21 February 2013

A Great, New Blog!


While reading comments over @ PM/AFT's place, I saw a new blogger who I checked out.  The blog is: This Is Why MGTOW.  Go check him out and see what he has to say; it's good stuff!


20 February 2013

Dog Reunited with Owner-Ten Years AFTER Bitch Ex Wife Took It...


As I so often say here, I CANNOT make this stuff up; I just can't.  Emanon found this and shared it with us on Mancoat; I am sharing it with the larger world.  In this story, we read about a man who got reunited with a dog he'd lost ten years before-in a divorce.  Here goes...


Man reunited with dog after 10 years apart

Shortly after his pet boxer passed away, New Hampshire man Jamie Carpentier wasn't looking to take on another dog. He went online anyway—who doesn't like to browse?—and looked at pictures on the Humane Society of Greater Nashua website. But then he saw a familiar face: his old basset hound, Ginger.
Ten years ago, Carpentier's ex-wife got Ginger in the divorce. But, according to CBS Boston, she gave up Ginger a short time later.

Note what it says guys: Mr. Carpentier's bitch ex wife gave up the dog a SHORT TIME AFTER the divorce!  She didn't want the dog-not at all; she only wanted it because Mr. Carpentier wanted the dog, so she took Ginger out of spite.  Aren't women wonderful?  Isn't divorce wonderful?

I don't know what the policies of the shelter are where the former Mrs. Carpentier surrendered the dog; I don't know if it's a no-kill shelter like we have in my area.  It's rather telling about Mrs. Carpentier in particular, and women in general, that she would: 1) take the dog she didn't want in a divorce; 2) potentially put the dog's life in JEOPARDY; 3) and did so all to spite her ex-husband.  For those of you thinking about getting married, think about THAT before walking down The Aisle of Doom!

The dog was adopted, but 10 years later had become too much work for her elderly owner. (From the looks of this face, it's hard to imagine Ginger giving anybody much trouble.) The owner surrendered Ginger to the Humane Society—and Carpentier happened to log on to the right site at the right time.

At least Ginger found a loving home after the divorce.  I don't think Ginger gave her elderly owner too much trouble, either; Basset hounds are mellow, easy going dogs.  I think that the elderly owner's health had failed to the point where he/she could no longer take care of the dog; for example, the elderly owner had lost the ability to walk, so he/she couldn't take the dog out for the walks it needs.  In that case, putting Ginger up for adoption was the right thing to do-especially since she was reunited with her original owner!

He spoke with Boston's WCVB-TV about the unexpected reunion. "She seemed like she knew it was me," Carpentier said about picking up his old/new dog. "It was me and my father who were there, and she just ... she just recognized us." He wasn't planning on taking another dog, but come on. How could anybody say no to this face?

 How could anyone say 'no' to that face, indeed?  Ginger looks like a sweet dog; she gives off a good vibe even in the picture.  That begs and obvious question: how could Mrs. Carpentier say 'no' to that face?  How could Mrs. Carpentier take Ginger from her loving owner, Mr. Carpentier?  How could Mrs. Carpentier endanger the dog's life as she did, hmmm?

"She was stuck to me like glue. It was awesome,” Carpentier told the Nashua Telegraph after seeing her again "I have her now, and she has a place to live and stay,” he said. “The end. It’s awesome.”

All's well that ends well.  Now what would REALLY be a good ending is if his bitch ex-wife were to end up homeless, broke, and in failing health-ha!  We can only hope...


Fellas, what you have just read is indicative of women and their natures.  Mrs. Carpentier didn't let Mr. Carpentier keep the dog he loved and who loved him-oh, no.  No, she spitefully TOOK the dog so he couldn't have it!  We know this because she surrendered the dog for adoption a short time after the divorce; rather than letting Mr. Carpentier have the dog back, she took it.  Again, it's rather telling.

What to do, Fellas?  Stay happy, single, and free, of course!  That way, if you have a dog, cat, or other pet you love, you won't lose it to a spiteful, vengeful woman who cares nothing about you or your pet.  Until next time...


19 February 2013

MRAs Hate Women & Love Rapists? Really?


