Quote# 129212

There is no such thing as lesbians. Lesbian couples = harem waiting for perfect Chad.

Incel4Life, r/incels 11 Comments [7/13/2017 2:36:15 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129195

If the femworshipers would stop worshiping themselves they would realize from a masculine perspective women in fact do not have much value beyond their looks and sex appeal. Anything else a woman can possible add to a man’s life beyond proceational sex can be hired out or provided by a campion animal for a lot less hassle. It’s only beta males and chumps who think women have value beyond that and hypergammy ensures women dislike the only sort of men who would be clueless enough to “value” women. I would also like to note the hostess of this blog is still welcoming to the troll that shit on her blog and turned this place into another hang out for harpies and chumps. You literally cannot teach women through experiences… or any other way expect fear.

SFC Ton, Notes from a Red Pill Girl 13 Comments [7/13/2017 11:23:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129193

They see things the way I do: where any relationship between two people, irrespective of their age, sex ,or status is a PRIVATE matter between those people and there is no need for anyone else, let alone the totalitarian feminist state and the police to interfere with their private lives, especially when such consensual and loving relationships are harming NOBODY.

There is however, one exception:
The only people who are ‘harmed’ in such liaisons are those sexually JEALOUS and embittered, older feminists and that’s really what all the noise and hysteria is all about. ‘Protecting children’ is in fact the furtherest thing from their minds! They know all too well that nobody is ever harmed (never mind ‘children’) in any consensual sexual activity and certainly nobody ever becomes a ‘victim’ from such activities, as the young blonde woman so angrily made clear in the first of the 3 videos.

Feminists simply generate this hysteria about ‘paedophiles’ motivated by their bitter sexual jealousy, in order to prevent their younger rivals enjoying sexual relationships with older men.
They really think that if they can prevent men from being allowed to interact (sexually) with younger females, through constantly lobbying governments for ever increasing tougher laws and draconian penalties for such liaisons: they will eventually get the sex they are so desperately missing and long for.

They aim to make all young attractive, nubile and fertile young women completely off limits to all men by branding all NORMAL male sexuality as ‘paedophilia’. Thus all such normal men are soon to be defined (if not already) as sub-human ‘paedophiles’ and they have already made much progress through their destructive yet very successful campaigning and propaganda, at convincing our society to believe and FEAR what they have now made into the dominant narrative. The dominant narrative that has all but totally destroyed our once functional and fearless society and which has already ruined and even destroyed, the lives of many thousands to millions of good and decent people. It MUST be stopped before it is too late.

Alan Vaughn, Holocash21 4 Comments [7/13/2017 11:23:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129150

Here in the US and other Anglo cultures there’s a strange kind of cultural assumption that it’s a good thing for fathers to treat their sons like shit, e.g. the “toxic fathers” zed has written about. I’ve lived in both France and China, and the more typical scenario there is for the father to dote on his boy. In fact, the term “fils a papa” (daddy’s boy) is more common in France than “mama’s boy.”

Hence you see the phenomenon of Anglo men allowing women to treat them like garbage, while French or Chinese men have a sense of privilege. Who the father favors makes an immense difference, and Anglo men have been favoring daughters for some time now. Personally, I think there are elements of incest involved, and our civilization is essentially cursing itself through this grievous crime. As we did with slavery, we will pay for it, eventually. Our men already are paying, actually, but women will get the bill, too, in time.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 8 Comments [7/12/2017 8:46:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 129172

I’m not getting any younger,but I’v still got a few years left in terms of alfa status,I still get 12,13,yo and older giving me the eye,so to speak,of course I’m restricted from acting out my desires,but behind the facade and feminist dogma,allot of
these teenage girl’s are nice people,they’v not all been indoctrinated into believing all men are evil
with malign intent etc,many sex negative people are deluded in respect that they would refer to pedo attraction as sick,and the love and desire they have for their own children is projected onto
the paedophile,they hate the pedo because he is a symbol of their disemboweled desire

mr p , Resisting the coming 21st century holocaust – Men's Rights, Youth Rights, Sexual Rights 12 Comments [7/12/2017 11:58:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Xavier

Quote# 129169

All women are rapists!

The reason is simple. Rape is the act of forcibly altering someone else's genetic control over their future offspring.

The male rapist denies women the choice of her own partner.

Well... women do the same. What do I mean, it's simple...

Females have decided, as a group, that as a male, unless you suffer for their sick desires to cause emotional and mental destruction... unless you slave away to make money in an environment destroying company to afford houses and cars for her... unless you take abuse...then you can't have any children.

The whole 80/20 thing, where 20% of the males only get to reproduce, that's how it used to be, in the caveman days.

But it changed, so that men and women had almost equal change to reproduce, during civilisation when marriage still existed. But now that women got the vote... women did the best to destroy all that. So we appear to be in a civilisation, while actually being back to the caveman days... where only a few males get to have children. It's the worst of both. Thankfully... women are doing this at their expense, and they too aren't reproducing enough.

You could say "it's just their choice". "If all women, as a group, want to avoid nice intelligent peaceful healthy good looking guys, and only choose stupid violent rats... that's THEIR CHOICE".

But I don't think so. Because the effect is of damaging the DNA of the species... to be one that is controlled by force, to have to degenerate, becoming more violent and stupid and less evolved. To have to put up with abuse.

