MRm!

Issue 3.

Free!

Hate Bounces - How Man-Hating and

Man Bashing Harms Women

Feminism and the Prison Industrial Complex

The Plague of Modern Masculinity

 The principle of the moral, aesthetic and intellectual superiority of the female gender; The denial of the existence of anti-male hatred; The criminalization both direct and indirect of the male gender; The planned inhibition of the development of male consciousness; The psychological and chemical emasculation of the younger generations; The domestication and docility of men; The use of the male libido for purposes of speculation,manipulation, intimidation and blackmail; The demand for reparations, material and moral, for the wrongs, real or imagined, sustained by the female gender; The legal commercialization of sexual relations and relations based upon affection; The presumed permissibility of an autocratic imposition of behavioral rules upon the male gender; The principles of political correctness and the imposition of its vocabulary.

-UONMI 3000

In This Issue:
In This Issue: Editorial:
"Dear Ioana" Feminism and the Prison Industrial Complex Why Game and "Choice for Men" Elicits So Much Hate

3 7 9

False Rape Accusation Awareness

Steps Toward Understanding and Avoiding

13 15 16

Man-Haters of the Month:

The United Nations World Food Program

Hate Bounces - How Man-Hating and Man

Bashing Harms Women
or: The Making of a Misogynist

The Plague of Modern Masculinity

21

Contact:

Letter from the Editor

So here it is, Issue three. Sometimes, my friends regard me as some kind of modern day Don Quixote, fighting an impossibly huge fight against largely "targetless" issues. More than one relationship has been strained by this fight, and I'm sure more will be... So why do it? Well, to be honest, it's not out of some desire for personal gain, nor is it because I hope to change things in time for myself. My time to have a family has come and gone. Relationships with women are so risky both financially and emotionally, it's become dangerous to even associate socially with women...and I don't see that changing any time soon. At least, not before I'm about 60 years old... So why do it? For the generations that come behind, that's why. Because I have daughters that I would like to see grow up happy, and in healthy relationships. Yup, Daughters. Until these issues are meaningfully addressed, it will be virtually impossible for them to find happiness or security in their emotional lives. And yes, I truly do believe that. Here's hoping you have similar reasons to care....

-Factory

"Dear Ioana"
Firstly, I want to apologize on behalf of Western women for indulging in man-hating, supposedlyfeminist ideologies. Secondly, I am a Western woman, and I am a feminist, also, I'm eighteen years of age. Before you decide to glide over the rest of this post, I'd like to make a case for myself. Heretic, I absolutely agree that men and women ought to pursue symbiotic relationships that foster mutual development and continued learning. I don't believe women are legally oppressed. However, I do find that men tend to base the value of a woman primarily upon her appearance. I suppose under the veil of internet anonymity, you could peg my beliefs as having arisen from bitterness caused by my possibly being unattractive. You have nothing but my word that this is not the case. Assuming, for the sake of my argument, that I'm being genuine, I don't feel it's just that even an attractive woman of reasonable intelligence and merit ought to be regarded by men who're far less intelligent than her as naught but a piece of meat. I'm not saying you've done so, but it happens to me often. There is no denying that there are many men whose sole interest in choosing a mate is appearance. In fact, I commend you for boycotting feminists; at least you'd take the time to listen to what a woman has to say before deciding whether or not to date/marry her. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if the average man were watching TV, and he came across an unattractive man who was saying something intriguing, the TVwatcher would disregard the man and consider his ideas. If it were an unattractive woman saying the same thing, I believe the TV-watcher would take into consideration only the way the woman looked. Perhaps I'm being long-winded. What I essentially mean to say is that I don't believe feminists today are still pining for more legal leverage. In fact, I believe child support, among other things, is an abomination of modern justice. I do believe, however, that women are still faced with much more pressure than men to tend to their appearances before they're considered good mates, and often before they're even hired. I'd like to hear your take on this. Dear Ioanna, Thank you for your post. You sound like an intelligent and thoughtful person. It is a breath of fresh air to receive a message of this kind from a feminist, instead of the usual childish rant. I commend you for your honesty in particular. I apologise for the fact that it has taken me so long to answer you, and my answer has turned out to be rather long. I hope you will take the time to read it. There is no denying that there are many men whose sole interest in We do not differ only in terms of hardware, or what we have between our legs. This hardware also comes with software to make it work effectively; we have different evolved psychological motivations and behaviours which complement our sex. These psychological drives evolved, along with our bodies, tens of thousands of years ago, and have not changed since. The wheels of human evolution turn slowly. We still have the brains of stone-age people. In order to understand relations between the sexes well, we need to look at the subject choosing a mate is appearance. A little evolutionary theory would clarify things for you here. Briefly, we are chimpanzees, and we live in hierarchical social groups. Our selfish genes are telling us to maximise their chance of survival by reproducing as much, or in the best way, possible. The aim is to leave the greatest number of surviving offspring after your death. High-status individuals tend to leave more surviving offspring than lowstatus ones, although in modern Western societies, the Welfare State tends to distort this fact. Men and women are different, and have different attitudes to sex. This is not just due to social conditioning, it is due to the fact that we do not have the same roles in reproduction.

using this evolutionary perspective. Given the best conditions, a woman can only get pregnant once at a time, and produce about one baby a year. This is a potentially lifethreatening experience, and even without complications, the baby remains dependent for many years, requiring constant support. Consequently the decision to have sex is, for a woman, a very serious one. For men, on the other hand, it is very different. In the period of a year, he could potentially father hundreds of babies. His capacity for reproduction is limited only by the availability of women. For men, a good strategy is just to impregnate as many females as possible. For women, having a hundred men is no better than having one; arguably it is worse. It is

in a womans interest to mate with the highest-status male she can find, and to stay with him exclusively, and expect that he will provide support for his own children. He will probably be willing to do this if he is sure that the children are his; one of the greatest evolutionary failures for a man is to be a victim of paternity fraud, and to unwittingly provide economic support for another mans children. If the mother is unfaithful, this is a possibility, and the man is more likely to refuse to give support, as he cannot be sure the children are his. If she is loyal to him, or he believes that she is, then he can be sure that the children are his, and has no reason to refuse support. Although promiscuity works as a strategy for men, most men do not have the opportunity to impregnate large numbers of nubile females; those few who do tend to be extremely high status men, like rock stars, movie stars or football stars, and in the past, kings and politicians. The rest of us men will succeed best by remaining loyal to one wife. That way, we can expect a regular supply of sex, and to leave at least some surviving offspring. By refusing to commit to one woman, most ordinary men would probably remain celibate and childless.

