Guest Blogger: Ray Describes International Feminism

In response to: What Women Want on Takimag

“When you take into account the entire world, feminists have a point about 80% of the time.”

Uh, no, they don’t. Your feminist government, media, academia, churches, and twin ‘opposing’ political parties TELL you that females are ‘oppressed’ and ‘victimized’ everywhere in the world. You see that they aren’t by the evidence before your eyes in America . . . yet are quite willing (eager, I would suggest) to believe that pretty much everywhere else, yep, The Evil Patriarchy is Holding Down and Oppressing poor powerless females. And Something Must Be Done about it, too. And damn quick. Involving lots of money and punished males and empowered foreign girls/ women.

It’s just nonsense. Pure propaganda, an extension of the agit-prop the Anglosphere has been fed the past century. Totalitarian communist cant that legitimizes the imposition by America of feminist ideals, ideologies, and political systems on the rest of the planet. So that Downtrodden 80 percent can have Gender Equality too! like our happy and well-adjusted nation.

And we wonder why the West is a tyrannic matriarchy. The Right has been carrying feminist water for half-a-century now; here’s another example of why things never get better.

Gavin McInnes sounds like the prototypical American male with 2.5 daughters and 0.0 sons. OK maybe feminism has gone a LITTLE overboard in the United Sisterhood of Amerika, but . . . everywhere else on the planet, they sure do have a point. Until (inevitably) we discover that — just as in America, Canada, the UK etc. — they actually DON’T have a point and the lie of female oppression throughout the rest of the planet becomes just as apparent as the lie of female oppression in the west.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother. But this piece does illustrate why feminism conquered America so utterly. The opposition to it isn’t real. The majority of males WANT to believe that females are victimized and oppressed as basic standards of the policies of this planet’s nations. And they want to believe these things for reasons having nothing to do with facts, or truth, or anything objective. They are True Believers for personal, or psychological, or financial reasons. Usually, because men LOVE playing I’m The Big Man in front of females, their wives, and their daughters. Dunno what Gavin’s excuse is, but you can bet he’s got one.

Horse stands in front of the river. Observes the water. Dies of thirst.

Response by anonymous commenter:

  • Really? Hundreds of million of women aren’t oppressed and brutalized in Muslim countries?

    Correct. NOT Oppressed. Read it again and say the words s-l-o-w-l-y.
    Females face specific difficulties in each culture, and so do males. But male difficulties — in mooslim-land and elsewhere — are not labeled as oppression, victimization, etc. according to gender, and according to the falsifications and twistings of gender embraced and enforced by the institutions and Almighty People of US. As is done constantly concerning females in foreign nations.
    Gavin’s article illustrates why the only thing that American conservatives conserve is last decade’s feminism and totalitarian liberalism. It also illustrates how gynarchy came to rule the west, and why/how it’s exported to those other ‘backward’ nations who haven’t yet fully come on-line and in-step with World WomanChurch.

    Quoted with permission.

My response to Joseph Gordon-Levitt on what feminism means to me

A positive spin on mainstream feminists of the Roe v. Wade era back when men still believed that feminism was on their side. The Mighty Wurlitzer has gone discordant as eventually all Wurlitzers must. What will the new Wurlitzer sound like? Anything but the cry of hopelessly hungry babies or whistling bombs would sound like music to me. Laughter in the face of devastation is more powerful than any weapon big or small for it deflates the bellows.


Many thanks to @Bremstone who did the editing on this one for me.

View original post

The Father of Birth Control Rights is no Friend of Feminists—and that should come as no surprise

Over 50 years ago, Bill Baird, 82, began a journey that resulted in our ability to choose birth control, abortion, and our sexual practices as individuals rather than solely for marrieds or at the whim of the state.

Prior to Baird, Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger, and Ben Reitman are best known of the activists to have been arrested for education on reproductive freedom starting in 1916. However, these three also collectively and individually worked for additional controversial political causes such as anarchism, socialism, and racial eugenics. Furthermore, while Dr. Ben Reitman is better known for his work on abortion and venereal diseases than anarchism, his resultant fame is well-eclipsed by that of Goldman and Sanger who are thereby claimed by the feminists as two of their own. Although the work of these three is certainly important in terms of awareness and acceptance of sexual freedom, their progress on these areas was limited, particularly in the context of world events.