Males raping females... causes weaker females to reproduce and more violent males to reproduce, propagating that attitude in their children too. So it is genetic degeneration.

Females raping males (forcing us to go through abuse or no children for you)... does the same. Damages the DNA of humanity causes future generations to have shittier attitudes.

But the thing is, with women, their "rape" requires ALL of them to act together. With men, it requires only a few to "act differently".

Therefore, all women are rapists.

LOL, Godlike Productions 14 Comments [7/12/2017 9:24:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129168

Many feminists do not want to acknowledge how comfortable they have become with their heterosexual privilege within the oppressive system that many other women want to leave behind. They continue to ask for a few privileges for themselves, while conditions for most women remain unchanged. Few feminists any longer propose the abolition of racist heteropatriarchy, because to do so they would have to confront their own complicity and the painful subordination men have forced upon women through terrorism, indoctrination, deprivation, and lies.

We can start, even in modest ways, to disrupt the male economy. Lesbian Separatists and Radical feminists have already begun, by refusing to be with men, or to cater to their needs, desires, and whims in our personal/political lives. Although heterosexual women can also contribute to this disruption, through sabotage, it is unlikely they will place themselves and other women above male priorities.

Lesbian Separatists can do much more:

We can disrupt patriarchal heteroeconomy through the barter system, where goods and services are exchanged directly for each other rather than for money. For example, if I need to have my broken window replaced, I would have a friend who is an expert glazier replace my window in exchange for my fixing her car when needed, in the present or the future. We both obtain what we need without the exchange of money. We can also create our own monetary system through the use of a voucher system only Dykes networking together would recognize. These vouchers could be used to obtain basic necessities and services from Dykes with specialized skills.

A similar form of disruption is to refuse to pay taxes. Most of the tax money paid goes directly to the phallo-military waste machine to invent more weapons to annihilate sentient life. The rest is used to keep so-called elected and appointed “officials” and corporate “officers” in the death-dealing, white, heterosexual male system wealthy. The two most recent, blatant examples are the theft of millions of dollars of federal housing money and the theft of billions of dollars by savings and loan executives. The system of taxes is another form of male parasitism, draining women’s energy through degrading work to feed their insatiable greed and hatred for life.

There are “illegal” methods that can be pursued, such as counterfeiting money, tapping into the money supply, which is regulated by computers, disrupting business on Wall Street and other financial centers where the business of patriarchal heteroeconomics is conducted each day.

We can organize ourselves into cadres of thieves and shoplifters to steal basic necessities and money for our daily living. With increased skill, we can also teach other Dykes how to steal.

We can squat in abandoned buildings and renovate them for living and/or political action purposes. Lesbians are often denied space, even by feminists. Renovating buildings would be a good way to re/claim our much needed space to think and act toward our well-being.

For those who have female children, we can refuse to send them to public and so-called private schools. We can instead create our own Radical Lesbian schools. Some fundamentalist christians have resisted sending their children to public schools, because, in their opinion, racist heteropatriarchal values are not promoted enough.

They actually want to take control of the public school system by taking away the few “reforms” education has been allowed to make. Christians notwithstanding, most schools continue to teach racist heteropatriarchal values and to promote “great” white men, while women are ignored or shown only in stereotypically “supporting” roles.

The agents of the monetary tax system are running a protection racket on the educational system, so that it will accept money on the agents’ terms. A Radical Lesbian education would be based on values that maintain our moral intelligence and integrity. We can learn about our foresisters’ lives, struggle, and achievements and about what is being done in the present.

C. Maria, Feminist Reprise 12 Comments [7/12/2017 9:23:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129167

I'm 23 and about to take on my last semester at university in July. During my time here I've noticed a few things about males I didn't didn't notice back in high school. When you're in high school you don't notice much about the opposite gender... But Uni has been another story.
From my first semester I've had to deal with aggressive, violent, scary males who think they're eneritled to me and my body. Messages after messages asking if we can go out. What happens if I say no? They get angry. I'm suddenly ugly and fat.

If I was stuck doing an assignment with a male - and let me tell you, males make terrible partners when it comes to group assignments - they would never do the work. They'd never keep their promises. It was me doing all the work and getting us good marks.
Then there's all the guys who would follow me around, and would make me change my schedule in order to avoid them.
What does this show you? Males are inherently lazy and aggressive. We can't depend on them. If they can't even make group assignments work, how will they make relationships work?

We also know they want to hurt us. We don't need my story to know that males have hurt women consistently since day one.
It's at this point to me I know that males simply drag me down. Too much risk, time, effort, work... Why should I suffer? Why should he bring me down with him? So, I wanted to know why you ladies were going your own way. What's your story?

violenceandperfume, r/WGTOW 10 Comments [7/12/2017 9:23:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129166

Men have an insatiable need to impose their power on everything so if you put yourself in a position where you are captive to them, they will abuse this in order to assert dominance over you. This is why family violence or domestic violence is so rife in society. Being single, on the other hand, is much simpler and easier.