When I came across the Feminine Mystique blog and other blogs like it, I wanted to like the TWRAs and what they stand for; I really, truly did.  I think that a patriarchal society like we once had is best for all concerned.  History shows this to be true, because patriarchal societies do better than any other societal type.

Having said that, I have serious problems with what the TWRAs say, and I damn sure have a problem with the rude, shrill, and obnoxious way that they say it.  They say that they won't submit to anyone but their husbands, and I get that.  However, they can be polite, feminine, and RESPECTFUL of all men, right?  If these women are feminine, they sure fooled me!

So, with that in mind, I'm going to start fisking some of the posts Edita TWRA makes; I'm going to deconstruct them as only I can.  She got my dander up with one of her recent posts about MRAs hating women.  That's just crap!  I'm not a MRA, either; if one insists on using categories and labels, I'm a MGHOW; I'm part of MGTOW.  Though I'm part of the MGTOW camp, I get where the MRAS are coming from.  Now, let's get on with fisking her post on MRAs supposed hatred of women...


Now, before I get started, I must make one comment right off the bat: Edita's posts are ATROCIOUSLY formatted, and they're difficult to read!  If you go to her post, you'll see what I mean.  You'll also see that I've tried to reformat her writing, so it's more easily read and understood.  Can't you write and layout your material any better than that, woman?

 For the past few days I have been receiving emails which contain incessant MRA whining and crying. It seems some MRA’s are unhappy as to why the TWRA’s are not supporting them. One MRA even said that MRA’s do not believe in egalitarianism. Now, I admit I basically stalk all the MRA hubs on Facebook, Twitter and various MRA blogs and NOT ONCE have I seen where they embrace traditionalism. NOT ONCE have I seen them vouching for inequality of the genders. In fact, majority of the cases they support full fledged feminism, which in its core is a Marxist invention. Paul Elam wannabes want equal rights of the genders meaning that they want both men and women to have the same opportunities, which would basically erase Affirmative Action for example. Affirmative Action is detrimental for housewives and their husbands, thus I am on board with that issue. However, that is probably where our similar interests end. MRA’s want to end alimony, they want to exempt rapists from punishment, and they support gender fungibility. By ending alimony the woman is the only one who is disadvantaged and that is usually the housewife. Women who have careers are more likely to divorce their husbands, thus they are in no need of alimony particularly because of Affirmative Action. They will be favored over a more qualified man. MRA’s in masse also support rapists Paul Elam on the Voice for Men stated that “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.” This, trend of support for rapists is very common among the MRM men. For example, Steve Moxon in his book “The Woman Racket,” seems to have a problem with the fact that rape is seen as a bigger crime then murder(If anything rape is not punished enough). It is an emotional murder (the woman’s life becomes a constant hell, why do I need to tell this isn’t that common sense? Have we lost all our humanity to think that rape is NOT a big deal?), and he also states that rape leaves no damage to the woman’s well being. (REALLY?)

Man oh man, WHERE do I start with this one?!  This woman gave me a whole host of things to comment on, and I frankly don't know if I can hit all her bullshit here-and that's just her first paragraph!  I'll hit what I can, but given the scatterbrained, shotgun nature in which Edita makes her numerous points, I'm bound to miss a thing or two or three.  Here goes...

First, Edita bashes MRAs for wanting egalitarianism, because she says that's what feminism wants.  In one way, I get where she's coming from; in another, she's wrong, because feminism is about anything BUT genuine egalitarianism.  Having said that, I'll play along with little Edita; I'll take her point at face value, and I'll base my comment accordingly.

Why are MRAs seeking egalitarianism?  As I've TRIED to comment on her blog (many of my comments have remained in moderation, because she doesn't tolerate dissent), MRAs are seeking egalitarianism for one, simple reason: it would be a HUGE IMPROVEMENT over what we have now!  As things stand right now, men are fourth class citizens behind women, their children, and their pets.  To have genuine equality would be a huge improvement.

Secondly, she says that no MRA blogs support traditionalism.  I can't speak for the rest of them, but I have come out in support of it.  As I stated in my opening, I think that a traditional patriarchy makes for the best society.  HOWEVER, a traditional lifestyle is no longer possible.  The social contract that undergirded patriarchy was torn up by women, and there is no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.  To me, it's like trying to close the barn doors after the cows escaped.

