Category Archives: Double Standards

On the “gender balanced” cabinet in Canada.

On the “gender balanced” cabinet in Canada.

The deed is done. This is an experiment that we’ve never tried. Let’s see how it works out. We will either learn that there is a serious discrepancy in the performance of the ministers, or not.

We should be very strongly on guard, however, to immediately slap down any criticism of quota cabinet ministers who might complain that they are being harassed “because of sexism or racism” or other such common excuses. Having accepted the position granted by the ideological lottery, they must now endure the same treatment that all non-quota ministers have received since day one, and that comes with the position.

I am strongly against quotas, I think that the means is ill-conceived, but we’ve now got what we’ve got, and we have to deal with current reality. We should ensure, however, that no future cabinets are selected on this basis. This is the Left’s one, multi-year shot at proving their point. If it turns out that selecting a cabinet based on sex, or race is a successful experiment, then it should be proof that “non-white men” are competent, and “non-white men” should step up on their own steam and power, and not expect future free handouts of power-positions.

We often hear that one reason women don’t step up is a lack of role models. We’ve now held the hand of a variety of people and plunked them on the purple cushion… and under Damocles’s sword. There you go, kids, there are your role models. It is time now, for them to make the case, to show, rather than tell. Should it happen, however, that some do crash and burn, you don’t get to blame sexism, or the system. You may not reach for the argument of “historical oppression.” You must hold the individual accountable.

To do otherwise is to put ideology before results, and to demonstrate a complete disconnect with the reality that we are a mass of living people dealing with the incremental and life-or-death mundanity of daily life.


Men may not be believed if they come forward

At about 2:10 Ian McNicholl explains that “Violence is a gender neutral issue. It’s wrong for a man to hit a woman. Violence of any description is wrong, so that wouldn’t have solved it. I can’t say why she committed the level of violence that she did. The fact for a man is that there are additional difficulties that they may not be believed if they come forward.”

This reminds me of the common Feminist argument that women who make false accusations should not be charged because it might dissuade real victims. Well, when men are commonly not believed, we can understand why we might not come forward, and why it is so facile to dismiss accusations of violence toward men, by women.

Tagged ,

An example of “ideological” MGTOW and rebuttals

Those who are kind enough to read my blog know well that I follow a MGTOW path: I have made the decision to eschew certain kind of relationships as a means of legal self-protection, but that therein, I don’t necessarily agree with all the ideas put forth by other people who think about the matter.

I found that this one interlocutor exemplifies one popular line of thought, to the letter, to the tee, that I disagree with. This is exemplary of the kind of ideas that I refer to as ideological MGTOW.

I don’t agree with this line of thinking. I believe that it is merely a bad hypothesis of how the world works. These kind of arguments remind me of the kind of arguments made by racists and anti-Semites. ALL women are X. And bad. ALL men are under assault. There is no nuance.

So, I offer rebuttals.


“Most women are naturally inferior to men within most areas of advanced civilizations.”

Here’s where we have a flat-out disagreement. I’ve known and dated enough women to have tonnes of first-hand experience to the contrary.

“They therefore need/ want to parasite off men through government force (which feminism lobbies for).”

My belief is not that currently that many women need to, but have high-tech circumstances, combined with basic human nature that allows them to. Humans are lazy, greedy and selfish. Men, women, even monkeys will take a free ride if they can. Right now, men can’t, so we presume duty. Women now have that option, so they use it. Not all, but enough over a population of 7.something billion that it makes a difference.

“Most women are naturally amoral manipulative parasites.”

Most humans are.

“They must drag men down, in order to win; otherwise, most women could not compete with men through merit. Their inferiority causes a great deal of hostility to men.”


“Leftists are also inferior parasites, which must forcefully take from others. Inferiors will always want equal outcomes through government force. Governments are also parasites off productive economic activities.”

Do you realize that you’ve taken genetically similar creatures and just pushed your beliefs onto those with political beliefs?! You are looking for an over-arching Satan, when what you should be looking at is granular human monkey nature.

“In the future, these parasites will cause the economies of western nations to collapse through their parasitism. A collapsed economy means these parasites will starve, which will solve the problem. Nature and free-market economics always win.”

Because your ideological crystal ball has proven itself to be 100% accurate since forever, right?

By the way, I believe that free market economics will never win. The reason is very simple: Economics describes human activity, and humans are… stupid, lazy and greedy. That means “corrupt.” And we’ll always have the smart and aggressive and greedy who will have the drive to twist the system to their will. That’s why every large society that I know of is a mixed economy. A good part of it is just people doing business, but there’s always a state wanting to take its cut. If it could have been otherwise, it would be otherwise. Now.

Our system is in perfect conformance with human nature.

“The funny thing, men are already naturally opting-out or are being pushed out by inferior women demanding superior treatment.”

Yes, men are choosing to opt-out, because the system is not impartial, and many laws are unjust or unjustly applied. I believe in speaking out against them, and doing what I can to make practical changes. If you want to just opt-out, feel free.

“Negotiating is a waste of time,”

Of whose time? My experience is that if you speak to people in just the right way, that very often, they’ll recognize something they hadn’t before, and sometimes they decide to grow up.

The thing about living in a culture is that we take on the ideas of those next to us, and they to us. When we have similar ideas, we tend to confirm each others notions, because it’s the path of least resistance. Humans are lazy.

When you live in an environment where every man pays you to give away his dick, and every woman asserts that this is how it should be, do you not understand how a childish sense of entitlement can result? Then women recognize as they get older that their attractiveness fades, and fewer men are paying less to give them their dicks, and the flow dries up. Reality sets in, their world view is shaken, and they get angry and look for other ways to meet their needs. Marriage, children, etc. This is not a universal, it is merely too common.

You need to think about what is going on based on how reality works, not on what some ideologically oriented person told you it does. Based on my life experience, I can recognize right now that you are not thinking freely, you are repeating a self-comforting mantra.

“because women are far too illogical to see what they are doing. After the collapse, then the smart women and men can rebuild civilization, but the dumb ones need to reap what they have sown first. Smart men and women should not clean up the mess of the stupid people, until after they have departed.

Do you understand that there are just as many dumb, greedy and lazy men as there are similar women? This has always been the case. There’s a reason why large human societies have been hierarchical. Those with drive, ambition, guts, energy, focus, and other factors such as callousness, indifference and a sense of entitlement have dominated those who do not have these traits?

You err in thinking that only men have X traits and that only women have Y traits. What you’ve said, I’ve head hundreds of times. To me, it sounds like the bitter whining of the wounded. You have every right to feel wounded, and you have the right to feel what you do. You even have the right to carry bad ideas around in your head. It would serve you better to first address your own wounds, then check your thinking, because right now, what I’m hearing from you is justification for your pain, not a path to peace of mind, and ultimately, a greater peace for all.


If Big is Beautiful, unemployed is hot!

If Big is Beautiful, unemployed is hot!

If Big is Beautiful, unemployed is hot!


If big is beautiful, poverty is sexy

If big is beautiful, poverty is sexy

If big is beautiful, poverty is sexy.


Big is Beautiful. Right, Ladies?

Big is Beautiful. Right, Ladies?

Big is Beautiful! Right, Ladies?


It’s a Ma’am’s world

Two excellent analogies for how men and women currently interact relative to the Feminist hypothesis of Patriarchy, the alleged one-sided “oppression” of women. Men call it being treated like a disposable utility, in the case of these analogies, a hireling, someone who gets the job done then is told to take a hike.

Feminism purports “oppression” without acknowledging the benefits (“the privileges”) that come with the contract, and so uses this as a moral justification to demonize men. Many men see this set up as being taken advantage of.

Either both engage in the contract, or not. When men choose not to, because they see the contract as being inequitable, it’s called “MGTOW.” When men try to bring awareness of this, and change the laws that have taken this cultural norm of a contract into law, it’s called Men’s Rights Activism. When people simply discuss this issue free of the Feminist framework, it’s called Men’s Issues Advocacy.

Dear Feminists: want to smash the patriarchy? Be completely self-reliant, and make any exchange a mutually agreeable contract: do your own work, fend for yourself. We men certainly do. Feminists have spent years demonizing men, pointing to only to men’s advantages, and ignoring their obligations and disadvantages, while focusing exclusively on women’s inconveniences and ignoring the advantages that the contract brings them.

I especially appreciate the author’s conclusion: men have to stop offering, and women have to stop expecting. Women only expect the incessant freebies because men so undervalue what they have to offer, and so overvalue what women have to offer that they pay to give it away. “Oh! You want to go to Montana? Let me take you there, and while we’re at it, I’ll pay you for the trip! Can I throw in some extra free lunches for you? Would that incite you to ride my bus?”

We men are half the problem.

Tagged , , , ,

Real world effects of gynocentrism gone rampant

Again, false accusation of rape, the ruining of lives. The reason? Gynocentrism gone unchecked. Would this have happened to a woman were the roles reversed? I doubt it.

I congratulate Laura Wilson for coming forward to help Scott Espinoza. He spent 589 days in jail, and avoided a 35 year sentence but is forever branded a rapist because of a false rape allegation.

Tagged ,

Women Nowadays: a litany of horrors, GoodMenAmongUs a balm

There was once a YouTube channel called “ViolentWomenAmongUs” that had some 1500 to 2000 news clippings of women perpetrating horrible deeds. It was taken down. Another has taken its place. I don’t know if it is the same person.

The channel, like this one, is soul-sickening and rage inducing in its variety, persistence and sheer mass. Here is a more recent example.

Whereas the previous channels are an important resource to help re-balance the notion that women are precious, special, victimized princesses incapable of anything than goodness and light, it wasn’t enough.

I was so affected by the channel’s content that I had decided to create my own channel: GoodMenAmongUs *

Where our society tells us that men are horrible, violent, abusive rapists, I felt the need to show the other side of that coin. The Good Men Amongst Us channel is designed as a soul-balm to those who feel that men are being treated as little more than the evil puppets of the patriarchy.

I only update it sporadically, as my mental state requires, or as I run into a fortunate example worthy of putting up on the channel. It isn’t enough to be negative, one must be positive.

I invite you to subscribe, to pass it along to those who you think might benefit from it, and to send video recommendations of the like via a private message on the channel.

* I am embarrassed to say that the channel should have been properly named goodmenamongsTus :)


Check Your Dirt Poor 3rd World Male Privilege

Check Your Dirt Poor 3rd World Male Privilege

Lana Voreskova said:

At weekends, the teacher meets her friends and they all sit around wondering where all the good men have gone.
/me nods.