Usually taking the easy way out makes you lose out, but with WGTOW you take the easy way out by never bothering with men and for this you free up time you can use to focus on things that will improve your life such as exercise, healthy eating, work, and investing.

fatfinger357, r/WGTOW 3 Comments [7/12/2017 9:23:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129163

[When you overthrow your dictator and celebrate your freedom by subjugating half the population and then some]

In the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolts in Egypt, the Maghbreb and some parts of the Arab world (it might be better termed Berber Spring than Arab Spring, as it began in largely Berber North Africa), many of the “progressive” policies put in place by dictators have come under attack by new political factions.

In Tunisia, where the revolutions began, the previous ruler had done a great deal to advance feminist causes in his country, possibly at the urging of his wife. Many of these Muslim leaders were educated and trained in the West before they came to power, and during the course of their instruction they absorbed a lot of what is known as progressive policy today. In fact, sometimes they were ahead of the West in that regard because, being authoritarian dictators, they had little standing in their way when they chose to implement new policies.

...

Hmmm, sounds just like home. Looks as though Ben Ali modeled his country’s divorce laws on California code. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Arab Spring began with a slap to the face of a young man by a female authority.

Ben Ali, according to the report, used feminism as a means to gain legitimacy even as he committed human rights violations. As is so often the case, the excuse that one is “protecting women and children” often serves as a license to commit egregious violations of human rights.

...

Finally, the author of the piece, who is evidently a feminist (or feminist friendly) herself, admits that most feminist achievements in the region were achieved not in spite of oppression, but because of it[.]

...

Feminism needs authoritarianism for obvious reasons: men must be forced by those with more power than they have to submit to the women in their lives. Feminists may sometimes claim to support freedom and democracy, but the smart ones know that both must be curtailed in order to achieve their version of equality.

Ultimately, however, as Tunisia demonstrates, the symbiotic relationship between authoritarianism and “progressive” policies such as feminism create an environment that is too much for the people to bear, and unrest breaks loose. When that happens in the West is an open question, but given our economic stagnation, I can only see the pressure rising from here on out.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 3 Comments [7/12/2017 9:23:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 129161

[When the Taliban did nothing wrong to women]

In a deeply cynical ploy by feminist Tracy Clark-Flory, the endemic abuse of boys and use of male prostitutes in Afghanistan is being portrayed as a result of women’s oppression in this recent Salon piece. Although it is doubtless that Islam may play some role – in the context of Afghan culture – in the practice of “bacha-baz,” the idea that feminism is the solution to the abusive treatment of boys is either the result of deeply held ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. Male prostitution and pederasty have been a problem in the area for at least a couple hundred years, and probably far longer. Famed 19th century British explorer and secret agent Richard Francis Burton was tasked with investigating a male brothel in what is now Pakistan at one point, and wrote extensively about the practice, which led to spurious accusations that he was an avid participant himself.

...

Since that time much has changed, but Afghanistan is notoriously backward and resistant to change, so the practice has persisted despite reforms in the Islamic world. However – and this is very important where Clark-Flory’s article is concerned – the fundamentalist Muslim Taliban have made it a priority to stamp out bacha baz. It is not in the strictly fundamentalist parts of Afghanistan where the women are veiled and kept out of school that bacha-baz is practiced; it is found primarily in the north where the ethnic groups who are allied with NATO have control. Fundamentalist Islam is not so much a characteristic of Afghan culture as tribalism, but it has made inroads thanks to Arab fanatics filled with a missionary zeal and a desire to fight what they see as the godless “North,” which includes Russia along with what we call “The West.”

Furthermore, if we are to take an example closer to home, we could shine a light on the problem of pederasty in the Roman Catholic Church in the late 20th century — during which time liberal ideologies, including feminism, gained the upper hand in seminaries and parishes across the US, and then even Europe itself. The relaxation of tradition and the rise of feminist ideology in the Catholic Church occurred at the exact same time that the epidemic of pederasty did, which suggests a correlation between the two. So no, it is not “the patriarchy” that is raping boys. In fact, many of the rapist priests were notoriously “progressive” in their views and feted by wealthy liberals, some of whom doubtless were aware of their proclivities.

Unfortunately, most people are not all that well-informed, and may be susceptible to appeals to human decency. This is how feminism has gained so much ground: by usurping moral issues and proposing feminist policies as the solution. Even conservatives have fallen for these tactics, passing hardcore feminist legislation and enabling feminist radicals because they never took the time to study and get to the root of problems, preferring instead to blindly react to social problems with heavy-handed, ill-considered measures.

It is important that we keep an eye on feminist arguments to prevent them from making appeals to our sense of decency in an effort to fool us into giving them even more power and influence than they already have. As we know well, the situation has not improved for boys since the advent of feminism, and eliminating abuses such as pederasty are best achieved not by giving women more privileges, but by caring about the humanity of boys, which is not even remotely part of the feminist agenda.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 2 Comments [7/12/2017 9:23:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 129160

One can only imagine millions of women diligently obtaining degrees in communications, marketing, etc., all believing that after they slept their way into a high-paying job some handsome, independently wealthy man would choose them for a bride. At this point, it’s increasingly difficult to feel sorry for them, but from a female perspective this does pose a real problem.

The problem, of course, is that “settling” always makes women miserable, and these girls have no other choice. For the corporate, careerist types, it’s especially problematic, because they have been trained to equate status to earnings and job title, and the kinds of guys who have status but less money (e.g. professors, classical musicians, some artists, junior officers) generally won’t touch them with a barge pole. The high-status males in their own milieu have access to sweeter types who work in childcare and the like — far more attractive women they can’t hope to compete with.