Thus, both men and women have a vested interest in monogamy, but we are also not above committing adultery on occasion, women as well as men. Men benefit from adultery in an obvious way. If he impregnates a passing female, there is a chance that she will bear his child, and what is more, he will not have to provide any economic support for that child; in evolutionary terms, it is a quick win. For women, the situation is a little more complicated. They want to give birth to healthy children, and they want to have those children cared for by a high status husband. These two requirements may be in conflict. It often takes men a very long time to accumulate wealth and status, by which time they are relatively old. Older parents of both sexes are more likely to produce children with birth defects. It is in a womans interest to get good quality sperm. Sperm quality diminishes with age, as copying errors accumulate. Good quality sperm means younger men; high status provider means older men. As a choice of husband and father, the middle-aged tycoon is a good choice socially and economically, but a poor choice genetically. His young gardener, on the other hand, is a virile, handsome youth with good quality sperm, but he is penniless. A good strategy for a woman is to marry the middle-aged Lord and then shag the gardener. Get good quality sperm, and then persuade a high-status husband to pick up the bill. Adultery thus carries benefits for both sexes, but is somewhat risky.

To return to your original question. Youth and appearance actually are much more important for women than they are for men. Men really do judge women by their appearance more than women judge men by theirs. The reason for this is that beauty equals fertility. A womans fertility is short-lived; it starts to diminish at age 27. By the time she is 45, it is almost entirely gone. The fertility of men, and that of other apes, including females, tails off gradually throughout later life. With human females, there is a menopause; a sudden, sharp cessation of fertility. A beautiful young woman is one who shows all the outward signs of fertility. If you are a man looking for a mate, a fertile one is the best kind to choose. It is a waste of energy having sex with a woman who cannot get pregnant. People used to die young. Women used to die in childbirth a lot. A woman who is at the beginning of her child-bearing years is the most desirable. She has not yet had any children, and will probably live long enough to see her children reach independence. If she loses one child, she still has time for another attempt. Older mothers are more likely to produce children with birthdefects. It is in everyones interest to have children young. Remember, these are very old instincts produced by evolution. So, men have two mating strategies which they can apply both at the same time; Look for wife and Look for casual sex. Men who judge you purely by your appearance are using the latter strategy. If he wanted a wife, he

would judge you by other criteria as well. When a guy propositions you in the street, you are offended because you are looking for the higheststatus long-term mate you can find, and you believe that you can command a higher price than he can offer, and that in any case, he is not looking for anything more than casual sex. Look at it this way: even if the casual propositioning of passing females only paid off one time in a hundred thousand, that is enough, over the course of evolutionary time, to make it worthwhile. Dont be too hard on him; he doesnt know you. He fancies himself as a dashing young buck, and for all he knows, you might be married to an elderly tycoon, and be on the lookout for some better quality sperm. He might get lucky one day. Just say no. It is his responsibility to take no for an answer. Just let it go at that. What are you complaining about anyway? There is only one thing worse than men finding you attractive; and that is men not finding you attractive. You wouldnt mind if Brad Pitt propositioned you for casual sex. You only object to this guy doing it because you consider him to be low-status, and yourself to be better than him. Isnt that so? You expressed the view that women are under greater social pressure than men to look good, or are judged by their appearance to a greater extent than men. I think what you say is largely true, but is far from being the whole story.

I have already discussed reasons why women are judged by their appearance to a greater extent than men. But this does not mean that men are not judged at all. We are judged by other criteria. We are judged by our physicality, not just in terms of good looks, but also in terms of athleticism, soldierly qualities, whether we are scary, and can physically and socially dominate other males, whether we can satisfy a woman sexually, whether we will produce handsome sons. We are judged on our education and intelligence. We are still judged on our clothes like women, but also by our cars and other possessions. We are judged by how funny or talented we are as entertainers. We are judged very harshly on our moral character; soldierly qualities of self-discipline, motivation, mental strength, resilience and emotional stability. We are judged very harshly on our sexual continence. We are used to being characterised as violent sexual predators, even as we do our best to live lives of work and family, and strive to have positive relationships with women. We are judged in terms of what other males think of us, and by our capacity for work. Most of all we are judged by how much money we have. Women are not judged by any of these criteria. Overall, men are judged much more harshly than women. A woman who does not have a job is exercising a positive lifestyle choice. A man who does not have a job is a pathetic loser. Secondly, this pressure on women that you refer to does not only, or

Game is the Red Pill.

even mainly, come from men. It comes from other women. It is the shop-girl who will smirk knowingly when you ask her for a bigger size, it is the female fashion-police in your peer group who will publicly humiliate you because you are carrying the wrong kind of handbag, the jealous co-worker who will give you an unpleasant task to do because she is jealous of your shoes. Most of the pressure to be thin also comes from other women. Women will starve themselves into emaciation in order to compete with other women, and because they are scared of other women calling them fat, and humiliating them. Men tend to be fairly straightforward, uncomplicated creatures. If we look at a woman, we probably just decide that she is more or less sexually attractive. The finer points of fashion do not register. In the talent competition of life, men are generally the performers, and women the judges and critics. Thats pretty much how it is, and there are good evolutionary reasons for that. You say: However, I do find that men tend to base the value of a woman primarily upon her appearance. Well, some do, just as some women base the value of a man purely on his bank balance. But those are not the sort of men you would want to get involved with, Im guessing. Yes, there are shallow and dishonest people in the world, it will always be so. Learning to deal with that is an essential life-skill. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if the average man were watching TV, and he came across an unattractive man who was saying something intriguing, the TV-watcher would disregard the man and consider his ideas. If it were an unattractive woman saying the same thing, I believe the TVwatcher would take into consideration only the way the woman looked. Well, I think I must disagree. I dont know what kind of men you hang around with, but it seems as though you are judging the entire male population by them, whoever they are. I for one appreciate good ideas, and I do not judge the idea by whether or not I find the speaker sexually attractive. Couldnt men make the same complaint? A woman is going to be more appreciative of a story, idea or joke if it comes from a handsome, highstatus man whom she finds attractive, than if it came from a poor, unattractive one. women are still faced with much more pressure than men to tend to their appearances before they're considered good mates, and often before they're even hired Your thinking clearly is influenced by feminist thinking, because you evidently never consider mens perspective, you believe that everything is worse for women, that this is some kind of evil conspiracy, and that you are underappreciated. Feminism has done a spectacularly

poor job. It presents itself as the leading authority on all matters concerning sex and relations between the sexes, and yet the quality of its analysis is utterly pisspoor. It sees new ideas as a threat. It is bad enough that it demands a monopoly on discourse, but it also maintains its monopoly by coercion. This is an outrageous imposition on to any democratic culture, which absolutely cannot be accepted. The feminist movement is a cryptofascist dinosaur which has dominated all Leftist thinking for decades, and is demonstrably leading to catastrophic social outcomes. It is based on nothing but a lie of truly Hitlerian proportions, that women have been systematically discriminated against for millennia. This is, at worst, a travesty, a perversion of the truth, and at best, a very poor theory. Personally, I would like to hear some better ideas from the women, attractive or not. Best regards, Heretic