Thirdly, she goes off on Paul Elam and his comment about how, if he served on a jury, he would vote to let any accused rapist go free no matter what the evidence showed.  If Edita had actually READ that AVfM post; if she had any reading comprehension; then she'd realize that he's talking about engaging in jury nullification-duh!

Why would Paul Elam choose to engage in jury nullification?  Could it be because the rape laws have been so redefined that rape is basically what any woman SAYS it is?  Could it be because we've had travesties of justice like the Duke Lacrosse Team?  Could it be because we've had travesties of justice like the Hofstra Five?  Could it be because these sorts of travesties are too numerous to count?  Could it be that, because these travesties of justice are so common that an entire website is DEVOTED to cataloging these travesties of justice?  Could it be because, even though we men have tried to work through more conventional channels (i.e. contacting and lobbying our gov't officials), we have gotten nowhere, and in fact things have gotten worse?  If working with the system won't work, what other, peaceful means do men have to protest false rape accusations other than jury nullification?  I could go on, but you get my point.  Evidently, Edita TWRA does not.

 Furthermore, he thinks that women prostitutes exploit men. Yes, because women enjoy selling their bodies to gross old men. (REALLY?) Continuing the abominations he notes that “white slavery” is a myth. I am at loss for words. So if we let MRA’s get away with their shenanigans. Rape against women will probably be  legalized. Like in the pre-patriarchal days where men used women for sex and women were stuck raising the children and protecting herself and the child from various men who wanted to rape her.

I don't know if women enjoy selling themselves or not; probably some do, and some don't, just as with anything else in life.  That said, the fact remains is that they do.  Moreover, they've done so throughout history.  Why do you think they call it the world's oldest profession, hmmm?

I don't know if either the prostitute or the client gets exploited though.  To me, both parties are engaging in an honest transaction; if you do X, I'll do Y.  The woman wants money; the man wants sex; so the man pays for sex, and the woman delivers.  What's the problem there?  Aren't both parties getting something they want?

Again, Edita goes on and bashes men for using women; she bashes men for disrespecting women; she bashes them for not upholding the social contract.  What she and her ilk conveniently forget is that it was WOMEN who tore up the social contract; it was women who said it was oppressive to be under man's authority, protection, and provision.  Well Little Missy, when one party abrogates a contract, it becomes null & void; it also releases the other party(ies) from upholding their part(s) of the contract.  Why do you gloss over that little detail, Edita?

Then, thankfully patriarchy came and men assumed the masculine role of being the leaders and protectors of families. Warren Farrell is yet another well-known rape apologist. What we see in the MRM movement is the fact that men are no longer becoming men and instead they are choosing to exploit women. That is made easier by feminism, because feminism took away laws from women that essentially protected them in case the man exploited them. In fact, women used to be that protected that a man was punished for a false promise of marriage or seduction. Now that is protection, but thankfully feminists removed all the obligations men used to have thanks to patriarchal ideals. Men now only have the rewards such as free sex (the promiscuous modern career women sluts), men easily walk out of the marriage and leave a woman penniless (no-fault divorce). MRM movement is basically the feminist movement because they both exploit and abuse women; they both seek egalitarian ideals and equal rights. Traditional women who want stable loving husbands and families are the biggest losers in this game. What MRM strive to do is to further equalize the balance between the genders so that men will be free to avoid responsibilities, in short the MRM is about men gaining all the rewards and benefits while avoiding the responsibilities of being husbands and fathers.

Again, Edita is more scatterbrained than a shotgun.  Who taught this girl to write, anyway?!  I don't know if I can hit all her points, but I'll try.  Here goes...

One, I like that she's pro patriarchy; that's a positive.  Unfortunately, that's where the positives end here.

Two, she makes a serious, BASELESS charge when she accuses Warren Farrell for being a rape apologist.  Come again, Rampart?!  Where in BLAZES do you get that?!  Care to provide any evidence, Little Missy?  Care to back that up at all?  I hear crickets chirping...