By the 1960’s, the climate was still unfavorable to reproductive freedom and Baird was arrested and jailed eight times in five states for educating on birth control and abortion. He also actually performed abortions (as did Reitman, a romantic partner of Emma Goldman whose interest in “free love” did not match Reitman’s). In fact, according to Wikipedia, “Bill Baird’s advocacy for reproductive rights began in 1963 after witnessing the death of an unmarried mother of nine children who died of a self-inflicted coat hanger abortion. As the clinical director of EMKO, a birth control manufacturer, he had been coordinating research at Harlem Hospital when she stumbled into the corridor, covered with blood from the waist down.”

(Source: Love and Cott, Feminists Who Changed America)

Finally in 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut established the right of married couples to use birth control. However, if marriage is “a tool of the patriarchy” as described by numerous feminist activists, then Baird’s contribution would be considered pivotal by key feminist organizations, right? Wrong.

Unlike previous activists, Baird’s efforts weren’t complicated by additional political agendas. He produced a signboard on which the various methods of birth control were displayed (birth control pills, diaphragm, condom, contraceptive foam, IUD) and would lecture freely to standing crowds throughout the country including the Bible Belt.

Baird brought a case to the Supreme Court that resulted in birth control being legal for non-married people (Baird v. Eisenstadt, 1972) extending the Right to Privacy to them. This historic victory set the primary legal precedent for Roe v. Wade (1973) that legalized abortion (or didn’t matter if one is a feminist and author of revisionist history), once the ideal case—Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe)—was identified. Although denied the abortion she sought and the cause of great acclaim toward the (female) attorneys in question (Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington), the National Organization of Women among other prominent feminist organizations apparently had little use for McCorvey soon afterward and thereby abandoned her. Unsurprisingly, when McCorvey was courted by Pro-Life activists, the economically struggling and reportedly temperamental lesbian Texan switched sides. In fact, part of the reason for McCorvey’s selection as the ideal Pro-Choice case in the first place had to do with the fact that she couldn’t afford to travel to a state where abortion was legal such as California.


The fact that McCorvey originally intended to lie that she was raped in order to circumvent Texas law is of particular note today for feminism’s current “rape culture/consent culture” climate.

By the way, it so happens that Roe v. Wade had a companion case known as Doe v. Bolton, wherein the plaintiff, Sandra Cano, who identifies as Pro-Life, had to be tricked by her (female) attorney into being the plaintiff for the case. However, since Cano apparently had more funds to make a stink about this deception, feminist revisionist history omits her.

Subsequent to Baird v. Eisenstadt, Baird had two more Supreme Court victories for a total of three, which is unique for a private citizen. He is also prominent in the clinic defense movement wherein live human beings—mostly men—put their bodies on the line for the protection of women. He has been shot at, assaulted, threatened, harassed, stalked, and driven to bankruptcy. After incurring a lifetime’s worth of incredible debt from legal costs, Baird was unable to raise a penny from any prominent Pro-Choice organization.

Baird was one of the earliest and loudest voices for birth control, abortion rights, gay rights, consenting adult lifestyles and practices, adult entertainment, and the legalization of marijuana. However, if you have never heard of Bill Baird and were wondering when the feminist-supportive media was planning to celebrate him, you could be wondering a long time.

Whereas Baird has been able to retain support of independents and pockets within the big organizations, such support comes at a price namely marginalization. Token acknowledgment therefore has failed to permeate the mainstream narrative which credits “feminism” for access to birth control and abortion while a safe and discrete male birth control solution has as yet failed to materialize for the general public (but there is hope in Vasagel). Every year, Right To Privacy Day is celebrated in cities across the United States on March 22 by sexual freedom advocates and clinic defenders, in celebration of the Baird v. Eisenstadt victory, albeit such grassroots efforts are ignored by The Patriarchymainstream feminist organizations and the media which panders to them.

Today, Bill Baird and his wife Joni continue their work through their organization Pro-Choice League ( A book that will reportedly provide an unprecedented thorough history of reproductive freedom is near completion. A small handful of loyal supporters donate when they can and the Bairds manage to sustain and continue their work.

Here is what Joni Baird has to say about the reaction of prominent feminists to her husband’s work, starting with Baird v. Eisenstadt:

The case began when Baird responded to a petition signed by nearly 700 Boston University students asking him to challenge the 1879 Massachusetts law that denied unmarried individuals access to birth control. On April 6, 1967, he lectured at Boston University to more than 2,500 people and, in a prearranged move, handed a nineteen-year-old unmarried woman a free condom and a package of contraceptive foam. The police thereupon made the necessary arrest and his case was launched.

Unfortunately, all wasn’t well among Baird’s supporters. The prearranged representation by the American Civil Liberties Union fell through two weeks after his arrest when the organization began questioning the constitutional merits of Baird’s case.