...

Marriage has never really been based simply on men’s “overwhelming economic dominance.” As long as men were economically dominant (a period that only lasted a few generations in any event) they were not allowed to divorce without very stiff penalties. However, marriage has always been based on male dominance in general, because it is the only setup in which women feel secure, happy and content to stay with their men. As soon as women are made dominant – or even equal – in their marriages, marriage self-destructs.

As the awful truth about human nature begins to reveal itself, an entire generation of women find themselves crying into their chablis as the credits of the latest episode of Mad Men roll by. It is becoming apparent that what we are witnessing is not so much “The End of Men” as it is the desolation of the feminist dream.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 2 Comments [7/12/2017 9:23:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 129158

It’s always been about sex. Sex outside of marriage was technically illicit in Christian society, and marriage implied consent. For example, there was no such concept as marital rape until very recently — rape had an entirely different definition from today. Also, virginity was considered a woman’s property (or her male relatives’ property) in most cultures, which had a lot to do with the old definition of rape. This means that the concepts of sex and property are not strictly separated in regards to marriage, and are actually quite closely intertwined. Christian ideas about marriage were kind of revolutionary in that there was a concept of mutual ownership of sexuality in marriage (e.g. a woman had as much right to demand marital fidelity as a man), rather than the simple chattel status of wives most common in other parts of the world. The modern definitions of marriage and rape have actually reversed what was the norm in most of the non-Christian world, and placed ownership of all heterosexual sexuality entirely in the hands of women regardless of marital status. Accordingly, it has been devalued a great deal, just as one might expect a car company to become essentially worthless quite rapidly if it were entirely owned and controlled by women.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 5 Comments [7/12/2017 9:22:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 129157

Laura Park, an assistant professor of psychology at SUNY Buffalo, is on the verge of publishing the results from a series of research projects that explored the connection between romance and women’s interest (or lack thereof) in math and science. In one study, she showed young men and women romantic images, and then surveyed their interest in STEM subjects and degrees. After viewing the images, the men were unmoved, but the women expressed less interest in math and science.

In another study, she found that when women indulged in romantic fancies, they felt happier and more attractive, but shunned their math studies[.]

...

Naturally, this must be a very bad thing, because it is an obstacle to the ever-elusive goal of equality.

So who’s responsible? As usual, it is society, what with those pernicious romantic “scripts” that infect young women from a young age[.]

...

Park speculates that there are two potential solutions: one that simply reduces the possibilities for romance (sex-segregated education), or another that attempts to portray science as romantic. The first solution might actually work — if the will existed to enforce it. However, most young women are sufficiently interested in romance (with men) that they will avoid the largely lesbian women’s schools, and would probably avoid college altogether if it didn’t provide at least the hope of some romantic interludes.

As for the second idea, any attempts to portray science and female scientists as attractive would simply degenerate into a war between various feminist factions over what exactly constitutes “attractive.”

Of course, the most humane and reasonable course of action would be to simply allow young men and women to follow their nature, and stop trying to shove them into roles they do not want. But our official ideology of absolute qualitative equality has gone so far that our social engineers really don’t care what people want any longer — all that matters is that we are indistinguishable on statistical charts.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 5 Comments [7/12/2017 9:20:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 129156

For at least a decade now we’ve been seeing educators disingenuously “wondering” what’s going on with boys. I don’t believe teachers are confused in the least — they know exactly what’s going on. I’m certain of this because I have a fair number of educators in the family, and they know just what the “problem” is: boys are, in general, more difficult to teach.

Boys are rowdier, more prone to acting out, and don’t listen as carefully. Sometimes, they are aggravatingly unaware of their surroundings. My son, for example, will become interested in something, and suddenly the rest of the world doesn’t exist to him any longer.

Boys also lack the desire to please that seems to be innate in little girls. They don’t really care so much if the teacher is happy about what they are doing or saying.

But does this mean they are inferior students who “perform poorly?” No more than it means that an F-18 fighter, due the high skill required of its pilots, is an inferior airplane that performs poorly when compared to a cessna.

Despite the abysmal failure of public education in regards to boys, boys are still scoring higher on tests than girls. Even verbal tests in many cases. It’s just their grades that are lagging, and unfortunately that’s what keeps them out of college[.]

...

In other words, the teachers – overwhelmingly female – don’t like them. Nor, apparently, do a number of NY Times commenters, who say it’s just desserts for all that male oppression of the past. Yes, that’s right: little kids who were born a few years ago must pay for the imagined sins of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

...

Ah, feminists. So compassionate!

What this “boys crisis” really comes down to is a public schools crisis. Public schools may be a necessity, but they have some pretty severe flaws. As a socialized system, they do not reward teachers for being harder workers or even result-oriented. Teachers in my local public school district are in open rebellion against tests that would hold them accountable for their students performance.

What public school teachers prefer is an easy day with obedient, compliant students. Unfortunately for boys, they don’t typically fit into the obedient and compliant category. So, rather than try harder, the teacher simply marks them down and leaves it up to the boys or their parents to deal with it (parents, many of whom are single mothers, definitely share some of the responsibility).

In private schools it’s a different story. Sons of the wealthy have higher academic achievement than their female counterparts. This is because teachers at private schools are informed in no uncertain terms that students’ performance in their classes is directly relevant to their continued employment. Miraculously, rich people’s sons are better educated and perform better every step of the way than their daughters.