Feminism and the Prison Industrial Complex

by: Welmer

I was recently looking over US prison statistics, which demonstrate that the United States imprisons more people by far in terms of both percent of population and overall number than any other country in the world. In fact, the United States may have the highest peacetime incarceration rate in recorded history we are certainly somewhere near the USSR at the height of the GULAG system (not counting post-war POWs). While looking at graphs detailing the steep rise in incarceration that began around 1980, it occurred to me that the implementation of feminism and womens liberation coincided almost perfectly with the rise in the incarceration rate. As single motherhood and innovations in family law spread, the number of men in prison grew at a fantastic rate. In the 1990s, Clintons 1994 crime bill further increased the growth of the prison industrial

complex just as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) took hold. It often takes great effort and force to prop up an unnatural social system. The reason the implementation of Communism was accompanied by mass incarceration was that the Communist system wasnt the best fit for the societies it enslaved. Likewise, although sexual liberation and the destruction of families may come naturally to many possibly most women on an individual basis, it doesnt really work in modern human societies, and probably hasnt been adaptive since the end of the middle paleolithic. The decimation of American families began to gain steam during the 1960s, when the illegitimacy rate of black Americans rose rapidly, foreshadowing the current explosion of white illegitimacy. This was accompanied by a record crime rate in the

1970s. As social chaos began to take hold and women marched in the streets for easy divorce and abortion, conservatives attention was largely focused on the poor behavior of the young male cohort. As conservatives are wont to do, they blamed men exclusively for the problem, possibly because of their cherished fantasy that all women who have children out of wedlock or who get divorced are innocent victims of rapacious men. In reality, the boys who were out in the street misbehaving were, as often as not, victims of their mothers choices. In addition to the criminality brought about by illegitimacy and broken families, the economic issue of welfare came to be a major point of political contention. As single mothers went on welfare en masse, pressure built up to make fathers pay again, often for the poor choices of women. Tougher laws were passed to rein in the social

-Male disengagement from civic role: Male voting rates have declined sharply since mid-1960s. Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent. -Educational-Masters degrees: The male share of masters degrees has declined from 60 percent in 1970to 41 percent by 2001. (National Center for Education Statistics)

chaos in inner cities and attempt to coerce young men into behaving like Ward Cleaver even as their role as provider husband or father had been subverted by revolutionary family law and feminist policies in school and the workplace. Of course, it was impossible for many of these young men to beat the odds stacked against them, so the punitive option was brought to bear, and prisons across the country received them with open arms.

domination of higher education, and the likelihood you will have a stable, lasting marriage and family has largely evaporated, you now have a greater opportunity than ever to live the life of a convict. Feminist policy created a selfreinforcing loop of male disenfranchisement, male crime, public outrage and calls for punishment, incarceration, and then more disenfranchisement as children grow up with daddy in jail or otherwise on the wrong side of the law. There is nothing more responsible for the destruction of the American family than feminism, and there is nothing that breeds crime like broken families.

-Suicide: Among 15 to 24 year olds, suicide rates were 5.8 times higher for males than for females in 2000. In 1900 male rates were 1.3 times higher for males than those for females. "You can sober up any audience when you lay out the suicide data," he said. "The room tends to go quiet. The audience is staring at figures showing young males giving up on life at the very beginning of life, and they understand that something dangerous is happening in our culture."
Tom Mortenson: Senior Scholar: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education: http://www.postsecondary.org/ archives/previous/GuysFacts.pdf

An interesting thing about the meteoric rise in incarceration is that it continued apace for over an entire generation. Starting around 1980, it continued to grow throughout the last Bush administration. If you are a young man today, your chance of being thrown in the slammer has grown tremendously from the day you were born. Even as your real wages have declined, your educational opportunities eroded by higher costs and female

Why Game & Choice For Men Elicits So Much Hate

by: Obsidian

With a major snag being hit with the House passage of the Healthcare Bill that involves public monies being used to pay for abortions, and in the light of my recent debate on Game with the lovely Susan Walsh of HookingUpSmart.com, I thought now would be the perfect time to address exactly why these two powerful correctors of the sexual marketplace-Game and Choice For Men-has drawn the ire of both, Women AND Men. Lets put our Occams Razorassisted thinking caps on, shall we, gentlemen? OK The reason why Game is reviled, and why Roe For Men elicits the ire of Women and Men alike, is very simple: Because it gives maximum options to a maximum number of Men. Thats why. Keen students of Game understand well that its underpinnings come from the insights gleaned from Evolutionary Psychology & Biology, the study of human behavior and the adaptations that had to take place many tens of thousands of years ago on the African savanna to meet the demands of the environment. Human beings evolved and moved away from said environment, but by then

the programming had taken hold; it takes many thousands of years to reboot the system. So, what we have today in our time, is essentially this-we have all these toys and gadgets and big ideas, but we arent that far removed from our savanna past. Game is the proof. Now As we all know, the key mating strategy of the Female is to get the attention of the Alpha Malethe leader of the pack. He is the one best equipped to provide resources to her children; he is the one best able to defend her and her kids from any threats. For thousands of years, this was a fairly easy thing to do for the Female; the Menfolk were quickly sorted out, either by rivalry within the tribe, or warfare with other tribes, or by being killed off during hunting trips, etc. All the Females had to do was pick the winners of these and other situations. Now, barring Rape-which was quite a common mating strategy for Males for thousands of years in its own right-the deal was, the Alphas got the best Females. If you werent an Alpha, your chances of passing on your genes into the future were dim-you either had to hope you could sneak one in while the Alpha was away, or, get the leftover Females nobody

really wanted, or, bust a Female upside the head and take her by force. Failing that, you were facing an Epic Evolutionary Fail. Women are wired to screen out all but the Best Men for the purposes of mating and *longterm commitment*. Remember this one, folks, its very, very important. All lesser guys need not apply. Down through the Ages, Women have evolved to come up with ways and means to separate one group of Men, from the other. This highly attuned radar if you will, on the part of Women, is in large part fooled by Game, because it gives the average guy the tools needed to ape the behavior of Alpha Males. This in turn gives him more chances to mate-in other words in our time, get laid-and this in turn causes mucho stress for the Ladies, because Game makes it so they cannot as easily determine whos who. For a Woman, this is hugely important-as Ive pointed out before and it bears repeating, a Woman risks a heck of a lot to have sex. Much, much more than Men do. Aside from things like Rape and STDs, one of the biggest risks is in her giving it up to the wrong guy, and having to deal with the fallout from that. And, as Ive also noted before, and it also bears repeating, Good Guysessentially Alpha Males-are hard to find. This means that, by necessity, all the guys cannot get laid:

From a females point of view, its very important that the number of guys getting lucky is restricted. If every Tom, Dick and Harry could get laid at will, with the more topshelf honeys, it would wreak havoc on tens of thousands of years of delicate programming for the Femaleimportant programming that helps her sort out the Males into two distinct groups: Alphas, and everybody else. Game in essence, seriously messes with that programming. Which is why Women have so many problems with it. So, that explains the Female side of the equation-but what about the Male side? That too, is also simple. When one has a fundamental grasp of Human Nature and of Game, which is really Social Sexual Dynamics, then one understands why one can see much Hateration from certain quarters of the Menfolk on this issue. For Men, competition to mate, and with the choicest Females, is FIERCE. In Nature, Males display, and Females choose-this means that not only does a Male have to have the best display but that its in his interest to restrict the number of competitors he has to contend with-the more guys in the round, the lesser his chances of winning. Again, Game gives more guys more

chances to win-and quite a few guys, operating from the Reptilian Id, DONT LIKE THAT. This is why youll hear these guys dress up their evolutionary hateration in flowery terms like trickery, deception and the like, not to mention a goodly bit of White Knightery-when you really break it down, the issue is, that more guys will have options if they have Game. Simple as that. Before I move on to Roe For Men, let me say this Remember my recent debate with Susan Walsh? She made quite a big deal about the neg, a powerful method that one soon learns when first receiving Game training. And shes not alone-just about every single, female critic of Game will crow loud and long about this one teeny wittle aspect of the science. And do you want to know WHY so many Women complain so loudly and long about the Neg? BECAUSE IT WORKS, THATS WHY. And worse, there is no defense against it. Why? Because it is deeply embedded in a Womans psyche to submit to a Dominant Male, and negging is what Dominant Males do. In fact, the astute among my readers might have picked up on something in the aforementioned exchange. Hmm

So-teaching average guys about the whys and wherefores of Negging again, essentially screws up the inherent Alpha Radar Women have-can you see why theyre so upset now? Another example, and then well examine Choice For Men Recently, I wrote about the issue of paying for dates. Although I didnt get a heck of a lot of responses enlist, I did get a goodly number from WOMEN offlist, complaining about what I said. Now, keep in mind-I didnt say I wasnt gonna pay for ANY dates; I simply said that it wasnt a good idea for a guy to go all in on a first date with a Women he really doesnt know and hasnt had sex with in any event. Even given the comments in response to what I wrote, by other guys, The Fifth Horsemen amon them, what I wrote was quite fair, balanced and reasonable. Still, the Ladies were feeling some kind of way. Do you know why? Go back and review what I said: its because, the mere mention of saying what I said means that Im not needy for sex, and the vast majority of Men are-which means, in effect, theyre signaling that theyre NOT ALPHA. So when a guy blows a C-Note on a gal he hasnt been in bed with yet, hes saying Im so horny!-and that tells the gal that he aint The One.

Epic. Evolutionary. Fail. She WILL however, take his money, in the form of lunches, dinners, nights out on the town, flowers, baubles, you name itand hey, why not? As the Wise Man once said, a Fool and his Money are soon departed. I betcha all those Women who wrote to me offlist, had NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER either doing what I just wrote above, and/or know, and fully endorse, other Women doing it. Yet, they have a problem with little ole me. Why? Because hipping guys to the realities of paying for dates too soon basically screws with the radar again, AND WOMEN DONT LIKE THAT. Only Alphas are supposed to have sexual options. See what Im saying here? OK, so lets now move on to the Roe For Men issue People, its real simple: in America, we have this thing called Equal Protection Clausewhich means, that you cant make laws that benefit only one group, and not everyone else, or worse, target one group with a set of laws. Its either all or nothing, and it works very well across the board, no matter what the issue is. When it comes to Reproductive Rights, as it currently stands,

we have an inherently unConstitutional situation happening, because only Women can have the right to choose whether they want to be a parent or not. Men dont have that right. Again, once one understands Game, which is deeply rooted in Evolutionary Science, it is easy to see why Roe For Men is so vehemently fought against, by Women and Men both. For Women, the issue is very easy-despite all the many advances Women have made, they still desire and demand that they get maximum resources from a Male-ideally the actual dad, but in a pinch any guy with good prospects will do (watch the Maury Show)-and failing that, the State. For Men, again, basically freeing up Men to fully explore their sexual options without any encumbrance of being a parent involuntarily, would mean more competitors in the marketplace; as it currently stands, forcing guys to pay child support acts as a check on their sexual activity. It removes potential players from the field. Going back to Women, remember what I said earlier: their mission isnt only to mate with the Alpha, but to get his long-term commitment in the form of resources. If Roe For

Men would be allowed to pass, that latter part of the deal collapses. But it would uphold the basic premise of the Equal Protection Clause, yes? If Women can decide, w/o regard to her sex life, when and if she becomes a parent, why cant Men? Its really simple. And just note all the rhetorical jiu jitsu the pro choice crowd engages in when confronted with these facts. I mean, come on. So, to recap: Game & Roe For Men greatly threaten the sexual marketplace, by giving the average guy much more options than he would have had previously. This is a great concern to Women and Men alike, albeit for differing reasons. For the former, it messes with their finely attuned radar thats set for weeding out Alpha Males from everyone else; in the latter case, it promises more direct competition for the better females.

11

Suicide kills more men aged 15-44 than Cancer, Stroke, and Diabetes COMBINED!