Three, for all her supposed stalking of MRA blogs, websites, and Facebook pages, Edita surely doesn't understand the Manosphere, nor does she understand the subparts thereof.  When she talks about men exploiting women, I get the feeling she's referencing PUAs, not MRAs.  Though both are against feminism, that's there the the commonality ends; that's where the similarity ends.  PUAs and MRAs have, other than their distaste for feminism, totally different aims on how to dethrone feminism.

Now, I don't care for what PUAs do, mainly because I think it's wrong to use someone.  Having said that, I understand where they came from; I understand why PUAs came into existence.  As the late Khankrumthebulgar once said, Players and PUAs are a way for men to ADAPT to the fact that the social contract was voided by women; it's an attempt by men to adapt to the sexual marketplace as it is, not how it was.

Now this brings me back to the MRM whining that I have been receiving. You made your bed MRA’s now lie in it. You were the first ones who bashed and spit on this blog and on the TWRA movement. You were the ones who rejected the traditionalist message. You rejected patriarchal ideals and instead you support egalitarian communist ideals. Thus, the TWRA’s will never associate with you nor will we ever join you. The MRM are nothing more but simple emasculated boys who are afraid of their own masculinity. You are afraid of true feminine women, thus you shun them. Also, due to your inferiority complex you refuse to grow up. As a result I advise all women to Oppose the MRA’s as much as possible. Because if not stopped MRA’s will exterminate all women. They are crazy and deluded individuals who shun good submissive feminine women. I think we can see where the problem lies, thus MRA’s do not deserve the TWRA’s. Nor do they deserve feminist women, because they are simply so rotten they hate women. Thus, women should NOT associate with MRA’s. MRM is the biggest threat to female happiness.

Again, where do I start here?  I know I sound like a broken record or skipping CD, but where do I start?!  How do I cover everything here?  Again, I'll try to hit the high points.

Did MRAs make their bed?  No, we had the bed messed up for us-by WOMEN, no less!  It was women who tore up the social contract; it was women who said patriarchy was oppressive; it was women who said 'no more'; it was WOMEN who made the bed.  All MRAs are trying to do is fix it up a bit so we can sleep in it.

Secondly, where have MRAs spit on traditional women?  I know Paul Elam recently told traditional women to go f*ck themselves, but who else has spit on traditional women?  I haven't; again, I think it's the best way to raise kids.  Having said that, knowing what I do about Marriage 2.0, I cannot, in good conscience, encourage any man to marry-not with the risks and pitfalls a man faces.  To marry in today's environment is suicide for the man.

Thirdly, she bashes men for supporting egalitarian ideals; she bashes men for supporting equality.  As I've TRIED to tell Edita, having genuine equality would be a huge improvement for men!  Even for MRAs who want to return to a traditional, patriarchal society, they realize that this cannot be done overnight, and that we'll have to return to that in stages.  Genuine equality would be a good first step in that direction.  Ergo, that's why MRAs support it; it's a good, first step in the right direction.


That concludes my commentary and analysis of Edita TWRA's post on MRAs hating women.  I could have done a lot more with it, but I didn't have the time or energy this morning.  I have to go out and do some stuff before I meet my uncle to take care of estate business.  Don't worry though; I'll fisk more of Edita's posts.  How could I not when she makes my job so EASY?!  Until then, have a good day now...


18 February 2013

Danica Patrick Won Daytona 500 Pole-BFD


As I'm sure you have heard, Danica Patrick has won the pole for Sunday's Daytona 500.  I'm just waking up, and I've ALREADY heard more about it than I care to!  While winning the pole for any race is nice, it's not the same as winning.  Qualifying well allows you to pick your pit box and stuff like that, but no one remembers who won the pole; folks only remember who WON the race, and you'd best remember that, Miss Patrick.

I'm already getting annoyed at Miss Patrick in her interviews.  One dipshit reporter asked her what winning the pole for the Daytona 500 meant, and Miss Patrick waxed on about being able to do whatever you set your mind too, blah blah blah.  She was asked about what it meant being the first woman to do so (keep in mind that over fifty MEN have done so, and they've never gotten this kind of press).  Patrick went on to say it was awesome, yadda yadda yadda.