Another setback came when Jackie Ceballos of the newly formed National Organization for Women declined to support his efforts, stating that if his name were “Wilhelmina Baird” they would have backed him. NOW never did file a “friend of the court” brief in support of the case at any point during its five-year climb through the courts. Betty Friedan called Baird’s work “irrelevant” and even launched a rumor, initiated in the New York Post in 1971, that Baird was a CIA agent.

Probably the biggest shock was Planned Parenthoods response. The director of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts wrote that their lawyers had found no violation of constitutional rights in the law that was being challenged. Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher called Baird “overly enthusiastic.” Another organizational representative added, “The League feels it can live with the present law and Baird’s efforts are an embarrassment to our group.”

Despite this mixture of apathy and hostility from leading allies in the larger struggle for reproductive freedom, Baird pressed on, serving three months in the Charles Street Jail for distributing birth control, In handing down the sentence Judge Donald Macauley declared Baird “a menace to this nation.”

But the case finally reached the Supreme Court, where Associate Justice William O. Douglas wrote, “While the teachings of Bill Baird and Galileo are of a different order, the suppression of either is equally repugnant” The decision was six to one with Chief Justice Warren Burger dissenting. With that decision every birth control statute in the nation was struck down.

On the day the Court ruled, Baird predicted to reporters that antiabortion laws would be repealed within one year. Ten months later the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, quoting Baird’s case six times in its legalization of abortion.

Nonetheless, Baird was effectively written out of history. Leading reproductive rights organizations have preferred to cite an earlier case, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which a right of privacy was established in regard to the use of contraceptives by married couples. But it was the extension of privacy to unmarrieds that made the right complete, which is why Baird’s case, in the words of the late Roe v. Wade attorney Roy Lucas, “supplanted” Griswold. Lucas adds in his 2004 Roger Williams University Law Review article, “New Historical Insights on the Curious Case of Baird v. Eisenstadt,” that “one must acknowledge that the decision is among the most influential in the United States during the entire century by any manner or means of measurement” and says the case has impacted international law in Canada, Ireland, and England. It was even quoted five times in the 2003 Supreme Court decision in the gay rights case, Lawrence v. Texas.


While a male abortionist and a poor pregnant lesbian might not have the marquee appeal of a Somaly Mam, the discredited anti-trafficking activist to the great embarrassment of the organizations which supported her, being dropped when no longer useful would appear to be a pattern of the corporate and government feminist strongholds who supposedly represent feminism and its face of activism. This movement which supposedly represents all women (except “self-hating” ones such as this author) and those men who desire equal rights for men and women (but not “men’s rights”) have become the de facto certifying authority of what constitutes sexual political-correctiveness and the government’s involvement thereto. While cries of “racism” and “eugenics” might today be the rallying cry of the unholy alliance between Social Marxists and The Religious Right in the United States, a Swedish blog led me to this:

The Bairds were not contacted for this article as it would surely do them no favors to be endorsed by a nutcase such as Caprizchka.

Evolutionary Behavior of the Sexes

Edited with updates to graphic links.

As much as I am an anti-feminist and sympathetic toward men who are negotiating today’s loaded minefield of the gender wars, I find that I have come to critically examine the latest in “evolutionary” thought as pertains to the different motivations of the sexes.

Ironically, I find the latest evolutionary psychology research to be anti-evolutionary, that is, a method of preserving our calcified aristocracies despite their faulty philosophical values, pyramid schemes, and faulty genes.

As complicated as many of these theories may be, the man who can simplify evolutionary thought for the apparent or perceived benefit of other men can make himself very rich.

There is a well-circulated video going around which you may recognize. It is The Universal Hot/Crazy matrix:

The brilliance of this simplification is of course matched by its humor. However, there are some problems, that is, it would represent the same faulty logic of today’s evolutionary psychologists for the same reasons.

However the very simplicity of the approach makes it ripe for glib and facile analysis. In short, it is just my cup of tea.

As funny and clever as this piece is, I’m expecting the “sign up now” speech at the end enlisting all the bright young energetic members of the male audience into the presenter’s pyramid scheme…Amway?

“Even if you’re ugly, boys, you too can have a beautiful and not-too-crazy wife. All that matters is money and I’m the one who is going to help you get it. Just sign up now. You’ll be inviting me to your wedding.”

I presume that his wife has already availed herself of every cosmetic procedure known to man, he tells her how beautiful she is so often that she has come to believe it, she doesn’t exist (so he hires a model to play “wife”), or she is actually a tranny (I’m old enough to remember when this word was not a “slur” but was rather an empowering group-identification endearment).