The problem isn’t that boys are poor students. It’s that they require more effort. However, the results speak for themselves. Despite the higher grades and academic achievement of girls in our society, boys still lead the way in productivity, innovation and achievement in every other measure.

So all this hand-wringing about boys’ performance is misplaced, and I think the rest of us are beginning to figure it out. It isn’t really that the boys are performing poorly; it’s the schools that are lousy, and grades reflect little more than how teachers “feel” about their students.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 4 Comments [7/12/2017 9:20:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 129155

From the beginning, humans have lived in tribes, which are somewhat akin to groups of chimpanzees, cooperating to provide food, childcare, labor and dissemination of information. The family, in its varied forms, was always subordinate to the tribe, and the tribe often in conflict with other tribes. Humans have competed with each other for resources and territory from the dawn of history and before, and they have usually done so through some sort of tribal conflict. Usually, the more numerous tribe would win, because it could summon more men and defeat the other by force of numbers, but because the ideal human group is relatively small – some 50-100 individuals – summoning a larger force required relatively complex rules and strong taboos to maintain any sort of social cohesion. Hence the seeds of civilization were sown through tribal competition.

Despite the addition of all this complexity, which has enabled humans to live in mass societies, the basic tribal tendency remains part of human nature. And in a tribe, the most important component has always been the men. Without them, there is only booty, free for the taking for any group of men willing to come along and claim it. In fact, this has been the case for so long that patrilocality is the norm throughout the world. Exogamy in primitive tribes is exceedingly common, but it is usually the women who leave one group and go to another — this is reflected in our modern practice of women and children taking the husband’s surname. The men stay, because without them the group would simply be swallowed up by others.

Because the tribe has been, if not the most basic, the most important unit of human society, it is highly likely that humans evolved to maximize the success of the tribe. This would include gender roles, and probably even gender phenotypes. Human females are particularly poorly suited to hunting when compared to other species that derive a similar portion of calories from meat, so division of labor has obviously been in play since at least the emergence of modern homo sapiens. Some have suggested that this division was not so clear for neanderthals, whose women may have come along on the hunt and helped bring down large animals, but the neanderthal physique was substantially different from our own.

The point is that the tribe is mainly defined by its men, and has been throughout recorded history, which suggests that this was always the case. Evidence from primitive tribes in the modern era supports this as well. And although it’s counterintuitive, the fact that men are usually targeted while women are often spared in tribal conflict even further confirms the importance of males. If it were true that tribes cannot survive without women, the most successful tribes would have been those that systematically exterminated their enemies’ female members, which would be far easier to do in any event. But this simply did not happen.

For the biblically inclined, I’d like to point to the story of the tribe of Benjamin, a particularly warlike Israelite tribe which was nearly exterminated after some mortal offense (inhospitality) prompted the other tribes to gang up on them. The other tribes were so angry at Benjamin that after defeating their men in battle, they slaughtered all the women and children, leaving the Benjaminites a tribe of bachelors. Finally, when the other tribes felt fairly certain that the Benjaminites had learned their lesson, the men were allowed to marry women from other tribes, and ultimately the tribe was reestablished.

Now, imagine what would have happened if every single Benjaminite man was slaughtered and the women spared. The women would have been distributed as spoils of war, and Benjamin would have been no more. From the tribal survival standpoint, who is more expendable?

It would be tempting to suggest that things have changed so much that tribal consideration no longer matter, but that would be a short-sighted argument. Civilization did not develop by repudiating humans’ natural tribal sentiments, but by incorporating them into a larger organization. Military organizations, today and in the past, are broken down into manageable groups that approximate the size of a tribe. The US Army Company, the Roman Centuria (which also means tribe), the Mongol Zuut and the Germanic Hundred are all examples of this. Churches have traditionally had about a tribe’s worth of parishioners, and large corporations are organized to take this optimal group size into account as well. Despite the sophistication of contemporary society, humans are still fundamentally tribal. It’s instinctive and reflected in how we organize our lives and tasks.

Therefore, one can see modern states, and civilization in general, as a massive confederation of tribes, between which there remains a great deal of competition. However, men are arguably just as important as ever to these basic social units to which they belong. Where would our businesses, our military and our public service organizations be without their men? Law and order, commerce, infrastructure and defense would fall apart within days.

So why are men so often treated as expendable within society? It goes back to competition, i.e. your men are expendable, but ours are not. Elites have always been perfectly happy to use other people’s sons as cannon fodder, while usually protecting their own from the battlefield. At the highest levels of society, sons are preferentially educated over daughters, and then these exact same people who favor their boys take steps to ensure that less fortunate sons are prevented from competing with them. Other people’s daughters, on the other hand, are no threat to their tribe — they are a resource to be exploited. In fact, support of feminism by elites only confirms that they see other tribes’ women as chattel, or perhaps tribute — either term would suffice. When men are given as tribute, it has typically been in one of two roles: the warrior or the eunuch. Hence, they want our boys as soldiers (including police) or femme homosexuals (the modern incarnation of the eunuch); for the rest of us they have little use except as peasants, to be kept in line with punitive taxes and overwhelming force.