What she SHOULD have said that, while it was nice to take the pole, it didn't matter; what matter was who WON the race.  People don't remember the pole sitter; they remember the race winner.  She should have thanked Tony Stewart (part owner of Stewart-Haas Racing, the team for whom Patrick drives) for giving her the opportunity and a good car.  Also, please remember that Stewart-Haas Racing is a de facto satellite team for Hendrick Motorsports, one of the best teams in all of NASCAR.

Miss Patrick should have also tempered her response because, depending on what happens in the Budweiser Duels later this week, she may have to start in the back like she did last year.  For example, if Danica Patrick wrecks the race car and has to start the main race in a backup car, she'll have to start the race from the back, per NASCAR rules; according to NASCAR rules, if you change an engine or car, you go to the back-end of story.

Finally, Miss Patrick should get off her high horse because when you qualify can often determine how you do.  Depending on how the car is set up will determine how you do when you run.  That is to say if Patrick had started earlier or later, then she may not have gotten the pole.  For example, if she'd gone later, the track may have been too slick for her car setup to win the pole.

What's really going to matter is if Danica Patrick can get any good drafting partners to help her out.  Since she's a rookie (a status that'll be denoted by the two yellow stripes on her rear bumper), guys will be reluctant to draft with her.  Since guys will be reluctant to draft with her, she's not going to finish well; my prediction is that she'll finish in the bottom half of the field.

In closing, I'm already sick of hearing that Danica Patrick won the race pole.  Sitting on the pole is nice, but what matters is who WINS the race.  Keep in mind that the last Daytona 500 pole sitter to win the race was Dale Jarrett, who won in 2000.  If one of the guys had won the pole, we would have heard who it was and that would have been the end of it.  I'll be so glad when this Danicamania is over-enough already!  Until next time...


14 February 2013

Mind Condom


As you know, I used to watch MTV's Jersey Shore.  During season 3, Ronnie made great comment about relationships with American women.  Listen to him say it as only he can...

Does that not sum up relationships with American women?  I thought so.  Have a good night now...


09 February 2013

90210 Stars' Pics


Here's a gallery of recent pics of some of the stars from Beverly Hills, 90210, one of the biggest TV shows of all time.  Remember that the show started in 1990, and it ended its run in 2000-a ten year run.  To put it another way, over 20 years have passed since the show began; over 10 years have passed since it ended.  While all the guys have aged well, I can't say the same for the women.  Jennie Garth looks the best, but even she isn't the perky, young cutie she once was.  Tori Spelling looks matronly now-ouch!  The others-well, you get the idea.

The point is this: women age like sour milk, while men age like wine.  The second point is that women are beautiful for only a brief time; after that, they go downhill faster than the Titanic!  As our sage friend Christopher in Oregon would say, this is living proof that this is Mother Nature's dirty trick to get us men to do something clearly against our best interest: breed with a woman, then care for her and her children; that's it!

In closing, don't get taken in by a woman's pretty face, nor be taken in by her taut, hot body that has curves in all the right places.  This is an ILLUSION, Fellas!  It's a dirty trick by Mother Nature to lure us in, breed, and care for her & her kids; that's all it is.  Don't fall for the trick; it's a trap!

Now, if you're going to have a relationship with a woman; if you insist on marrying her; then, for goodness sake, PLEASE look beyond the exterior!  Please look at what, if any, inner qualities she brings to the table, because THAT is what you'll be living with over the long term.  Better yet, stay happy, single, and free; then, you don't face the risk of losing everything.  Thank you, and good night...


06 February 2013

On Chivalry...


In recent days, I've found a new blog that's interesting: Feminine Mystique.   From what I can gather, it's hosted by a young, twentysomething woman who's interested in reestablishing a traditional, patriarchal society.  While I don't agree with everything she says (e.g. MRAs hating women is a common point of hers), I think her heart is in the right place.  I especially love her avatar, or profile pic she uses: Jeannie, from the old show, "I Dream of Jeannie".

Why is that significant?  For those who remember the show, it was a romantic comedy about an astronaut, Major Tony Nelson, and his wife, Jeannie.  Jeannie, was no ordinary woman; no, she was a real GENIE!  After a mission, Major Nelson found himself on an island.  On that island, he found a bottle, which he opened; upon opening it, Jeannie came out of it, finally released.  Because of that, she was forever devoted to Major Nelson, forever calling him Master.  I always liked that!  Barbara Eden's Jeannie was THE ideal wife, because she always sought to please her husband and make him happy.  Though her desire to please Tony was sometimes misplaced (which provided the comedy on the show), her heart was always in the right place.  Jeannie was a beautiful woman with a heart of gold, and she wanted nothing more than to serve and please her man.  IOW, Jeannie was the ideal wife every man would KILL to have!  Edita's choice of avatar was no accident; it symbolizes a lot, all of it right.  Ergo, I'm willing to give Edita TWRA, host of Feminine Mystique, the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, the most recent post is one she featured a guest post by Jesse Powell, who wrote a post on chivalry.  As a woman seeking a return to traditional patriarchy, chivalry is a favorite, recurring theme of hers.  Jesse Powell, a frequent contributor at Laura Wood's blog, The Thinking Housewife, has chimed in on this topic.  His position, in short, is to extend chivalry to all women.  My position differs from his, as shown in my comment responding to him.  Since my comment was so good, I made a post of it, which is below.  Thanks, and enjoy!



I have several problems with your philosophy of automatically extending chivalry to all women. One, feminists have used this against us in the past. Two, chivalry, in the age of knights, was only given to those worthy of receiving it. Sorry, I will NOT throw away my life or health on some skank! Finally, we have to train women that there are some behaviors more desirable than others, and part of that means extending chivalry to LADIES ONLY!

Feminists have used chivalry against us as men; they have appealed to our desire to do right by ‘the little woman’. Men, wanting to care for women and make them happy, CAVED to feminist demands. Look at where that’s gotten us!

Secondly, chivalry in the age of knights in armor, wasn’t automatically extended to everyone; it was only extended to those WORTHY of it. Why is that significant? Because, chivalry shouldn’t just automatically be extended to everyone with a vagaina. You mean to tell me that the skanks on MTV’s Jersey Shore should receive chivalrous treatment? You mean to tell me that the vast majority of women, particularly young ones, who emulate the Jersey Shore skanks should receive chivalrous treatment? You want to surrender your seat in the lifeboat for THAT? You want to throw away your life on someone who’s only going to slut it up, catch one or more nasty STDs, then abort her babies anyway? Come on! If women want to receive chivalrous treatment, then they should uphold THEIR end of the social contract-end of story. I have no problem extending chivalry to LADIES. That said, there’s a huge difference, a great gulf fixed if you will, between a lady and a mere woman. If women want men to extend chivalry towards them, then they need to do THEIR part; they need to be respectful, GRATEFUL for what men do, virtuous, submissive, honest, etc.; IOW, they need to uphold their end of the social contract. You cannot have a contract unless two parties agree to it and live by it.

Thirdly, automatically extending chivalry to all women, especially feminists, is rewarding bad behavior. Is there any difference between feminists and the vast majority of women these days? I wonder sometimes. How can we expect women to behave better if we reward their bad behavior? How can we expect women to behave better if we don’t TRAIN them to do so? And what is training? Is it not, in part, using a system of rewards and punishments to reinforce desired behavior, and eliminate bad behavior? So how does automatically extending chivalry to all women achieve your stated goal of reestablishing patriarchy? Does this not reward bad women for bad behavior? It seems like your idea is counterproductive to me.

My man, chivalry was used against us, and it it was used against us by the feminists. Two, real chivalry (i.e. from the age of knights in armor) was only extended to those who were worthy and deserving of it; applied in a modern setting, that means extending chivalry to LADIES ONLY, not mere women. Finally, by giving chivalrous treatment only to those who deserve it, we can train women to behave in a way that is pleasing to us as men, and motivate them to stop behaving like a bunch of depraved skanks. Thank you, and good day…


01 February 2013

The Motorcyclist's Anthem


Here is THE motorcyclist's anthem, Steppenwolf's immortal classic, Born to Be Wild. It could also be the MGTOW anthem as well, since motorcycling and MGTOW are so perfect together. Having said all that though, I never quite 'got' the movie, Easy Rider, with which this song will forever be linked. Enjoy!