False Rape Accusation Awareness

Steps Toward Understanding and Avoiding
by: E. Steven Berkimer

The following does not constitute legal advice, and is not intended for that purpose. Only a licensed and qualified attorney who is able to interview the accused and to conduct other appropriate investigation can properly serve his interests. False Rape Accusations. Duke lacrosse immediately springs to mind when you read those words. Hofstra, for a more recent case. On a daily basis, someone is being falsely accused. On my site, www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com, we refer to them as FRAs (its much easier than typing it out every time). For the purposes of this piece, the vast majority of FRAs are understood to be filed by women. How do you avoid having an FRA leveled at you? What do you do once an accusation has been leveled? And how do we, as a society, prevent the FRA from happening? Lets take a look at that last one first. How do we prevent FRAs from happening? Unless we see a radical shift in our legal system (speaking of the U.S.), we will never be able to completely stop

false accusations happening.

from

unbalanced woman, before an investigation even starts. So, what do you do if you are on the receiving end of an FRA? Get the best criminal attorney in the area to represent you, preferably one who has tried before a jury numerous similar cases. Spare no expense because it is the most important investment you will ever make. Make sure you have an attorney present, and make sure you follow his or her advice, when you speak with police or anyone else about the matter of which youve been accused and related matters. If you receive a suspicious phone call from anyone trying to get you to discuss the incident or related incidents, it might be a pretext call a call recorded by police in order to get you to incriminate yourself. Be polite but firm. Refuse to answer questions or engage the caller in a conversation. Hang up as soon as possible and call your criminal defense attorney. Anything you say might be used as evidence in a criminal trial against you, depending on the jurisdiction. The biggest difficulty lies in avoiding an FRA in the first place. When it isnt even

That said, the first step in preventing false accusations would be to make the seriousness of the crime equal to the level of the accusation. Rape is a felony, and rightly so. However, falsely accusing someone of rape, at most, will be met with a charge of filing a false police report, which is usually a misdemeanor. I know that in the U.K., there are other charges that can be leveled, and under the E.U. Human Rights Charter, there are other avenues that can be legally used. The U.S. however, doesnt afford those options. The biggest hurdle? Changing the attitude of the judicial system, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges. Proper practice by law enforcement should be to investigate first, then arrest if there is sufficient proof to warrant that. However, in the current climate, it is arrest first, and then investigate. So innocent citizens can and do spend time in jail, with no proof aside from the accusation of even a mentally

13

necessary for any type of sexual activity to take place to be falsely accused, it is almost impossible. The best recommendation although drastic is to keep some form of electronic record of all sexual interactions. However, in most states, it is illegal to record video without all parties knowledge. Most states allow for audio taping of calls, but always be aware of your states laws. Also know the major factors that can lead to an FRA: 1. Alcohol/drugs If shes been drinking, even if it is just one drink, and she regrets what happens, she can claim rape, and because of that one drink, may be considered legally incapable of consent. Its another area where women evade taking responsibility for their actions. 2. Infidelity If you know she is involved in any way with someone (dating/married), consider that a warning sign. A more general way to describe this situation is when someone important to her would disapprove of her relationship with you she might

try to cover up consensual sex with a rape lie. 3. Group Sex Hofstra is the most recent case of this. However, that case was an example of #2. She lied to her boyfriend about the gangbang she willingly participated in. 4. Job If you are a Cop, Firefighter, Teacher, Cab Driver or Paramedic, you are more likely to have an FRA leveled against you. 5. Age Differential Older man/younger woman and Older woman/ younger man. In neither scenario will anyone even question an FRA. The second one however, lends credence to the idea that adult women are akin to children, and STILL arent held to the standards that adult men are. 6. Break ups Those who know what kind of special hell Family/Divorce Courts are like are well aware that false accusations of abuse, rape and molestation are used with regularity, and as a weapon, specifically if custody is involved.

While the rape industry likes to loudly proclaim that FRAs are a myth, women dont lie about rape, and that false accusations are only around 2% (Studies by Kanin, McDowell, Times of India, Daphne II commissioned by the EU, and DOJ statistics all put the amount much higher), two things are certain. FRAs are a problem that is overlooked by the vast majority of people in our society, and their victims are almost 100% male. Due to the vast inroads that feminism has made into the current judicial system, FRAs are a weapon used against men, and they are usually used to cover up the bad behaviors/decisions of some women. Under our current legal system, the woman can change her mind the next day, the next week, or the next year, about what she previously consented to, and cry rape. And you WILL be arrested, so long as she is a convincing enough actress.

Man-Haters of the Month:

The United Nations World Food Program
by: Porky

As I pointed out earlier this month, the bastards at the United Nations are refusing to hand out food to anyone but members of the Sacred Sex in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. Their excuse is that by giving food only to the women they ensure that everyone else gets a share. This is claptrap for two reasons, the first being that most of the time, when someone gives to group A while claiming they are doing so for the good of group B, you know you are being lied to. If it is group B that they are trying to help then they give to group B, plain and simple. The other reason we know this everyone else excuse is a lie is because in 2001 the UN held a month-long conference on

how to use natural disaster relief to boost the status of women by putting them in charge of food relief in the aftermath of disaster! This 2001 meeting is good evidence that to the misandrist U.N achieving their feminist goals is more important than avoiding the deaths of men who dont have a woman to lean on, cos you know, leaning on a corpse can be difficult even when you arent also being kicked in the nuts by the U.N! Perhaps the so-called United Nations World Food Program should be renamed the United Nations Worldwide Female Empowerment Program, or at least merged into UNIFEM, at least that way there would be no illusions about the U.Ns true agenda.

Its quite a world isnt it? This is what it has come down to, handing out Manhater awards to organizations that are supposed to help people ! Of all the recipients of the Silver Pomegranate, none have quite as much to be ashamed of as these U.N lowlifes. Writing songs about wiping out men, drawing cartoons encouraging violence against boys, ignoring male victims in DV programs, these are all inexcusable, but they all pale beside what the UN is doing to men in Haiti and other disaster areas. The people who make these decisions are the scum of the earth and it is my fervent hope that they are caught up in a natural disaster which brings their ignoble lives to a timely end.

You can see all of Porky's awards here: http://counterfeminism.info/category/man-hater-of-the-month/

Hate Bounces: How man-hating and man-bashing harms women

the making of a misogynist
by: Zed

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent

Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called Womens Liberation which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it. And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert Id like to talk to you about. I learned very quickly that feminism wasnt about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up

with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little. The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising power seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didnt need any g damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee. Shock is a totally inadequate word to describe my response. I was at a loss to understand any

women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens. The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that persons faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that.

16

of her reaction. She couldnt have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of mentally defective, hate filled, and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company. A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist consciousness raising group as consisting of perfectly satisfying man hating sessions. Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so perfectly satisfying. I dont remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me. It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were. Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had

breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president spoke of my hatred of men in the same matter-of-fact tone that she might say my nose. It was just an integral part of her. Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a loving relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love? So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of commitment became one and the same as trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me. I was indeed one of those men who wouldnt make a commitment. The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of

being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how satisfying man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women. That is the personal side. And, I wont bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there

eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not whether a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but how bad and how soon it would happen. On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively just for being a man.

I remember the first time I saw the slogan A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a womans life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm. Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said no, that is wrong, there is another point of view Id get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women in their place, was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks. There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 3000+, but in time it did become true.

I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterdays garbage. In short I viewed them as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s. Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldnt figure out why she couldnt get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didnt realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity. I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called misogynist. I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends

over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence. And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said I dont know why you are making such a big deal about it, I caved in and really did begin to hate women. Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says Beware of VERY bad dog. Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone. Misogynists are not born, they are made. I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into love for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women. I simply regard it with indifference.

If you are a Canadian male, here are some things you should know:
You have no right to decide if you are ready or not to become a parent. You have no Parental Rights unless conferred on you by the mother. Children born while the mother is married are legally considered the children of the husband...even when they're not (and you can prove it). Standing "in loco parentis" (in the place of a parent) means you pay support (too) for any children your girlfriend may have. This in addition to being equivalent to married in as little as 6 months. There is no limit to the number of "payors" a child is "entitled" to support from.

Currently, there is a push for, or actual integration of, laws which accomplish the following:

If you own a business, you may lose control of your business (to the government) to ensure "proper" support is being paid. If you're dating, your girlfriend can call the cops, say she's afraid of you, and gain total control over all of your assets...without you even knowing about it until it's done. While not law in all Provinces, it is being considered by all.

All done by your government in the name of "fairness".

We just thought you might like to know, so you can join us in saying:

Thanks Canada!

When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere. When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethnic bashing joke What does a ______ say instead of fuck you? Answer Trust Me.

Why Couples Counseling Rarely Works with Abusive Women

I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. Thats fine. Shes a fish without a bicycle I have no place in her world, nor her in mine. Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men. Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who cant stand them, or anything about them.

Im sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, Im sick and tired of their victim games, Im sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men dont ask for directions. How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like Your uncle was a fine man, not, arent men headstrong and stupid? Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue

with me and say something like get over it, or why dont you take the gender out of it? In return I ask, Why the hell dont you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?

Every day, a few more men go through the transformation and become like me. We dont get our guns and shoot a few women; we dont beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, theres no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends.

The Plague of Modern Masculinity

Scores

Scores of our young men today are stranded at an impasse on the road to realizing manhood. They are bogged down in the confusion of a generation lost to treacherous forces they never saw, for reasons they were never able to comprehend. They are struggling and starving; unable to feed their souls in a world that finds them increasingly unnecessary and burdensome. They have come of age in a time of coerced impotence, their nascent masculinity gutted and stripped long before having the opportunity to shape their character and their destiny. In that they are suffering from the loss of things never held, from things missing but never known. They are, quite literally, a lost generation of the walking wounded, wandering blindly from a battlefield on which they never knew they stood. In that light, the path they are on is not really the road to manhood, but simply a retreat from the effacing malice woven into the very fabric of their developmental lives. And it takes them not to safe ground, but directly into a dismal culture of shallowness and self indulgence; a realm of options without obligations; of self gratification without self awareness or self discipline. It is the

death march of the western male, destined for a withering end ensured by intellectual, psychological and moral atrophy. This aimless, narcissistic existence is a forced escape from lives shrouded in shame; from manhood being reduced to an evolutionary joke in the eyes of a culture that holds it in contempt, even as the elders deny it is happening. With the wholesale whitewashing by society and abandonment by the fathers more or less complete, the newly (de)engineered young man is all but defenseless against this downward spiral into terminal insignificance. Its happening all around us. One only need look at current events to see that the world of men is quite literally circling he drain; disappearing from the stable foundations of education and employment. They are targeted with disinformation about crime and domestic violence, and about deviant sexual proclivities with women and children. These are no longer just the ruminations of twisted ideologues. The demagoguery now emanates directly from the government, backed by men with gavels, and men with guns. The judicial apparatus has been reshaped, not to pursue justice, but

to incarcerate men at every opportunity, even to enable and encourage false accusations to accomplish that goal. This isnt just about male bashing any more. It is about male subjugation. And it is not being executed by feminists or women, but by men. We might proffer that the solution is a redirection to days past, when we imagine that men made masters of sacred codes; when they possessed strength and purpose and would stand against this growing tragedy and defeat it. We would be wrong. We can only find that Thomas C. Wolfe was right. You cant go home again. And whats more, you really dont want to. It was, in a sense, home that got us here. And that is a truth we must face, no matter how natural or compelling the tendency to point to any other outside force and satisfy our frustrations with the simplistic convenience of an easily identified enemy. As always, our true enemy is in the mirror. The only thing that will save us is to face up to that and act accordingly. In the fitful and often strange world of the mens movement, we attempt to answer this social malady; to

22

create a haven, if only an intellectual one, for the refugees of this godforsaken gender war. It is a mission often hobbled by our own hands, yet the work goes on, limping toward solutions. We strive, I think, as men who have taken the red pill and seen through the Matrix, to formulate an appropriate response, and in our own way to push some sanity and balance back into the collective consciousness; to force it past the architects of institutional misandry, both male and female. But even as we exert pressure, we dont have a firm grasp on what it is we are fighting. We have not ascertained, nor have we even really thoroughly tried to, what role traditional manhood plays in the problem. Unfortunately, what we have too often done is practice the obstinate politics of wounded children who insist that they have no role in whatever befalls their lives. We have, at times, angrily and energetically reacted to misandry, but have balked with equal vigor at seriously examining how we fostered and enabled it with masculine codes of conduct. Consequently, all of our efforts rooted in this approach have failed, and miserably so. We have made some progress, and will no doubt eventually mature into a more effective movement, but not before we embrace more than the hostility we feel for perceived enemies. Our most functional response thus far is to check out and go our own way, but I contend that an exit is not a destination, but just a needed removal from the line of fire; a chance to collectively regroup and rethink. Remember that the young men festering at those crossroads

have, in their own way, checked out, too. It isnt looking too good on them. And it forces us, sooner or later, to swallow a pill that some will find bitter. And to face a reality that some will find unconscionable. The feminists were right. Masculinity has, as it relates to modern realities, corrupt, oppressive and destructive elements that need to change. And yes, I mean that literally. And no, Im not kidding. In fact, the entire thrust of my argument is that the monstrous social degeneration we are now witnessing, more than anything else, is the result of outmoded and horribly misguided masculinity. Of course, once we dig more than a nanometer deep into the subject we find that objectivity and reason veer us onto an entirely different philosophical trajectory than the pathologically twisted and apoplectic mindset of feminist ideologues. To chart our course, we will do two things that feminists never did. First, we will look at the subject without a politically driven agenda for unjustified revenge, or a mandate to dominate the other half of the population. And two, we will proceed with the sincere goal of benefit for everyone, not just an elite group. The only sensible place to start is with a more grounded understanding of masculinity itself, something that cant be done in a 3,500 word essay, but can, with even marginally appropriate treatment, arrive at far better conclusions than the last forty years of womens and gender

studies. We can rely on the combined contributions of history, mythology, politics and, most importantly, human sociobiology. For in the end we are a species of animals whose very existence depended on the development of reproductive strategies, the primary of which is that the most aggressive and powerful males are selected for mating by the most reproductively viable females. Those strategies arose from an environment of necessity and produced an effective way to produce offspring with the highest probability of survival. As a function of survival, that strategy, and not patriarchal conspiracy, shaped the male hierarchy, as well as what we now call masculinity. Some dry facts- The hierarchy of men: Despite the numerous male archetypal figures of history and legend, there are truly only four basic types of men. Three of the more commonly known are the alphas, betas and omegas. The fourth I will address later. Alpha males are a very, very small fraction of the male population. They are highly dominant men who reside at near the top of all populations, from social groups to national governments. These men are generally characterized by the ability to force the deference of other men, often mistaken for leadership, and to obtain and hold power, which lends them dominance in being selected for mating by the most desirable females. There is no evidence to suggest this is any different now than at any other time in history, and there is no way to underestimate the importance of the mating strategy in

This is your only option:

Sure, it reduces your sexual pleasure. And it's one of the least reliable forms of birth control available. And if your girlfriend wants to "go on the pill", you pretty much have to trust her, or make it obvious you don't.

But you still better use it. Because if you get a woman pregnant, she has control, not you. if she wants the child, you have no choice but to pony up the cash. she can even empty a condom into herself and still get the cash, so make sure you flush it. Sure, it's unfair. But it's the way your government wants it. Want to take off that raincoat? Ask your doctor for a male contraceptive, tell him or her to pass the request on to the drug companies.

the phenomenon of the alpha male. Success often has its price. Alphas also tend to be obsessively controlling, abusive and megalomaniacal. If you point to any despot in world history that slaughtered scores of his own people, for the need to maintain control, or for sheer sadistic pleasure, you are pointing at an alpha male. With alphas, you can throw your imagined codes of honor out the window. Those codes are nothing more than tools used to force betas and omegas into compliance with their agendas. All romanticism aside, the code of the alpha male is to conquer and control, both the objects of his desire and the men he exploits and expends to acquire them. Characterologically speaking, they are a minute, worst representation of the male of the species. But they also get things done, and with great efficiency if you dont factor weigh the loss of freedom and human life. Incidentally, their characteristics are also the same ones that feminists have erroneously used to define masculinity in one broad stroke, painting all men as domineering and oppressive. Success at this enabled them to take other microscopic minorities of men and attribute their characteristics to men in general as well, e.g. abusers, pedophiles, rapists, etc Historically, the challengers to alphas frequently came from other alphas and often from the ranks of beta males, who form the next tier down in the male power structure. Betas serve as the alphas enforcers, the strong-arms used to maintain control over greater numbers. They also play

the role of yes men, affording them their own realm of power and putting them within striking distance (or scavenging proximity) of the alphas position and status, including sexual primacy. Like roadies for a rock band, fortune often filters its way into their hands, and beds. At the bottom, and most heavily populated part of the hierarchy, are the omega males. These are the pawns on a chessboard, often under the direct control of alpha, or by proxy, beta males. This is the common man, and the one most vulnerable to the hazards of common life. A good way to look at this is to take a look at the military chain of command. The general tendency is that the alphas, betas and omegas shed increasing amounts of blood in descending order and claim the spoils of victory in ascending order. Government runs in the same way. In the simplest of terms, alpha lawmakers use beta law enforcement officers to exercise their will on the generally omega population. Or rather government used to work that way, but it really doesnt any more. The political sell out that changed the world. Alpha males in government didnt just collude with feminist ideologues in order to garner a sizable and dependable voting bloc. They had wives to contend with, many of whom were supporting feminism, which effectively reduced everything to the biological imperative. Alpha males

are no less, and arguably even more disposed to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure sexual status. Faced with a perceived threat to that, they effectively ceded the alpha position and became beta enforcers for the feminist agenda. You wont find better examples of that than Barak Obama or Joe Biden, or George Bush for that matter. These alphas became the beta muscle for a feminist Mafioso, maintaining rank and privilege through enforcing ideological imperatives on the defenseless masses beneath them. They became cops hauling men to jail on the simple accusation of their wives. They became judges bludgeoning men with their gavels in corrupt courtrooms; politicians passing ever more misandric legislation; C.E.O.s of pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs like Ritalin to sap the vitality and strength out of our boys, to make them more malleable in female hands once the father had been removed from the home. Isnt this ironic? The supposed pinnacle of strength in the male hierarchy was revealed by feminism to actually be the pinnacle of sexual weakness. This series of events is also a lesson in real power, and where it resides, which in the realm of sexual selection has always been in the hands of the women who did the selecting. But an even greater irony is revealed. Women, who have bemoaned a lack of power for ages, and in fact still do, found out four decades ago that all they had to do to gain almost complete control was step up and demand it be handed over, playing

the sex card as they did so. And it was handed over, by the most powerful men in the world, who in the presence of these women became like butlers offering cocktails on a serving tray. I am not fond of that conclusion. In fact, as a man who continually struggles to break old world ties, I am rather embarrassed by it. Nothing learned, nothing gained. Nonetheless, what happened here on the whole was that women, their raw biological power masquerading as feminism, have taken the dominant alpha status in our culture, and the result is quickly becoming an age of oppression and injustice more insidious and intractable than any other. It is in the biological, survival oriented nature of women to enhance their lives through the utilization of male labor and male expendability, without compunction or moral constraint, and that is exactly where our culture has ended up on an Orwellian scale. Defeating this monstrosity requires the insanely formidable task of battling (figuratively) through beta enforcers masquerading as alpha controllers, not to a command post with someone in charge, but through a pervasive ideology that snakes like countless invisible tentacles through the consciousness of the population at large, and that emanate from the very heart of human evolutionary psychology. And the first strike in that battle should be, must be, at the elements of masculinity that allowed it all to happen.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. They say there is nothing new under the sun. History infers wisdom in those words. We can see with proper discernment that the womens movement was not really a new era for women at all. It is, on close inspection, just women and men practicing their biological strategies in a highly successful manner. So successfully, in fact, that it is rendering large portions of the male population even more expendable. So expendable, in fact, that we are now creating reasons to get rid of them. It was destined to happen once male control of the environment made it safe enough for women to start acquiring power and resources outside the traditional and protected realm of the home. This is why you see feminism with its strongest foothold in industrialized nations founded on the rule of law. And it is why you see that law itself is now being manipulated away from the idea of justice (which was its intent in a mans world) and toward the funneling added protection and resources to women (which has always been the intent in the world shared by both sexes). It is not the pursuit of equality or the love of egalitarian values that has led to feminist governance, but pure blind human biology, practiced in the same way it was on the plains of Africa a million years ago. And the stunning successes of men making all manner of advances since then has now begun to take us out of the picture. Quite simply, men have worked themselves out of a job.

As noted earlier, we have already begun to disappear from the ranks of the employed and educated, and the government is adopting policies to accelerate that process. It doesnt take a conspiracy nut to understand that this will eventually become a disappearance from the planet. In practical terms, there are not near as many men needed proportionally as there once was. The ones that remain will be of increasingly lower status and will be subject to ever more draconian control. But of course, there is one factor that will turn the tide before its over. It is the instinct for survival. It is the only instinct stronger than sex, and it has already shown signs of emerging. We call it the mens movement; MRAs, MGTOW, and the like. We are the evidence that men transcending biology is possible; proof that there actually can be something new under the sun. And we are growing rapidly because more and more men are beginning to see misandry for what it is; a loaded gun pointed directly at their heads, and at the heads of their sons. Unlike feminism, which is simply a normal, functioning part of the female sex role advanced to destructive levels, masculism is the exact polar opposite. This is the first time in human history that men are organizing to overcome their biological mandate and to reverse the flow of survival power back to the world of men. And while our ranks contain many who are misinformed, and who in fact unwittingly play into the wrong agendas with support of chivalry and traditionalism, those notions are becoming increasingly unpopular and

26

How well do you know that girl anyway?

53% of women would lie about paternity

32% would pretend to use contraception like the Pill if they wanted to get pregnant but their partners did not want a child 23% of women would marry just for money And the law offers men NO recourse. Her actions, YOUR wallet.
-Manchester Evening News, Dec. 8, 2004

more commonly attacked on philosophical grounds. The mens movement is starting to get it. And this is precisely the battle we need to fight! Not with women and not with feminists of either sex, but with the aspects of masculinity that are leading to our destruction because they are now outmoded, archaic and self defeating. What remains of chivalry is better described as toxic waste in the water supply. And just as we depart from the old definitions of masculinity, we must do the same with chivalry. It may have once also been a code of honor used by alphas to control other men, but in the modern world we all know it has but one meaningfemale privilege. And so now we can call chivalry by more modern, more appropriate names, e.g. VAWA, primary aggressor laws, Title IX, rape shield laws, Title IV-D, family court, prosecution on false accusation, media bias against men, or, if you prefer the short and simple version, misandry. The fourth type of man- the zeta male. As previously noted, the mens movement is a unique and literally unprecedented phenomena. It will bring with it some other firsts. One of them is the socio-sexual warrior, and I refer to him for the purpose of this discourse as the zeta male. The tag remains faithful to the Greek alphabet classification of the other three types of men, but there is more purpose to the label. I took it from the star Zeta Persei. I liked the navigational metaphor of the star as

it is applicable in the context of the lost generation. But I was also intrigued to learn that Persei is a variation of Perseus, the first of the Greek mythological heroes. Perseus had a remarkable talent for slaying archaic monsters, Medusa the Gorgon among them, who as a mortal woman possessed great beauty, and was self enamored and struck with the power of her sexual allure until she was turned into a hideous monster by Athena, who later used her severed head as a weapon on her shield. In 1940, an article by Sigmund Freud was posthumously published, entitled Medusas Head (Das Medusenhaupt) in which he postulated that Medusa represented castration in a childs mind related to discovered and denied maternal sexuality. Even more interesting is that in modern times, feminists (Women: A Journal of Liberation, 1978) adopted and reinterpreted the image of Medusa as representative of womens rage, and it served as a binding symbol of feminist solidarity. So Perseus, namesake of Zeta Persei, was the slayer of oedipal shame (control) and the murderously powerful raging feminist archetype. The zeta male. This classification of a male is new because this is a male that until recent times was never needed, and indeed was never there. He is emergent and unpolished and struggling to find his legs, but is doing so thanks to the fertile, safe ground, provided by, of all things, other emerging zetas on the internet.

He has no allegiance to tradition or nostalgia for the past, and in fact is charged with plotting a new course. He cannot be shamed into control or intimidated into silence or seduced into capitulation. He doesnt fit in the classic hierarchy, and would gladly bring it down in the name of his cause. When someone says he needs to act like a real man, he smiles and says, No, thank you. He doesnt seek power, but justice. And he has one overarching feature largely absent in the world around him. He cares about those lost young men who were ambushed coming out of the womb. And he will strive to make himself an example, living proof that there are other roads to take than the ones that lead to self hatred and self destruction.

Recommended Reading:

The Men's Rights Movement is largely an internet-based activist movement. It is a movement that is growing all the time, and it seems likely that in the near future it will be larger than any other socio-political movement in history. Never before have men been able to bypass their rulers and their mainstream information outlets in order to develop their own ideas without interference from the powers-that-be. The internet, however, is now allowing this to happen. Furthermore, it is enabling men to unite and to engage in various forms of effective activism designed to undermine all those forces that seem to them to be incompatible with their own values and their desires. The Men's Rights Movement is here. It is growing. And it is unstoppable. If you want to understand more about the Men's Rights Movement, then MRm! magazine will keep you well informed. Download the PDF at: www.mensnewsdaily.com or many of the sites listed inside.