The argument that men are expendable because of some biological mandate is perhaps the last vestige of the pseudoscience that emerged from 19th century anthropology and plagued humanity with various wrong-headed ideologies throughout the 20th century. In reality, men have always been the most essential component of the tribe, which has characterized human social organization since the dawn of our species. The world’s oldest and most successful civilizations have learned this over time, and have survived because they incorporated this truth into their law and governing philosophy. We have to recognize that men are targeted for abuse and dispossession exactly because they are essential to the strength and health of their tribes. When we live in a mass society without any sense of common values or interests, where discord, envy and greed are the norm, it is perfectly natural that men will come under attack. If one thinks of it as an inchoate civil war, it becomes all the more clear.

[Same fundie, posted in comments]

Something like that, but I don’t think it’s an articulated effort or policy so much as normal human nature. Those in elite “tribes” instinctively favor policies that limit the choices and power of those males who are part of upstart tribes. People naturally fear rival males — we are an apex predator after all, and have little to worry about from anything else. This, I think, is at the root of androphobic policies.

Civilization has been a constant effort to channel male resource competition into constructive effort, but here in the West we are currently failing at that, and men have turned on each other. It always seems to happen eventually, which is why war is a constant.

On the positive side, I think we have a very good chance of eventual victory, because never in the history of humanity has a state exercised its power over the people with a harem. Those of us who do not give up our men will eventually take the spoils.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 4 Comments [7/12/2017 9:20:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 129154

While thinking about the issue of the undervalued Siberian girls (relative to American women), I realized that there is probably a direct correlation between the wealth of a society’s men and the value and power of the society’s women. That is, the richer the men in any given society are in aggregate, the more wealth and privilege accrues to its women. The flip side of that is that the poorer the men are, the worse off and less valued the women.

So, any policies that impoverish men, even if they temporarily benefit the women, cause women’s status and value to decrease over time.

It’s really pretty obvious if you think about it objectively, but it tends to escape notice because these days people don’t think of these things in terms of a symbiotic relationship between men and women, but rather an oppositional one. What they do is compare men and women, and argue that men’s wealth is somehow “oppressive” to women, because that’s how modern, liberal democracies work; each group sees itself in opposition to others.

Here in the West men have been very wealthy by world standards for quite some time. We still are, but this is changing. What’s been happening is that the younger generations of men have steadily lost wealth, while the older folks have managed to hang onto a fair amount. Part of the reason for younger men’s decline in wealth (although by no means all), is feminist affirmative action and “positive discrimination,” as well as confiscatory policies designed to give the female group an advantage over the male. These measures have been effective, and have contributed to the declining wealth of the Western male in both relative and absolute terms.

As the younger, poorer men come of age, and are still significantly poorer than their predecessors, this will begin to impact women of their cohort as well. I believe this process has already begun, but the effects have some lag; perhaps ten years or so. When it becomes readily apparent that living in a country full of poor men is no picnic for women, feminism will be discredited, but not until then. Using the recession as the starting point, I’d give it about five years until it can no longer be ignored.

So, given that women’s status is a result of male wealth, it looks as though feminism may actually turn out to be self-correcting, as it strips men of resources that could be used to further empower women. Maybe human society has a mysterious way of correcting itself, and the natural balance between the sexes is restored even through counterintuitive processes such as feminism.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 1 Comments [7/12/2017 9:17:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 129152

[On the rescue of a young girl who fell into a river and was rescued via helicopter]

For all the bashing women give men, when you get right down to it, these extraordinary feats are simply beyond the capabilities of women. That image of capable, dutiful men placing themselves at considerable risk to lift a helpless girl out of a perilous place is a perfect metaphor for civilization itself. It puts feminism, women’s lib and notions of gender equality in their proper perspective.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 9 Comments [7/12/2017 9:16:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 129135

(violenceandperfume)
It's funny that my friend's keep trying to set me up with guys when they have so many problems with their boyfriends

I guess I'm at that age where even my friends expect me to settle down with a guy. It's getting frustrating to tell them I want absolutely nothing to do with men. They still insist that this guy and that guy are cute and funny and would be good with me.
The best part is hearing all the problems they have with their boyfriends.
He won't help around the house, he's lazy, he won't quit porn, he's selfish during sex, all he does is play video games, he flirts with other girls, he scares me, he's doing nothing with his life, he's rude.
Holy shit. Why would I want a boyfriend when that's what i have to deal with? No thank you. Being single has so many benefits.

(Oryxian)
Ugh, amen dude. To be fair - there are some decent guys out there. But, it's like 1% of the population. And that's bad odds right there. Would you risk your life on a career path that only had a 1% chance of working out?

(InStorage)
I'm new here. So glad there is a female version!Subbed right away :)
Anyway, I had this realization when I began renting a room in an aunt's house. Her and her husband had to put my bed together and the way he spoke to her was unbelievable to me. He reprimanded her in front of me; she removed screws she didn't need to, which was not a big deal, and 'advised her' to never take apart a bed again. Her daughter was listening in and half-jokingly said, "Hey that's my mom."
She doesn't work and doesn't need to but I see that as a sign of absolute weakness. She is not the only case of course but that moment really cemented how much better being single is, even if I'm a bit lonely. Real life comes at you fast, lol. I have MANY other stories of seeing shit like this.

