, suppresses male aggressiveness, inspires men to prove their worthiness, and rewards men for acting responsibly as both husband and father.
  • Feminism discourages male adoration of women. Femininity inspires it. Feminism demeans masculinity to get what women want. Femininity praises manliness to get what women want.
  • Feminism unleashes the savage male beast. Femininity tames it.
  • Anger energizes the politics of Feminism. Indirectness and modesty empower the cultural and domestic leadership of Femininity.

——

I started the blog with commitment to explain what women never hear and expected to post a few dozen articles. Now at 2100 I have become relatively devoted and intend to continue the mindset.

Those of you who comment make my duty more pleasant and enjoyable. Thank you.

 

37 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter, feminine, Feminism: OOPS!

1970. Compatibility Axioms #371-380


NOTE: I can’t say it often enough. I have no objections to the legal, political, and economic progress made by women. Advancements were deserved long before they were won. I address Feminism only as the public fallout impacts social and domestic life among men and women.

371. The feminist challenge to millennia-old patriarchy is the fundamental cause of incompatibility. It separates the sexes, because it uses outside help in the form of public pressure to help prove women right and men wrong. Thus, Feminism leads women away from their natural strengths and relationship expertise. Misdirected, women give up their instinctive art of screening men until they become worthy of capture. Instead of dreaming of upgrading their Mr. Good Enough into Mr. Right during decades of living together, they try to ‘convert’ him immediately before or after marriage. [134]
372. Feminist-think calls for human nature to work backwards. Nowadays, women cooperate with each other for advice about men and unify support against them. They compete with their man for dominance. The first tends to prevent and the latter tends to melt compatibility. [134]
373. When women think and act like men, it transmutes into loss of the female genius that every couple needs to build longevity together. Romantic love fades faster. Sexual love becomes her manipulative tool. Enduring love doesn’t become mutual. Marital vows shrink in importance. One or both spouses become itchy to make a better go of it with someone else. [134]
374. The human competitive spirit and modern social pressures push women to act more like men—♫ I can do anything he can do better. ♫ Women imagine success and frustration arises at the lack of it. Frustration pushes them to escalate until they become the irresistible force trying to move the immovable object. Thus, womanly frustration generates greater manly stubbornness. [134]
375. A man’s love is founded on respect. And men respect women that persistently uphold values and standards that uplift women relative to men but not at the expense of men. It includes values and standards that men don’t initiate but value people who do. Femininity builds such respect, and Feminism discourages it. [135]
376. One woman says this. “Men need femininity. They call it ‘color in a black and white world.’ It heals their wounds, soothes their spirits and recharges their batteries. It is one of the things men look for in their wives; someone who makes them more powerful by feeding them with their femininity.” [‘Claudia’ as quoted in Keys to the Kingdom by Alison A. Armstrong, PAX Programs, Inc., p. 151] [135]
377. Femininity reflects intense femaleness with politics removed. It includes female traits that women rely on naturally to fulfill their hopes and dreams. Qualities such as feminine mystique, female modesty, religious morality, faithful monogamy, female-defined manners, female-friendly social standards, compassionate values, holy matrimony, and an eager-to-reveal emphasis against offense to a woman’s sensibilities. Femininity generates personal power dealing with men, because it enables women to reduce the hormone storms of male dominance—sometimes into submission or at least toleration. [135]
378. When the female gender institutionalizes the feminine qualities just cited, men learn to respect females more than males. Their unconditional respect for women provides the foundation for the conditional respect for one woman who eventually transmutes into the enduring love that sustains compatibility for life. A man’s enduring love of one woman isn’t all that strong, if he lacks respect for her gender. Old-school mothers made it work. Our forefathers built American greatness out of wifely inspirations, expectations, encouragements, and gratefulness shrouded in femininity. [135]
379. Our foremothers knew male dominance has to be outsmarted and outmaneuvered and not squelched obviously. They generated and sustained compatibility very differently than modern women. First, they competed with other women for a man with sex out of the picture. Sex was the bonus after he qualified as worthy to be her husband and father of her children. Second, they cooperated with their husband and revealed their respect and gratefulness by pleasing him. [135]
380.Further, our foremothers exploited their femaleness to clarify two very different and cooperative roles as a couple—separate responsibilities for each. His domain was outside the home, hers inside. He was chairman, she was CEO. With clearly separated roles, they balanced relationship power without outside influence. [135]

 

10 Comments

Filed under Feminism: OOPS!

1965. Compatibility Axioms #351-360


NOTE: I report only on social and domestic relations and not legal, political, or economic arrangements wrought by Feminism.
351. Feminism is the philosophy of envy of men, the creed of anger at men, and the gospel of politics-first over men. Its inherent virtue equalizes female unhappiness for those living with a man.
352. Feminist doctrine: Don’t listen to what men have to say about the female sex. They’re jealous, biased, and besides that they are the enemy. [127]
353. Feminists blame character flaws for men that cheat. Women who cheat, however, are not flawed; they are justified by the inequities of patriarchy.
354. Without non-prostitute women to provide sex to married men, lack of opportunity pressures husbands to remain physically faithful whether they like it or not. [127]
355. Feminists insist on equal sharing of housekeeping and childcare responsibilities. Equality to feminists means they get their way. The process of seeking it, however, weakens mutual devotion. Being impossible to mutually achieve, the drive for equality both causes and sustains friction in a relationship. [127]
356. Feminists listen only to women about both men and Feminism. They ignore its impact on the male nature and blame men for not acting as women say they should, would, or could. [127]
357. Feminists convince females to abandon old school maturity-before-sex in favor of new school sex-before-maturity. Men get what they want most. Women gain sexual freedom, but they lose much of their natural ability to hold onto a mate. [127]
358. Feminism teaches women to rationalize a superior role for females, celebrate their independence from men, and compete against their man. It justifies a self-centered competitive rather than an us-centered cooperative spirit. Filling such a role belittles a man’s sense of significance, the loss of which is his greatest fear and especially with his mate. [127]
359. Feminists actively honor sexual freedom. Men relish the proliferation of uncommitted sex, but the Marrying Man seeks something very different. [127]
360. Feminists claim female independence as a woman’s right. Men let them have it and feel relieved at the consequent watering down of family responsibility. [127]

6 Comments

Filed under Feminism: OOPS!