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...