The reason why “unicorns” are so rare today is because it used to be that privileged young girls were protected from all the various things (propaganda, traveling salesmen/”educators”, “bad” men, women’s magazines, “the cinema”, etc.) that drive women crazy and ruin their looks today.

Girls were also once taught certain social graces: how to be useful, charming, diplomatic, productive, etc. such as to feel good about themselves and exude that good will toward all who would encounter them.

This example filtered down the classes such that even poor families knew better than to leave their precious little girls unprotected. Unfortunately, this protection was called “oppression” by bitter, crazy, and ugly women of all ages, many of whom joined convents as the last possible refuge for their kind. Others’ joined The Woman’s Movement, The Temperance Movement, held evangelical revivals, or became the very teachers the world depended on to teach their girls some grace. This backfired, terribly.

These wonderful and kind “oppressed” women generously allowed “equal” little girls all the “terrible” things that were denied them by “The Patriarchy” while meanwhile subjecting those girls to a constant stream of shaming techniques for the crime of being young and beautiful.

Such a girl would either grow up terrified of other women (and therefore willing to do anything to be sheltered by some rich man such as to not have to deal with harpies ever again), physically sick, if-you-can’t-beat-em-join-em-butt-ugly-and-crazy, obsessed with her looks well beyond care for her own sanity, or all of the above. A very tiny minority however would become so propaganda-resistant that such a woman would run-for-the-hills to be cared for by the wolves rather than submit herself for “study” by the rapidly burgeoning academic class. Such women, therefore, effectively don’t exist. Of course a beautiful woman surrounded by wolves is not exactly a marriage prospect–even if a beau manages to fight his way past all the wolves, if he were to hurt her wolves she’s likely to kill him and be well physically equipped to do so.

Some women however learned from their experience with the harpies and decided that youth and beauty in a girl was not only not a crime but was a cause for celebration. These women took to “Princess Parties” for their special little darlings with gusto. Whereas girls of all classes once had two fancy dress occasions (“coming of age” and wedding) suddenly every day was a fancy dress occasion, just like for actresses and prostitutes. Everyone was a star. As a result, even boys wanted to be Princesses. Everyone wanted to be a Princess. Princesses are good! Even a “Half-Breed” like Cher can be a Princess.

Isn’t she beautiful?

I wonder whose job it is to tell her this every day?

Here is her beautiful daughter, Chastity. Cher is of course more beautiful because after all she is multi-ethnic; whereas Chasity is also multi-ethnic but “fair game” so to speak:

What? Oh sorry. What a hunk!

Here’s a better pic:

Chaz Bono must have money, obviously. “Real men” don’t need no fancy beauty procedures. What a catch.

Absolutely anyone can be beautiful or handsome. It helps to either have a great attitude or to have lots and lots of money. If you are on top of the pyramid in fact, you set the standard. You define what is attractive and what researchers say is attractive. It’s known as fashion. Evolutionary psychologists today are little more than glorified fashionistas.

While I am sympathetic and understand the confirmation bias held by individuals of all sexual persuasions, ages, economic brackets, etc., if men such as the presenter were genuinely interested in studying or creating “unicorns”, their wives would divorce them and take them to the cleaners faster than you can say “Cinderella”. Besides it isn’t as if most men feel worthy of such a prize (which is why so many beautiful women end up alone). Such is the sad realization of men who divorce their ugly hate-bucket to marry a trophy with less than discerning personality screening skills but then run out of money before bride-number-two’s scheduled facelift.

Rich men, on the other hand, don’t necessarily have the power to marry who they want to marry. It is sad but true that the aristocracy is a prison of sorts. There are only a limited number of eligible brides (but an unlimited number of hopeful Cinderellas). Wouldn’t it be great if there was a reasonable and scientific justification for the sexual behavior of scientific patrons? That would surely save a lot of marriages outside of the aristocracy. As for the calcification within the aristocracy, I’ll bet we haven’t fully seen how that will play out.

Besides, the pyramid scheme is the whole business and is how “beta” men rule the world today. In addition to Amway, there’s also Christianity (of various types), Judaism, Islam, Darwinism, Patriotism, Race-Pride, and Political-Party Pride. The important thing is to build the pyramid with as many suckers as possible, through any means necessary, and then call the result “Providence” or “Evolution” or some other good and natural and scientific name. Demographics and behavioral conditioning studies—as well intentioned as they may be—have the misfortune of actually destroying their own field of research. It’s a paradox. To look at something changes it. There’s just too much money in pinning down the correct answer and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Eventually, tiny little skulls and asthma in a girl will be considered “beautiful” and wars shall be fought in such a fair damsel’s honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the most beautiful woman in the world:

Just kidding. Here she is:

Why not just name her, “Chastity”?