(fatfinger357)
Men have an insatiable need to impose their power on everything so if you put yourself in a position where you are captive to them, they will abuse this in order to assert dominance over you. This is why family violence or domestic violence is so rife in society. Being single, on the other hand, is much simpler and easier. Usually taking the easy way out makes you lose out, but with WGTOW you take the easy way out by never bothering with men and for this you free up time you can use to focus on things that will improve your life such as exercise, healthy eating, work, and investing.

(GaveUpOnSociety)
It sounds like you have standards! Engaging in dating men as a woman usually, not always, but usually involves turning a blind eye to terrible behavior in favor of "staying in the relationship". Why do they do it? I ask, and yet in the past I have done it myself. Imagine if all the energy they spent rationalizing and putting up with bullshit was spent on improving one's own life and oneself.

(violenceandperfume)
Yes! Turning a blind eye seems to be a major them in dating men.
I've never actually dated a guy/had a boyfriend, so I've been lucky enough to avoid any of the stuff I mentioned in my post.

various WGTOWs, r/WGTOW 6 Comments [7/12/2017 12:40:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 129134

(violenceandperfume)
What's the worst thing about males?

I think it's good to have a reminder as to why we avoid males at all costs. Maybe sticky the post so we can get the point across. My answer: they're violent. This is inherent and even they admit. It's scary to think how often they think about hurting women.
What's the best action to take then? Avoid. Avoid at all costs. No relationships, because if you bring up the fact that they don't clean up around the house, they lose control and get angry. They throw things. Push you. Yell at you and say you're nagging them.
Friendship? BIG no no. Males only want one thing and if you deny them of sex they'll lost it and hurt you. How many times have you heard stories about women rejecting male friends, and they react with violence and anger?
So... What do you think is the worst quality in males?

(cbatta2025)
Their precious little egos and them thinking they are smarter than any woman. I work in a STEM profession, they are pathetic.

(fatfinger357)
We women don't need men. Men are completely useless. Men don't need women either. We don't need each other. Let's just stay away from each other. My life's Goal is to convince other women to stay away from men and given how toxic and evil men are it is not hard to convince women that they don't need men. What exactly do men offer? Nothing. I am completely happy by myself.

(duljjaegureum)
WHY do they smell so bad?! Do they not know basic hygiene? I recently learned men don't even wipe their asses after taking a shit. They just walk around with the shit smearing their underwear. They call this skidmarks. Men walk around in shitty clothes like toddlers.

(ProgressiveFragility)
they don't have ovaries

various WGTOWs, r/WGTOW 12 Comments [7/12/2017 12:40:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 129133

Re: I think WGTOW and MGTOW have a *lot* more in common than both sides think, and I would argue that both group's fights are the same.

(fatfinger357)
I am quite satisfied and happy as a WGTOW but then the MGTOWs keep coming in to this sub and start brigading and hating on us. We are just women going our own way and these MGTOWs come here and they are not going their own way.
There is too much misogyny in MGTOW for there to be any peace. It is far better to just block them and shield them from life. It's far too risky to be with men, especially the MGTOW kind. Once they know you're a woman, the abuse and harassment is on you, and in real life men are more or less the same, trying to dominate you and take over and control you. It makes sense of course because men naturally produce testosterone, so that makes them violent and abusive, so it's not exactly their fault, but I feel as a woman it is safer to protect myself with WGTOW than bother with useless things like relationships.
Of course for a fat person, the "no pain no gain" principle applies. A fat person needs to eat fresh fruits and vegetables, high fiber, and they need to exercise a lot, and for a lot if people this is not easy, so they need to go through pain in order to reduce their risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.
However, men are different. Men are not like losing weight. Losing weight actually achieves something. However, with men, if you put in a lot of effort to apply makeup and appease men and make them feel good and give them intimacy, then what do you get from them? Nothing. Most women spend so much time and effort on others than she neglects herself so that, as she grows up, she ends up with less wealth. I'd rather just focus on myself and do what I want rather than sacrifice myself for men. For too long women have sacrificed themselves for ungrateful men. We need to listen to what we want.

(violetreva)
That's where you're wrong! I'm sorry to disappoint you but this is a liberal fantasy and I have no intention of reassimilating into male society ever again. Women are not men. Men are not women. We are not in the same boat. Men oppress women. We do not belong together in any capacity. They can have mars and we can have venus, quite literally. Separatism FTW.

(day01x)
I was just thinking about this on reading a post in another WGTOW thread. One in particular mentioned that "men cannot conceive of a non-transactional relationship", and that everything is about "value" with them. This is the exact language used in MGTOW, too.
Men and women are 'valued' for different attributes, but they are both valued ruthlessly. You can debate the details of which particular group of people have it worse, and while that discussion may be worth having, that's not the point I want to make here.
I think what MGTOW and WGTOW have in common isn't just personal experience, it's a reaction to how brutally dehumanising society can be.
It's as though the idea of the "free market" has entered into sexual relationships. We've adopted the consumer mindset in our social lives. Social media and dating websites exacerbate this, but the mentality was developing long before. We ignore the substance of a person in favour of a good profile. We pay attention not to how they make us feel or think but on an abstract collective value, as though the only measure of their worth is how much others want them.
Think of the kind of relationships that would result from this setting. Imagine what happens to the people who don't, can't, or won't fit into that kind of environment.