Profile of a Misogynist: Mike Buchanan

Thanks for spelling my name right. By the way, Paul Elam, Mike Buchanan, etc. have way too much class to associate with me. You ladies on the other hand, are about my speed. Too bad you’ve banned me. I’ll just have to respond to your comments to me on my own blog.


Mike Buchanan is a traditional conservative (Tory) from the UK. He is an MRA that plays tag along with Paul Elam. He got so frustrated with his own government for helping women that he quit the Tories and started his own political party called Justice4MenandBoys or J4MB. His political platform is focused on ‘stopping feminism’, which will never happen.

‘For over 30 years, men’s and boys’ human rights have been assaulted by politicians pandering to the demands of women driven by misandry (the hatred of men) – feminist MPs, as well as feminists in key positions in state institutions.’

There are 2 people in his political party gearing up for the 2015 election and is currently developing his platform.

He’s been on British TV a few times but says he probably won’t be invited back. No surprise. On his website he gives out awards for ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ as well as other similarly named…

View original post 412 more words

Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge (Josephine) Speaks in Opposition to Womens’ Suffrage 1911

Dodge, Josephine Jewell, 1855-1928, in her own words (1911):


By Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge,

President, National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, New York City.

From The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

[Claremont College:]

Equal suffrage awaits a trial. Woman suffrage as tried in the United States is the most unequal division of responsibilities imaginable. The voting woman has retained most of the special rights and exemptions accorded her under man-made laws, while she has failed to discharge the obligations which the voting man assumes with the elective franchise. The vote of the man is a sort of contract to support the verdict of the ballot box, if need be, by the jury box, the cartridge belt, the sheriff’s summons. The voting woman is exempt from these obligations. She is a privileged voter. While she may have political power, she does not have political control. Stability of government demands that the control of government should remain in the hands of those who can be held responsible for results. Frederick Harrison cautions us that “Men, and men only, are entitled to political control since, in the last resort, it is their muscular force which has to make good and defend it.”

Certainly it is unequal suffrage while women retain the exemptions demanded by their physical nature, and exercise political power without responsibility. Such inequalities menace the stability of the state. Some venturesome enthusiasts declare that women wish no special rights, no special laws, but wish to be treated “exactly as the men are.” But such consistency as this is rare; it would be a brutal interpretation of woman’s rights to insist that the hard-won body of legislation, which protects woman because she is the potential mother, be abolished and the vote given to woman in exchange. Yet this and this only is equal suffrage. “To treat women exactly as men” is to deny all the progress through evolution which has been made by an increasing specialization of function. Woman suffrage in its last analysis is a retrogressive movement toward conditions where the work of man and woman was the same because neither sex had evolved enough to see the wisdom of being a specialist in its own line.

Reform work, welfare work, desirable and necessary though they may be to offset the results of faulty education, are not the sole end of government. Legislation dealing with these measures responds to the pressure of public opinion which woman, the educator, supreme factor in the social order, dominates. But government is not reform legislation. In the last analysis government is concerned with the protection of persons and property. It is well for us in these days of fantastic legislation, of the promulgation of unenforced and unenforceable laws to recall Thomas Jefferson’s dictum that a democracy ceases to be such when those who make the laws cease to be those who can enforce the laws.

We are all agreed on the right of every woman, as of every man, to that individual development which shall make possible her fullest contribution to the social order. If it can be shown, as Ex-President Taft suggest, that women have been unjustly prejudiced by governmental measures or the lack of them and that they could remedy this by their vote, or if they can show that, by the extension of the franchise to women either the general government would be better or stronger, or the existing electorate would be improved in its average moral tone, its intelligence, its political discrimination, its patriotism and attention to political duties, they make their case.

In a democracy the people are “bound to obedience under what is undoubtedly the will of the majority.” It has yet to be shown that the majority of women are behind this demand for political activities. If women are intelligent enough to vote, are they not intelligent enough to know whether or not they are ready to assume the responsibilities of government? Those who insist that political justice demands woman’s enfranchisement must recognize the right of woman to say whether or not she shall be drafted into political activities, a right based upon woman’s concern in the establishment and maintenance of sound public policies.

Under the common law which we inherited from England, woman suffered many disabilities and inequalities. Without the woman’s vote and under man-made laws these inequalities have been gradually reduced until the statute books of most states record the legal rights and exemptions of women, laws which discriminate in favor of women in regard to such matters as dower rights, alimony, and personal property and laws, which show that woman, instead of being “unjustly prejudiced by governmental measures,” has been given special protection under the law in recognition of the fact that as a woman she has a special service to perform for the state and the state must surround her with protective legislation in order that she may be most efficient where the state demands her highest efficiency; in order that the motherhood of the race may be protected and that future citizens shall have the birth right and the inheritance of a strong and vigorous childhood.

Because of her lowered physical and nervous vitality, the woman worker has had to be protected in her industrial life in order that the state must conserve her value as the woman citizen. Women cannot be treated exactly as men are, and motherhood, potential or actual, does determine woman’s efficiency in industrial and social undertakings. Merely dropping a piece of paper in the ballot box is not a contribution to stable government unless that piece of paper be followed up by persistent and ofttimes aggressive activities in the field of political strife.

While the cry for political equality (which we contend is political inequality) has gone on, the civil and legal rights of women have been established without the woman’s vote. Furthermore, it may be state that wherever the votes of women have been added to the votes of men there has been no evidence of initiative in legislation distinct from the normal trend of such legislation in male suffrage states. Since this is so, the woman’s vote would seem to be a waste of energy, because a duplication of effort, and there is no compensating gain to offset the economic loss of two people doing what one person can do.

The woman’s vote has not been necessary to open the opportunities for higher education to her. Women like Mary Lyon, Emily Willard and Catherine Beecher, who had no concern with the woman suffrage agitation, did their splendid pioneer educational work and the woman of today reaps the harvest. The right of woman to enter the trades or professions has been won independent of her political activities. It is true that a dozen or more trades are closed to her, but her participation in these threatens her welfare as a woman and the state reserves the right to limit her activities therein. Male suffrage states have recognized the need of vocational training for woman and have opened trade schools wherein girls might become skilled workers and so be in a position to command higher wages. The appalling fact of woman in industry is that she is often so young and so unskilled that she consequently commands a low wage. A survey of the wage earning women of the United States reveals the fact that nearly one-third of these are under voting age. The right of the industrial woman to organization for collective bargaining is recognized. No vote of woman was necessary to give her this equality with the working man. The right of women to protection in the courts, the right of our women to claim the protection as citizens under the United States flag, is established on an absolute equality with man’s similar right, without woman’s political activities. The married woman has the right to hold property separately; to make contracts and to control her wages. Equality should demand that a husband should have a right to his own earnings, but society demands that his earnings shall be liable for the support and maintenance of his family while, except in some woman suffrage states, the wife’s earnings are exempt from such liability. Even in those states where equal guardianship laws are not written on the statute books the practice of the courts, in those unfortunate instances where the family is disrupted, gives the guardianship of minor children to the mother provided she is a fit person and provide means for their support. The divorce courts certainly reveal no inequalities in the granting of divorce to men and women, while the courts grant to men no provision corresponding to the woman’s alimony.

The first commission to investigate a minimum wage for women was appointed in the male suffrage state of Massachusetts. The fundamental basis of a standard law for woman in industry is acknowledged to be the prohibition of night work, because of the damaged health of the working woman who is engaged in industrial pursuits by night and undertakes woman’s work in the home by day. Nebraska, Massachusetts and Indiana blazed the path for this legislation. Within the last year, the great industrial states of New York and Pennsylvania have followed. In none of these states do women vote, but in all of these states public opinion has demanded that woman should not be handicapped in the offering of her highest efficiency. The state cannot permit the creation of the efficient worker at the cost of the efficient woman. Equal suffrage would demand that woman should enter into competition with man in a fair field with favor to none, but woman’s welfare demands protection under the laws.

The best child labor laws are found in male suffrage states. Industrial and economic conditions have revealed the necessity of these laws. Public opinion in which the work of women played a noble part has urged their enactment and the votes of women have not been necessary to further the release of the child from the burden of industrial life.

The hideous white slave traffic and the dread social evil must be corrected by education rather than by political propaganda. Laws must follow as the knowledge of the extent of the evil awakens the public conscience and the moral sense of the people is aroused. Woman will find her work as the educator who develops a trained and scientific opinion, not as the politician who must control votes.

Women have a right to demand political responsibility if thereby the existing electorate would be improved “in its average moral one, its intelligence, its political discrimination, its patriotism and attention to political duties.” The burden of proving that the enlarged electorate would be an improved electorate rests on those who demand the change. Many women are more intelligent, more moral than many men, but the morality and intelligence women and men of the same opportunities and environment strike about the same average and it has yet to be shown that the doubling of the electorate, the wise, the foolish, the patriotic, the self-seeking, would improve the electorate. The enfranchised woman seems to give even less attention than man to political duties, if we are to trust election returns. If woman suffrage is to increase the danger which confronts us today in the indifferent and stay-at-home voter, [note: absentee ballots had not been invented yet—Cap] the patriotic women have the right to protest against the imposition upon women of responsibilities which would not be fulfilled. The right to vote carries with it a moral responsibility of exercising the franchise, therefore the majority of women who do not believe in woman suffrage have the right to protest against this obligation.

The life of the average woman is not so ordered as to give her first hand knowledge of those things which are the essentials of sound government. Clean streets and pure milk are sure to come as the knowledge of sanitary living increases. Tariff reform, fiscal policies, international relations, those large endeavors which men now determine, are foreign to the concerns and pursuits of the average woman. She is worthily employed in other departments of life, and the vote will not help her to fulfill her obligations therein.

The Need to Breed

Hopefully, future generations will include some critical individuals who will determine that any system which requires endless growth in order to survive is by definition a cancerous dystopia.

However, how is it that the nuttier the eugenics scheme, the more likely it is to gain traction?

Theoretically, “uncivilized” women have more regular menstrual cycles than “civilized” women who are subject to a bombardment of artificial constructs: technology, “scientific” diets, isolation from nature, etc. However, somewhere along the line, eugenicists such as Hitler (and the Allied industrialists who funded him) decided that a high sex drive was somehow genetically “inferior” to rabid self-control, worship of female virgins, and dietary practices somehow attributed with lowering the disposition to masturbation (i.e., The Kelloggs’ obsession with a high-fiber diet of empty calories and enemas:

Somehow, these cretins associate high reproductivity with high sex drive because each “blessed event” is somehow beyond one’s control. Naturally, none of these brainiacs considered that alternative non-reproductive sexual behavior is something that can be intelligently selected during one’s regular and scheduled ovulation and would be an obvious choice for a person concerned about mobility and resources (a typical hunter/gatherer). Weston A. Price in his studies of “isolated peoples uninfluenced by the foods of modern commerce” in the 1930’s found these primitives to unaccountably space out their reproduction by four to six years and thereby ensure quality of offspring over quantity thereby denigrating the logic of the “civilizeds.” Meanwhile, Mr. Adolph Civilized was reportedly a Coprophiliac:

At least such practices are non-reproductive. (Count me out but no judgment here.) Personally, I’m more concerned about the number of suicides among his female paramours and wonder if there is a relationship to Hitler’s over-romanticized vision of womanhood and their suicides.

It is my belief that some of the current disparagement about testosterone—associating an increase of it with violent behavior—is just more “sex-shaming” eugenicist behavior (or old men trying to attribute poor motivations to young men). Rather, I accept those studies which associate insulin—combined with high testosterone—as more violence inducing (and lifespan shortening). High testosterone is associated with high sex drive and high tolerance for risk. Such may include defending one’s territory from competing males but is unlikely to result in violence against women.

The high testosterone men who I’ve known have loved women—in every way imaginable. Healthy, happy, easy-going men tend to love sex—my observation—and be able to understand that although children may result from intercourse ideally unwanted children are prevented by obvious means (birth control, alternative sexual activities, etc.). There’s nothing magic or civilized about this notion.

However, a diet that depends largely on fruits, grains, and sugars would predispose one to higher insulin, which, in competing with anabolic hormones such as testosterone and human growth hormone might predispose one to conversion of testosterone to its more “violent” (or catabolic) derivatives. If Hitler was reportedly a vegetarian ( perhaps insulin can be blamed for his predisposition toward violence on a horrific scale. However, when population starts over-competing for resources, wouldn’t anomalous human behavior be natural?

So, who is doing the overbreeding nowadays? In a global recession it would appear that unwed motherhood is the last fail-safe survival method. Breeding more babies than one can feed oneself is a guaranteed meal ticket. What happens to these babies?

  • They lower the cost of labor by contributing to an increasing pool of unskilled labor.
  • They become inmates in the United States of Prisons—dwarfing all other imprisonment rates combined.
  • They sign up for our bloated military industrialist complex.
  • They have more fatherless babies.

Interestingly, all efforts to halt this tide of babies are met with strident criticism—from the left and the right. Why shouldn’t there be birth control made widely available? (Because that would tread on entrenched power structures from Planned Parenthood to The Religious Right).

Why shouldn’t taxpayer aid to children be predicated on the sterilization of the parents? Because that would be “eugenics” and besides a lot of women depend on this fail safe, recession proof, source of livelihood: irresponsible parenting. But wouldn’t obedience to this nonsense rhetoric—on both sides of the political divide—be a clear measure of inferior logic?

Perhaps our mysterious and unfathomable masters have that piece of the eugenics puzzle already worked out. Of course, a truly effective plan would have to be worked out over generations and be impervious to corruption, rebellion from within, etc. For example, creatures such as Laura Magdalene Eisenhower would have to be effectively placated and marginalized (such as by vegetarianism) while serving as a magnet for disruptive nutcases with money.

Climate hysteria, and hysteria in general, seem to be in great abundance. It is unfortunate that hysteria itself probably does not lower fecundity. Rather, Freud taught us that the cure for hysteria is sexual release. I contend that the far more longlasting guaranteed cure is to stop reproducing like bunnies. Not that anyone listens to me.

The Octopus and The Cock Shot

The male octopus has a modified arm called the hectocotylus, which is about a meter long and holds rows of sperm. Depending on the species, he will either approach a receptive female and insert the arm into her oviduct or take off the arm and give it to her to store in her mantle for later. In the latter scenario, the female keeps the arm until she lays her eggs, at which time she takes the arm out and spreads the sperm over her eggs to fertilize them.


A “cock shot” is a submissive act in my view akin to giving a female octopus a piece of your appendage that she accepts in lieu of cannibalism. A Dominant female who prefers to take the sexual initiative could well see that pic as “an offering” for her approval. Since I am oft mistaken for a Dominant female (the cigar doesn’t help but what can I say? I’m orally fixated.), I get my share of cock shots. I’m never quite sure how to respond.

I liken a cock shot to a photo of a chocolate truffle.

“Oh that’s nice,” I may say. “But what am I supposed to do with it?”

Cocks are for sucking, stroking, choking on, and of course, fucking. Admiring photos of them on the other hand is not how I choose to spend my time. They don’t offend me. They merely put me at a loss for words. I don’t have eyes in any of my orifices and my eyes don’t actually connect directly to my snatch. In my view, a cock shot benefits hugely from–a ribbon, a hand, a tongue, a gaping moist orifice. The proper way to worship a cock in my view is with touch not mere observation.

“Yes. Thank you. I will take this for my own to use to fertilize the eggs of my growing young,” said the octopus.

As for me, I’m more like a dog at heart.

“Would you like to play?” Pant. Pant.

If you, dear reader, have a dog, try showing it a picture of a bone.

If the dog becomes excited, please let me know.



Just another site

The State

Political Commentary

Stateless Homesteading

Nourishing the Predator

The Silent Soldier

The Voice of Americas Forgotten Heroes, Our Veterans

Don't Marry

Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men


It is time to reclaim common sense.

Norbert Zillatron

Vaping and Science


Seeking Ideas Beyond Conventional Thought

Flurry of Thoughts


From My Side of the Fence

The Theological Perspectives of Dr. Mark A. Ellis

Becoming The Monolith

Strength for body and mind

Stately McDaniel Manor

Culture, Politics, Firearms, Education, Literature, Philosophy, Music, And Other Musings

Brain-Computer (World CACH)

World CACH against the Mind for Control


Stop Organized Gang Stalking

Targeted Individuals Canada

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of Canadian Constitution that protects its citizens from human rights violations.

The New Modern Man

The Truth About Women and The World | Politically Incorrect Facts and Analysis for Men


Just another site

just another day in paradise

just what happens to be rolling around in my head


Badge, Gun, Attitude. Yep, I'm Ready. Don't like my opinions? Go away, read another blog.

Chainsoff's Blog

A topnotch

Vernon Pope

Politics - the game nobody wins.

The Daley Gator

If You're Left, You Just Ain't Right

Cigars and Legs

Nourishing the Predator

"A nation of sheep, begets a government of wolves."

The Grey Enigma

Help is not coming. Neither is permisson. -

dick johnson


Keenan's Best Shot


Notes From a Red Pill Girl

A site for women interested in a red pill perspective (where men are welcome too!)

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

The Phantom Tollbooth

An ADHD diagnosed, happily married black man's perception of North America

Megiddo Films | A Reformed Christian Film and Research Ministry

ARLIN REPORT...................walking this path together


Jim's Blog

Nourishing the Predator

Ben Bien

Nourishing the Predator

luisman's blog

for men, MGTOW's and critical thinkers

The Empty Subject

Nourishing the Predator


The People's Blog


I will face my fear and let it pass through me.

Amerika: New Right, Conservationist, Traditionalist, Deep Ecology and Conservative Thought

New Right, Conservationist, Traditionalist, Deep Ecology and Conservative Thought: Conservation Conservatism (Crunchy Paleoconservatism)

Andrew Holt, Ph.D.

History, Religion, and Academia