(DangZagnut)
I don't hate women, I don't even hate feminism, not that I won't shit post about women or feminists posting outrageously bizarre things into the internet. I also do it with stupid men doing stupid things.
I just prefer to be by myself and traveling the world and having adventures, rather than marriage and children. Children smell and marriage seems like it limits everyone in that equation to a life of exceptional mediocrity.
I've never had a bad relationship. Sometimes they end, and in my relationships, maturely and with both sides realizing its time to move on and no hard feelings.
I encourage WGTOW to go their own way and not be bound by societal conventions. You don't have to be bitter to be WGTOW any more than you have to be hurt and bitter to be MGTOW. Sure, some come to a MGTOW conclusion because they've been hurt, and I'd wish they embraced it from a more positive place, but to each their own.
I don't see any "solution", because I don't really see any "problem" in the first place. To say that either of those exist implies that there's something inherently wrong with going your own way in life, and setting your own path to happiness.

(CasualPie)
There's a bit of difference between "I'm tired of the system because it sucks" and "I'm keeping the hell away from the system because it could legally ruin my life".
In your listing of the disaffected guys, you forgot to list the ones legally destroyed through divorce settlement, child custody arrangement, false rape/assault/abuse accusation, etc.
One of MGTOWs reasons for GTOWing isn't just that the game sucks, it's that the game is mortally dangerous and supported by the legal system.
Hunger games, relationship edition.
I am not disaffected by personal experience. I am MGTOW because of all of the failed, fucked up, and ruinous relationships I've seen in others.
Being in the army, I've seen countless relationships destroyed from women cheating and/or abusing their power of attorney while the guy is deployed. I've seen guys in college get thrown in jail for decades for hooking up with girls when they were both wasted drunk. I've heard countless guys complain that they can't do what they once loved doing because their SO/fiancée/wife doesn't like that they spend so much time on it, hell, my own mother is on her third marriage (I love my mom, but it's hard to believe in marriage when your own mother changes them out every 10-20 years)!
Worst of all, I've heard girls joke about this stuff. "Oh, if it sucks I can change my mind about it, I always have a few glasses of wine to loosen up", "if he breaks up with me I'll tell everyone he was abusive to me", "not paying attention to me is abuse right? : yeah it is!".
When society can casually joke about throwing people in jail over poor personal choices and changed minds, I will eagerly avoid it.

various WGTOWs, r/WGTOW 4 Comments [7/12/2017 12:40:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 129105

Re: University courses that use the scientific method are hostile to women and minorities (not enough subjectivity)

In evolutionary terms this is not without some credibility. For most of our existence the male tribe members had to think more of the band or tribe as a whole and logically tackle the environment to increase survival, this is where the objectivity comes in. Whereas females were tasked with their own specific family units and rearing their own children and this is where the subjectivity comes in.

So while it's entirely reasonable to say both genders can think objectively and subjectively, I would agree with the idea that objectivity has historically been a more masculine approach while subjectivity has been a more feminine approach, and this takes place on a biological level.

As our entire educational and knowledge-gaining system has been controlled by men for thousands of years it revolves around the concept of objectivity, as it should. So I'm not that surprised that a feminist student would one day question even this standard which one might have assumed would be beyond reproach. They want to 'deconstruct' everything 'masculine' and 'patriarchal' so naturally even the concepts of logic and objectivity are in the firing line.

Britannic Nationalist, Stormfront.org 6 Comments [7/11/2017 7:09:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 129048

I hate women so much. This is how they think of their boyfriends? In this insulting manner? All the women that come here say the same thing "I wasnt attracted to my boyfriend at first. He was a 4 out of 10. He's not a gorgeous guy" or "my boyfriends were pretty ugly but I loved them" And for some reason, these sluts always broke up with these boyfriends. Coincidence? I think not.

These women are fat and ugly themselves. Women are inexplicably the most heartless and evil beings to exist. All of them. Every single one.
Women are extremely stupid too. TrollXChromosomes, they say the most stupidest shit. They believe they can be depressed lmao. Some sluts were saying they feel lonely even though they kept posting about their poly boyfriends. Women are just fucking insane.

choosebaseoftwo, r/incels 5 Comments [7/11/2017 6:49:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 129100

Every time I see a female I imagine her face covered in cum

Why would anyone respect that?

Alia_Harkonnen, /r/incels 14 Comments [7/10/2017 10:39:22 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 129099

Does it occur to guys with non virgin gfs that their gf ACTUALLY had another guy's dick in her mouth?

The word sex is becoming so common it is kind of losing its power. When people mention they "have sex", I just think to my self that they did something called "sex". I don't usually picture them having sex because people talk about sex as if it's something as casual as eating or sleeping. I often forget that sex involves at minimum a woman putting a guy's cock in her cunt, and usually also involves things like the woman slobbering and gagging on the guy's cock, and then getting cum blasted on her face and then the guy slaps his cock all over her face to get the last remaining drops out.

It's kind of like the word "gay" now. When you think "gay guy", you just imagine some guy in a fashionable outfit that talks with a lisp and waves a rainbow flag. You often forget what the essence of being gay is, which is to ram your cock up another guy's hairy anus, into his intestines, and get literal shit all over your dick.

Incel4Life, /r/incels 17 Comments [7/10/2017 10:39:18 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep