5+ hours of video all about me? Yeah, no thanks.

26 Feb

Some YouTuber who goes by the name RazorBladeKandy has thus far dedicated more than 5 hours of his life to examining whether I am a lying, filthy whore who hates men and only wants them for money and sperm.

Guess I haven’t been obvious enough? I wish that were a joke, but it’s not. I have not watched the videos, nor do I have any plans to. What I did do was offer to talk to RBK and answer any questions he might have. I was planning on agreeing with everything he said, as a flummoxing technique to highlight the absurdity of his apparent arguments.

RBK: Is it true that you are a whore who fucks your husband so he will buy you things?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true that you only value men for money?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true that you think men should die in filthy sewers so women can lead lives of luxury?

JB: Yes

And so forth….it had the potential to be rather hilarious, I think. Alas, RBK had a hissy fit because I had no idea who he was and was thus unaware of the fact he has a health issue that prevents him from speaking. I suggested adapting a platform so that he could use text and I would use spoken words. He sent me an email that scrolled over pages and pages and pages and once I passed the “you’re a bully and a cunt” part of the message, I was less than inspired to give this person any more of my time.

time

The MGTOW wars have been going on for some time now and I mostly pay them no attention, despite the fact that I appear to have achieved some sort of status as the personification of TEH EVIL WIMMINZ! The MGTOWs I work with at AVfM and elsewhere are of the rational, risk assessment mindset, and not of the all women are evil whores variety. I don’t disagree with MGTOW as a rational response to family laws that are deeply biased against fathers. Why would any sane man agree to give away half of his stuff when a surrogate mother can be purchased for $20K? Inherent in the whole MGTOW philosophy though is that a man makes his own decisions about his own life, and does not serve an ideology at the expense of his own well-being.

A man who makes the decision to marry after assessing the risks and the probabilities specific to his own situation is still going his own way. I find it kind of amusingly ironic that the Men Going Their Own Way philosophy espoused by the radical MGTOW sect includes sanctions against which ways men are allowed to go. Men, go your own way, unless it’s a way we don’t approve of! Lol! Sound familiar?

fuck-you-traitor

A separate conversation over at AVfM led in an unexpected direction, and I think this is the key issue.

suz comment

JB comment

For the vast majority of people, just average, common, normal people, the ideal marriage and family (let’s assume men and women are treated equally under the law at this point) would look something like this, I think: both men and women have the flexibility to earn money and be with their families to the extent that each wish to do so. A breastfeeding baby with a tiny tummy, who eats every two hours around the clock will need mommy around. An older baby or a baby who eats less frequently allows for a more equitable sharing of time between mommy and daddy, depending on what mommy and daddy want. The conversation that we don’t have with either men or women is one that encourages both to really think about how they want their families structured. An ambitious parent, male or female, who lusts for the corner office above all else, needs to consider who will be doing the daily slog work of raising children, assuming that couple wants children.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ambition, but there is something very wrong with adding children to that life without thinking through the impact on those children. Most humans, like it or not, are pretty predictable. Most women want to be at home with their young children, and most men take great pride in providing for their families and there is nothing wrong with that. Enforcing that as an immutable social requirement is not acceptable to anyone, one hopes. There are plenty of women who are perfectly happy to spend an hour with their children on an average day, and plenty of men who would love nothing more than to be at home with their little ones, making mud pies and doing laundry. Those men and women should find each other.

What happens in our current reality is that women are taught that earning an income is the only measure of their worth, and it’s only when they have children they realize how very wrong that is. Men are also taught that earning an income is the only measure of their worth, and when they have children, that is generally confirmed for them. The most important thing a man with children can do is protect them. We don’t live on the savannah in grass huts anymore, so hunting down predatory lions isn’t on the daily calendar for most men. Modern life requires a man to hunt down money. Radical MGTOWs scream blue murder about this because they hate that a great many men take an enormous pride in providing and protecting their families. They are hysterically opposed to any definition of masculinity that centers on men providing for and protecting their loved ones, because they take that to mean men are “disposable” to their loved ones.

couple

Their loved ones, no doubt, tell a very different story.

Radical feminism hates femininity, and despises women who would rather stay home and raise happy, healthy families, and radical MGTOW hates masculinity, and despises men who would rather work to provide for their happy, healthy families being raised at home.

Isn’t that just a match made in heaven?

I suspect a great many of the radical MGTOWs do not have children, and many of the normal MGTOWs do, and have experienced first hand the brutality of the family courts. A good friend introduced me to the term neotraditional, and I think it’s a great concept. It describes people who take the good parts of traditional gender roles and adapt them to their own circumstances, personalities and situations. In practice it means that while women contribute to the family financially, and while men contribute to the family in terms of childcare and housework, the central ideal of man as breadwinner doesn’t change. And it appears that most men and women prefer their lives this way.

I personally would like to see our culture change, not to rigidly adhere to any particular family structure (it’s none of my business who scrubs the toilet in your house) but to openly, honestly and without any kind of shame talk about what we as individuals want from our families. Women who prefer to spend most of their waking hours at work should not be shamed, any more than a man who loves and wants to work long hours should be shamed. Both, however, should be shamed for demanding a partner who shares the same mindset and then having children. In simple terms, ambitious workaholics of either gender should not marry one another if they plan on having children. Dentists should marry one of their hygienists, not another dentist.

This, to me, is what MGTOW hysteria comes down to. I am extremely happy taking a backseat to my husband’s career and he is very happy that he does not have to negotiate with a working wife over who makes dinner every night. We have a traditional marriage. He earns a living, I make the living worthwhile. MGTOWs screeching about what a lazy whore I am, and how much I clearly hate men and think they are cash dispensers are, in fact, insulting my husband and his choices. Fairly profoundly. As our children are getting older, I am very much interested in rejoining the labor market, although never in a way that eclipses my husband.

This whole MGTOW Janet is a whore who hates men “debate” has actually prompted a very interesting decision in my personal life. As many of you know, I am in a PhD program in Entrepreneurship and Innovation and I have completed my literature review, which is now published. I took a year’s leave of absence and must now decide whether I want to enter the data collection phase of the dissertation. During this same time period, my husband has completed a very complicated accreditation process for his organization that opens up a number of other job possibilities for him, and looking over the preliminary offers, it occurred to both of us that if I pursue the PhD, his options are instantly limited. Over the course of several days, we have discussed what that really means to both of us. Mr. JB cannot hide his disappointment that certain opportunities will be impossible for him to pursue if he must take a job for me into consideration. I have no burning desire to continue my research into biotechnology clusters, trust me.

I am already being offered positions, with starting salaries coming in around $100K. That’s a significant amount of money. I chose my specialization knowing I would be in high demand. I have no particular interest in my subject area. It’s just hot in business schools right now. Innovation, entrepreneurship, biotechnology, cluster theory, Big Data analytics, monetizing intellectual properties, incubators – I can earn some very nice money going down this path.

And in doing so, I will prevent my husband from doing the job he actually loves doing and I will keep him from realizing the full financial potential of his skillset, built up over the past twenty years.

For what?

So we can pat ourselves on the back for rejecting traditional gender roles? So we can enjoy meeting the ideological conditions of our brave new world while I do a job I have no interest in and he watches other candidates take the positions he would love to have?

Hang on to your little hats, radical MGTOWs. I’m quitting the PhD. I will stand happily on the sidelines and cheer my husband onwards and we will both have exactly what we want.

RBK: Is it true you have refused a job for $100K/yr so you can continue to exploit your husband?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true you have no real interest in ever being independent?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true you plan to leech, like the vile parasite you are, off this innocent man until you die?

JB: Yes

Til death do us part, baby.

kiss

Til death do us part.

Lots of love,

JB

 

 

 

 

 

 

102 Responses to “5+ hours of video all about me? Yeah, no thanks.”

  1. The Cul-de-Sac Hero February 26, 2015 at 01:47 #

    I tried to watch RBK’s first video but he kept using the traditionalist smear. To him, any type of marriage is traditionalism and exploits men. I find this attitude among radical MGTOW to be as deeply in denial of human nature as any radical feminist notion. Any ideology that denies the basic human desire to form strong familial bonds whereby each partner commits their life to the other in a mutually agreed upon exchange of love and work is fundamentally anti-human. This applies to both rad MGTOW and feminism.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. insanitybytes22 February 26, 2015 at 02:01 #

    LOL, okay, this was really funny, “Is it true you have refused a job for $100K/yr so you can continue to exploit your husband?”

    I delight in “exploiting” my husband and he sure doesn’t seem too upset about it. I’ve made a lot of choices and sacrifices about supporting his business, where he wants to live, how many kids he wanted, how much of my time I’d spend away from home. These are the things you do when you love somebody and they really pay off in the end. It’s probably hard for people that aren’t happily married to understand, but pleasing somebody else is what brings you joy, too.

    Don’t sweat the 100 K. Just think of the taxes you would have to pay.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. that1susan February 26, 2015 at 02:16 #

    “I personally would like to see our culture change, not to rigidly adhere to any particular family structure (it’s none of my business who scrubs the toilet in your house) but to openly, honestly and without any kind of shame talk about what we as individuals want from our families.”

    I’d like to see this, too.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Robert Franklin February 26, 2015 at 04:41 #

    I agree that everyone needs to discuss what they want out of work life and family life, and that each person in the couple needs to be as satisfied with the outcome of those discussions as possible. The arrangement for you JB, seems satisfactory for you and your husband. Good. But what we all notice is that, if the two of you were to divorce, you would get the kids, alimony and child support, if you chose. Your husband is an adult and can make his own choices, but the very choices that seem right to him now would start to look very wrong in divorce court, again, if you elected to make it that way. If you were kinder and more honorable than many mothers are, great, but there’s no doubt about who would have the power in the divorce case.

    At the National Parents Organization website, I’ve long argued that family courts need to stop pretending that parents who bring home the bacon in some way aren’t real parents, but those who change diapers are. Remove that wholly false and largely sexist dichotomy and we’d solve a lot of the problems so many men are rightly concerned about.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. farkennel February 26, 2015 at 04:53 #

    There`s lying filthy whores who only want my money and sperm?????Where do I sign?I have nothing but respect for you Judgy Bitch and I find your hubby to be a lucky fellow.Keep up the good work young lady.Oh…I forgot…you`re a Canadialander…folk with tails and attitudes…strange cattle them Canadialanders……

    Like

  6. Passerby February 26, 2015 at 08:32 #

    Just think, RBKs hours and hours of “courtroom” time wasted because he forgot to establish valid terms of reference. As any judicial official knows, establishing correct terms of reference are pivotal to any investigation. In this case he should have been evaluating your status as a neo-traditionalist, not that he has ever probably heard that term.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Bal February 26, 2015 at 13:33 #

    I wouldn’t consider mgtows who think men getting married stop being mgtows to be hypocritical. The qualifier for being mgtow among “radical” mgtows is not getting married (some are also against long term relationships). That is radically (pardon the pun) different from the feminist stance on free choice.

    And in a sense I agree with them. If you get married, it’s not your own path anymore. You’re now sharing a path with your wife. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn’t call it mgtow.

    Basically the difference between the rads and the non-rads is the non-rads say: “Pick the path you want, and don’t make it depend on societal pressures”, and the rads say: “Pick the path you want to go, free from societal pressures, and go it alone”.

    Also, unlike feminists, mgtows don’t say “you should feel bad for wanting a family etc.”, but acknowledge that men usually want a family. They just say it’s not a good idea for whatever reason.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. M3 February 26, 2015 at 14:37 #

    I’m 100% MGTOW and never endorse marriage in the current legal climate. And having children with a woman is a crapshoot and entirely depends on what you value more – family/offspring vs. bitter custody/support/alimony battle. It is up to the individual to balance it on his own personal scale and choose for himself.

    But i respect traditional relationship setups as long as both parties walk into it eyes wide open to all the dangers and truly filter for what they want out of a relationship based on reality – not disney fairy tales of ever after or nonsensical notions of love.

    To those couples that are pure redpill and understand how to be complementary to one another to build a strong family unit, know their roles and perform them without either loathing their own genders “percieved” weakness/shortcomings or blaming all the problems of the world on their partners gender… i say well done.

    MGTOW is for all practical purposes “Complete knowledge of all perils” and making a choice free from coercion. The complete and self actualized man who understands all the risks and obligations involved in making that choice and owns the consequences of that choice. And it is an individual one – with no centralized MGTOW grand puba dictating things from on high to all. MGTOW is not a monolithic bloc. I would compare it almost completely to atheists when Richard Dawkins famously stated:

    “Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to ‘come out,’ thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can’t be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.”

    Replace Atheists with MGTOW and that’s precisely my sentiment about the movement.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. JudgyBitch February 26, 2015 at 14:42 #

    Really well said, Mike and I see nothing to argue with. I support this 100%!

    Like

  10. Areao February 26, 2015 at 15:30 #

    I have never personally understood why men want a permanent housewife. I understand one partner staying home with small kids until they go to school, but I don’t understand the guy with no kids who is ecstatic about some woman with no kids sitting home and watching TV all day. Or lunching. Or reading novels. Or screwing the tennis instructor.

    I would personally feel used. I wish these types of men could get across why they don’t feel exploited, but they don’t ever have anything convincing to say. Maybe it’s low self-esteem, thinking they have to pay for a woman to even talk to them, let alone be married to them.

    Like

  11. JudgyBitch February 26, 2015 at 15:53 #

    I don’t know a single at home spouse, male or female, who sits on the couch watching TV all day. We have three children, only one of whom goes to school all day (which is 6 hours). The other two are home schooled. It says a lot about what you think of women, this comment. And it is bitter towards men, too. All around misanthropy. As far as you are concerned my husband is a loser who has to pay women to talk to him (lol) and I’m a whore fucking the tennis instructor and watching TV.

    Charming.

    I think you’ll enjoy RBK and his multiple hours of obsession over me.

    Like

  12. JudgyBitch February 26, 2015 at 16:04 #

    No question that all of this is true, and if you do not trust your judgement in being able to select a partner who understands and finds this abhorrent, then MGTOW is indeed a sensible, rational choice.

    Some men DO trust their judgement and there are many, many women who have absolutely no interest in divorce, alimony or shared custody. People like to cite the 50% divorce rate, but don’t stop to consider that 50% of all marriages last forever. For some men, that risk is intolerable. Fair enough. Other men understand the odds and then start mitigating by selecting their partners with all of this in mind.

    I’m lucky, I suppose, to live in a town where divorce is not especially common and still carries a whiff of failure about it. The street where I live has two divorced couples. The rest of us (over 20 families) are married, many for over 25 years, or widowed. That likely influences how I perceive marriage, since the vast majority of the ones in my own personal experience are successful.

    Like

  13. Kristian February 26, 2015 at 16:24 #

    Ah, yes, watching soaps and eating chocolate. While the various maids do the housework no doubt. And cook prepares dinner. (Should I put in a sarcasm notice or is it obvious?)

    I think it was Jerome K Jerome (‘Three men in a boat’ and other masterpieces) who talked about how an afternoon of housework gave him the answer to that age old question: how a woman with only ‘a single house’ to keep manages to occupy her time.

    Like

  14. Matheus February 26, 2015 at 17:35 #

    That’s one of my concern about MRM and MGTOW if these movements will become like the feminism. This guy is just looks like a radfem rooted in a misandry bubble. His statements is exactly like a lot of radfems who condemn any association with males.
    I know the MRM is a important step to fight against biased laws in courts in everywhere, but when some people start sound like feminists the thing starting going to south.

    Sorry about my english, it’s not my primary idiom.

    Matheus

    Like

  15. craichead February 26, 2015 at 17:44 #

    ” They are hysterically opposed to any definition of masculinity that centers on men providing for and protecting their loved ones, because they take that to mean men are “disposable” to their loved ones.”

    “Their loved ones, no doubt, tell a very different story.”

    Actually having lived this they don’t tell a different story and that’s the heart of the problem. Any importance men have outside of money is never used unless it can be used in a way that’s critical.

    Most wives I’ve seen can’t even comprehend that their husbands might have some wants and needs of his own like a human being. They mostly see us as rented mules.

    Like

  16. JudgyBitch February 26, 2015 at 17:47 #

    I’m genuinely sorry that has been your experience. It’s not mine.

    Like

  17. Joel February 26, 2015 at 17:50 #

    I personally see would not see divorce as a failure. Although I am sure if it ever came to pass I would undoubtedly be heart-broken. But my parents were married for 23 years. They divorced when I was 18 (I am the oldest of 4 kids. Youngest was 11 or 12 at the time I think).

    And I have heard my dad say “The two biggest failures a man can go through in his life are bankruptcy and divorce” When he said that I told him:

    “What failure? You spent 23 years with the same woman, ran two successful businesses together and raised four healthy children who are all went through college or university. You both get to see your kids constantly because we all live in the same city and spend time together and we have entire lifetime of happy memories between us. You didn’t fail dad, you did a wonderful job. And I’m proud of you. “

    Like

  18. Astrokid NJ February 26, 2015 at 18:44 #

    1) RBK used to be an MRA. He once came over to AVFM when JTO wrote an article about femitheist, and bitched about publication of her name
    (The article covered her “international castration day” and desire to reduce male population to 10%. JTO decided that the world needed to know about her plans, and amplified a mainstream news article about her arrest that carried her name. This is the only article that survives http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/who-let-the-dox-out/ )
    At that time, RBK got into an argument with Suz and another woman called OHPC (One Hundred Person Cotton), and called them “hysterical housewives”, and that AVFM MRAs and not “his type”, and left for good.

    I dont watch his videos.. who wants to watch his text-as-video crap, especially 2 hrs long?
    Those buffoons are a shame to the rest of us MGTOWs, but its no big deal. All communities are like that (I distance myself from the New Atheist community as well).

    2) Have these buffoons addressed the core questions?

    a) What does JudgyBitch’s personal life have to do with her public advocacy for mens rights? She covers every issue that any other MRA does.

    b) How many people.. MRAs even.. have the balls to write “Why dont we have a dumb fucking whore registry?” or you werent raped, you are just a whore. join the club”

    Liked by 2 people

  19. craichead February 26, 2015 at 19:15 #

    I remember several years ago sitting in the marriage counselor’s office. I had spent the last few visits talking about how I felt like my life was defined simply by how much money I could make and that my family really only saw my importance as that. Seriously, it was one of my most main issues in all of our discussions.

    At one point the discussion turned to my smoking (yeah I know, but I’ve quit since then) and I asked, kind of as a test, why do you want me to quit? Why would you care if I get cancer. Both my wife and counselor immediately replied along the lines of who would support everybody if something happened to me. Nothing about how important I was, how much living I’d miss or how much everyone would miss me, but right back to the money. And that was AFTER I repeated over and over again about how that made me feel.

    I understand you’re different and so is your experience, but this is a value so deeply ingrained that most people can’t even see it.

    Like

  20. that1susan February 26, 2015 at 19:26 #

    That’s just awful that not even a trained counselor saw the connection there!

    Like

  21. that1susan February 26, 2015 at 19:27 #

    And I hope you’re not feeling that way anymore.

    Like

  22. slacker February 26, 2015 at 20:04 #

    I like the idea behind MGTOW and I guess you could even call me one since I’m pretty much 100% certain I’ll never get married and I think that society would improve if men collectively just said no to marriage until the family court laws evened out. At the same time, the more radical end of MGTOW annoys me because they seem to put more effort in slandering the few prominent women in the manosphere than they do in refuting feminism’s insanity.

    Go to some of the Honey Badger Radio videos on youtube and you’ll find radical MGTOW loons complaining because they had audacity to have a pornstar like Mercedes Carrera or a cam girl like Anna Cherry on their show. Both women go into great detail about how they distrust the feminist movement and despise the way it has vilified male sexuality but that’s not good enough those guys because porn stars “exploit” men somehow.

    Some of the MRM’s detractors claims its just the male equivalent of the feminist movement but i think that criticism would be far more appropriately leveled at the radical end of MGTOW, they seem to share the idea that opposite gender can never be trusted.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Greg Allan February 26, 2015 at 20:18 #

    Radical MGTOWs want nothing to to do with women and will avoid them. Radical feminists want ninety percent of the male population eliminated.

    Exactly the same!

    Like

  24. JudgyBitch February 26, 2015 at 20:30 #

    That is horrible! That is the worst kind of objectification, Not even a pretense of love? Just straight up ATM? I would never endorse that for anyone.

    Like

  25. Jack Strawb February 26, 2015 at 22:10 #

    Strange. We waste so much time dealing with other people bent on misinterpreting our positions and trying to tear down what they’re desperate to believe we are.

    It’s too bad. RBK’s early videos were interesting and funny. These attacks on you are just foolish.

    Like

  26. Clay February 26, 2015 at 22:15 #

    GOD IN HEAVEN I always knew you were special! There has NEVER been anything you have said or written that I did not agree with! I can’t thank you enough for being ‘real’ and down to earth and actually having the courage to believe that there is nothing wrong with that! I am so discouraged with the women of today and their ‘entitlement’ insanity. Thousands of years of ‘traditional male and females’ roles have brought us to our great modern society we have today. Until only a few years ago it was working perfectly! Now, the entire thing is broken beyond repair, but then there is you-

    My ‘hats’ off to you’ madam and hope to shake your hand someday…

    Like

  27. Jack Strawb February 26, 2015 at 22:18 #

    “Some of the MRM’s detractors claims its just the male equivalent of the feminist movement…”

    It’s hardly worth debating. Feminism has been a gender supremacy movement for decades while MRAs are overwhelmingly egalitarian.

    As for MGTOWs, being a MGTOW doesn’t make a man a member of the MRM any more than a woman favoring equal rights makes her a feminist.

    Like

  28. Jack Strawb February 26, 2015 at 22:24 #

    I hope you’ve been able to get out of such an absurd and offensive situation. Best wishes.

    Like

  29. Jack Strawb February 26, 2015 at 22:38 #

    Very well said. Tried to “like” the comment, but apparently a WordPress account is required.

    Like

  30. Trev February 26, 2015 at 22:41 #

    Something tells me that for RBK, being MGTOW is not a choice

    Like

  31. Jack Strawb February 26, 2015 at 22:50 #

    “People like to cite the 50% divorce rate, but don’t stop to consider that 50% of all marriages last forever. For some men, that risk is intolerable. Fair enough. Other men understand the odds and then start mitigating by selecting their partners with all of this in mind.”

    I have nothing against marriage per se, but it’s important to realize, too, that many of those marriages that last until death aren’t good. I know many long married couples and nowhere near half are content, let alone happy. And even some of the happier-seeming ones have arrangement such as the couple that hasn’t made love in decades, while each has a long-term romantic partner outside the marriage. They just happen to like being married for some reason.

    I readily grant there’s a real drive to couple and have children, but let’s face it. People aren’t good at it, nor are most suited to it for the very long term.

    Like

  32. Clay February 26, 2015 at 22:55 #

    But I have always said; “The person we are divorcing today, we would never have married in the first place”. In other words, people change! Change into something we can no longer live with. And women do the most of it. Why? Because it is THEY who want out of their marriages some 80% of the time! And we all know why that is don’t we?
    So, for as much as you believe that men should be ‘more selective’ in choosing a female who won’t ‘take-them-to-the-cleaners’, it is impossible to see the future. And as more and more ‘sistas’ get divorced, and tell others how “fun and easy it is to get everything you ask for” the snowball will grow ever bigger and bigger…

    When will you people finally have enough?!?!?!?!?

    Qui tacet consentire videtur, “He who is silent is taken to agree”.

    Like

  33. Robert Franklin February 26, 2015 at 23:27 #

    I’ve been married for over 25 years and my wife and I are utterly devoted to each other. But that wasn’t a result of either of us being particularly astute about how to pick a mate. I think that’s more of a crap shoot than anything else. But I also don’t believe that most women or men go into relationships cynically or with ill intentions. Love your work, Janet.

    Like

  34. Jack Strawb February 26, 2015 at 23:41 #

    The biggest problem the MRM faces today is its hostility to men and women of the left. Something like 75% of men who identify as either Democrats or left-leaning Independents don’t identify as feminist, yet several major MRM websites are actively hostile to the left, chasing those men (and likeminded women) away.

    The MRM is more likely to fail because of this than for any other reason.

    Like

  35. alex February 27, 2015 at 00:44 #

    he dislikes judgybitch because of her uncanny resemblance with Courtney Love.

    Like

  36. Rohan Roger David Zener February 27, 2015 at 01:20 #

    So ye want men to have choies, ye say? Then here is my choice: I choose to say that women are disposable because their diminished morality, on the part of being privileged little bitches, endangerseveryone around them, including other women. They’re being hired to fulfill quotas in workplaces despite being incompetent at their jobs. I say, we should FORCE them to fight on the front line, as a way of teaching those fuckers what’s what around here.

    Like

  37. Bob February 27, 2015 at 04:55 #

    I’ve been following your blog for a while, I’m a MGHOW (although I only recently discovered the term). I think you are AWESOME! & really smart!
    PS My mother was one of the original members of Radial Women when it was formed in Seattle in 1968. Think this might have something to do with it?

    Like

  38. Dick Wheybrew (@dickwhey) February 27, 2015 at 04:58 #

    I can’t speak for RBK, but if I had to guess, he would not go quite that far. The MGTOW perspective as he’s put it in the past is that gynocentrism (and the institution of marriage that it spawned) was once adaptive behavior the our species. As technology and society has changed, it’s becoming progressively more maladaptive, particularly for men and boys.

    Could there be a change in laws and cultural norms that corrected the gynocentric issues with marriage? If we can land a probe on a comet, we probably could correct, or at least improve, marriage. And through enough iterations, maybe it would again be beneficial to both men and women. (I’m not sure if RBK would agree with me here, but I suspect he would.)

    The real question would be, how do we encourage society to make these changes? Well, we have this movement called MGTOW and it’s about men reducing the coercive influences of gynocentrism in their lives. So, they opt out of things gynocentric things like marriage because it’s a high-risk low-reward scenario (“low-reward” here is charitable, there is almost no way in which marriage currently benefits men). In a way, this is a society-level negotiation saying “if you want us to get married, you’re going to have to do more than stroke our egos and tell us how much you like us because we’re fulfilling a gender role for you.” Calling it a marriage strike is not inept, although it’s much more than that.

    Marriage is just one of many gynocentric behaviors MGTOW opt-out of. MGTOW opt-out of marriage for the same reason they opt-out of pussy-begging, white-knighting, and throwing other men under the bus (aka being a mangina… no one really says manginaing, but maybe we should start).

    Like

  39. Dick Wheybrew (@dickwhey) February 27, 2015 at 05:12 #

    There is a term, limerence, that describes the state of mind men and women are in during the early stages of pair-bonding. It’s an involuntary state of mind, and while people are in it they are prone to misjudge their partners and make rash decisions that they wouldn’t otherwise. Perhaps not every man who chooses to marry is this state, but for sure many of them are. At the time, their judgement feels sound to them, and they do trust it.

    Who knows, even in limerence, they might be right. Maybe they really did find the right one. Or… they might be wrong. In fact a man could date well past the limerence stage, and still be wrong. There’s no objective test of who will be a good wife one year, two years, five years, ten years, twenty years, down the line.

    The risks of being wrong here are non-trivial. I did the math a few months back (I’ll dig up the comment where I did if you want to see it) and calculated that men are ~50 times more likely to die of a suicide after a divorce than to die from a high-risk activity like bungee-jumping… and suicide is only one many potential negative outcomes.

    If you wouldn’t encourage a friend to bungee-jump several times, then you shouldn’t encourage men to marry in 2015.

    Like

  40. Dick Wheybrew (@dickwhey) February 27, 2015 at 05:15 #

    Did you watch his videos? Because I know he mentioned the term. I remember is specifically because I was trying to think of other prefixes more fitting than “neo” to describe Janet’s brand of traditionalism and left a list in the comments… Pretty sure it was in the first or second video of the trial.

    Like

  41. Dick Wheybrew (@dickwhey) February 27, 2015 at 05:27 #

    He has a speech disability and I believe his videos are made using the same technology that he has to use to talk “normally.” I’m impressed with how he’s leveraged his disability in a creative way. It’s pure clever, if you ask me.

    Like

  42. Christoph Dollis February 27, 2015 at 06:06 #

    To be frank, even your post was too long for me to want to read at this hour—never mind RBK’s videos—but I will say, fantastic comment at AVfM.

    Insitutionalising children SUCKS … for children. At least when compared to loving, caring mothers (or stay-at-home dads). Attachment disorders are no jokes.

    And it’s also kind of natural to raise one’s own child, for fuck sakes.

    Anyway, RBK (along with yourself and Jack Donovan, whose books were just banned by the Toronto library lol and who is also the author along with Ryan Holiday who benefited my life the most, which to me is an irony) have allowed me to put this MGTOW thing* behind me.

    Thanks for that.

    *At least as a reactionary, butthurt male-feminist philosophy. Maybe I’ll revisit it out of pragmatic necessity from time to time, and certainly I intend to make my own choices and not kowtow to any particular woman or women writ large. Although I just may talk to the more attractive among them.

    So bite me.

    Like

  43. Magnus February 27, 2015 at 10:04 #

    Actually I think the 50% divorce rate is an old number, apparently divorce is in decline. But so is marriage (not that I remember if they are declining equally).

    So I think people are shell shocked from the 80s and 90s trend of dumping your partner when their socks started to smell, and are more weary, but when they find someone they are willing to work on it 🙂

    Then there are those like me, who are just not trusting enough to let anyone close :S

    Like

  44. Magnus February 27, 2015 at 10:06 #

    I think you stop being MGTOW as soon as you get married, because then you aren’t going YOUR way, you are going a way TOGETHER with someone else.

    That said I don’t think “dying MGTOW” is something to strive for either. It’s not a label that holds much value to cling that strongly to.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. Magnus February 27, 2015 at 10:11 #

    “I don’t understand the guy with no kids who is ecstatic about some woman with no kids sitting home and watching TV all day.”

    I don’t think there are many men in 2015 that think that way. So your argument is very much a Strawman.

    Like

  46. Magnus February 27, 2015 at 10:13 #

    Many of these radical MGTOW are slowly moving away from the MHRM, and don’t want that brand it seems. (not that I follow many YouTube MHRAs to be honest)

    So if that is the case then we aren’t in deep shit. Problem for feminists is that they all call them selves feminists, so they are in fact “all the same”

    Like

  47. Zeke February 27, 2015 at 11:04 #

    I would say that NO woman expresses interest in alimony or the rest of her parting prizes PRIOR TO or DURING marriage. I have never heard it, and I think it would be stupid to express during marriage. You don’t want to get the Golden Goose thinking about the consequences of such talk.

    But I sure have seen women interested in those topics when the marriage is starting to END. And I have also seen men who are absolutely surprised – more likely shocked – that Cupcake is actually thinking that way.

    Like

  48. valhar2000 February 27, 2015 at 11:39 #

    Have you ever seen a couple who argue a lot, who both complain to their friends about the things the other one does that they don’t like, and you expect them to break up eventually, but they inexplicably end up getting married?

    Sometimes people ignore red flags because they are doing what they “supposed” to do. People who do notice the red flags are not surprised by the eventual outcome.

    Though I often disagree with individual MGTOWs (they tend to be on the nutty side), I think some of the core values of MGTOW are absolutely essential things that every man in the world should be aware of. One of these values is the notion that “a woman” is not automatically the end goal of a man’s life; there are far too many men who expend inordinate amounts of time and effort looking for “the one” and failing, when they could be putting that effort into doing things that make them happy,and live much better lives as a result. The existence of a relatively large group of men who know this and act as though it were obvious will be a great source of psychological support to other men who come to this realization on their own (as it was for me).

    Women already had something like this in the form of Feminism: any woman who did not really want to get married could look to Feminists to find a large group of women ready to validate this decision. Unfortunately, Feminists took it too far, and now we have a large number of strong independent women who reach their late 30’s or early 40’s and are suddenly surprised to find they have a strong desire to have a family of their own (I’ve seen this happen many times). Of course, by then, their fertility is low, and they have lived for so long with the notion that men are evil that they’ll have a hard time adjusting to life with their husbands.

    I wonder if these radical MGTOWs may do men the same disservice? Convince most men that their interactions with women should be of the “pump and dump” variety, or better yet, non-existent, and then have nothing but weak excuses and dogma to offer the possibly large numbers of middle-aged who realize that this whole “family” thingamajig actually looks pretty good.

    Well, if that ever happens at all, it won’t happen for a long time, so there’s no point in worrying about it.

    Like

  49. Kristian February 27, 2015 at 11:55 #

    I think you’re right, and this needs to be a less ‘political’ issue to succeed.

    The problem with ‘left of centre’ (as defined in respective regions) is that it has long ceased to be about ‘the working man’ or ‘the poor’ or ‘unions’ or even ‘fair pay’.
    It’s now relativism, postmodernism, deconstruction, ‘trigger warnings,’ ‘check your privilege.’ There’s a handful of ‘average people’ kept around for show, but the leadership is all marketing and media.

    The grass roots still care about these things, but just as with any question: if you are the silent peaceful majority, you don’t really matter. People outside your ‘movement’ cannot see you. (Cf Muslims, Unions, Tea Party, Democrats, Republicans, …)

    (The similar charge about ‘the right’ would be that it’s not about keeping to the ‘tried and true,’ but about handing over everything to the rich.)

    Like

  50. valhar2000 February 27, 2015 at 11:56 #

    Did your wife select that counselor?

    Like

  51. valhar2000 February 27, 2015 at 11:59 #

    You make a good point, actually. Could she at least have lied?

    Like

  52. valhar2000 February 27, 2015 at 12:03 #

    I’ve noticed that too. I’m noticeably to the left of the average of the MRM, and I certainly do notice the hostility. On the other hand, there is no denying that Feminism holds a lot of sway over the Left, so, while I don’t agree with the anti-Left sentiment prevalent in the MRM, I understand it.

    Like

  53. valhar2000 February 27, 2015 at 12:13 #

    That said, I agree this could be a significant problem for the MRM in the future. Western society in general, and American society in particular, is fond of adopting beliefs as tribal dogma. For example, Gay Marriage, Global Warming and Evolution, despite having little in common, are all Liberal Dogma, so if you want to accept one, you have to accept the others or else you are not allowed in.

    These collections of dogma have reached ridiculous extremes already: conservatives and liberals drive different cars, eat at different restaurants, watch different movies, listen to different music, study mathematics and engineering in their own colleges… It’s ridiculous!

    And, I fear that at some point the MRM will be adopted as official Conservative dogma, and then people who are not Christian, not Libertarian, not Creationist, not in favor of guns for everyone, who prefer a Prius to a Hummer, and what have you, will not be allowed in. And then we’ll have to create a new MRM that will also get adopted as dogma, ad nauseum.

    AVFM is, in my experience, quite good at avoiding this, but other places… not so much.

    Like

  54. valhar2000 February 27, 2015 at 12:14 #

    I don’t either, but it’s their choice*.

    * Assuming it is their choice.

    Like

  55. Paul Murray February 27, 2015 at 13:22 #

    Further to the ideal family situation: in the ideal situation, once a boy child was old enough, he would start to learn his father’s trade from his father.

    Liked by 1 person

  56. Dean Esmay February 27, 2015 at 13:22 #

    The 50% failure rate is also problametic in that it turns out that people who divorce tend to do it more than once. So they go to 2nd, 3rd marriages, and are lumped in. I happen to agree that for the vast majority of men, in the current climate it’s too risky. But as we’ve also seen, in a growing number of places, just avoiding getting married doesn’t change anything for you; if you just cohabit long enough the state will consider you de facto married even if de jure they don’t need it. Which means to stay “pure” to their “philosophy,” fringe MGTOW like RBK have to also say no true MGTOW would ever cohabit with a woman, as that’s too risky.

    But wait! Since condoms are not reliable birth control (and they definitely are not), no true MGTOW would ever have sex with a woman unless he’d had himself sterilized. Otherwise a woman might make him a daddy.

    So really, to be true MGTOW, you must not just avoid marriage, you must avoid ALL sexual relations with women.

    That’s where the madness of this idiocy leads. Seriously.

    The whole idea of MGTOW of the men who created it was men choosing their path cognizant of the risks in life. Too bad that’s just too subtle for some of these people.

    Liked by 3 people

  57. JG22 February 27, 2015 at 13:33 #

    Simply insulting to men (who, of course, have never run a house themselves).

    I do 100% of the breadwinning and 100% of the housework. Guess which one occupies 98% of my thinking and striving? I have a clean house.

    A co-worker does 100% of the breadwinning and 100% of his housework. He has custody of two teenage daughters, and has gotten across to them that they need to pick up their own stuff. Ex-wife pays no child support, and he gets along fine.

    Now lets see the hilarity that ensues when a long-term housewife gets a hard, full-time job that is stressful enough to provide sufficient money for a family. Oh, that’s right, there’s “alimony”, although there is no reciprocal “clean-house-imony”.

    Let’s get back into reality.

    Like

  58. Dupplin Muir February 27, 2015 at 13:54 #

    The major difference between a genuine political movement on the one hand, and a ‘sect’ or ‘cult’ on the other, is that a political movement seeks alliances and aims to build coalitions. If you are campaigning for objective X you find other people who also desire X and work together. You don’t start imposing tests of ideological purity along the lines of “It’s not enough to want X, you must also believe Y and do Z”. For me, many MGTOWs fail this test.

    I personally would not marry, but I certainly wouldn’t criticise anyone else for doing so, and I would like to see the law changed so that they could do this without the risk of having their lives destroyed.

    I also think that some MGTOWs don’t really understand that their best protection is to be part of a wider movement, because if they cut themselves off from the mainstream MRM, the government will squash them like a bug. For example, they could institute a flat-rate tax on everyone, and then bring in some kind of state benefit to compensate women and married men, so that the full burden falls on single men. Another possible government measure would be to re-introduce conscription – but only for single men.

    No doubt some MGTOWs will elect to go abroad, or live in a hut in the woods, or go to prison rather than submit, but I suspect that the great majority would acquiesce: after all, they’ve already walked away from the fight, and once you’ve done that it’s difficult to draw a line in the sand and say ‘Thus far and no farther’.

    Like

  59. Christoph Dollis February 27, 2015 at 14:43 #

    “To him, any type of marriage is traditionalism and exploits men. I find this attitude among radical MGTOW to be as deeply in denial of human nature as any radical feminist notion.”

    I’ve taken cultural anthropology and am taking physical anthropology now.

    Pretty much all have had some form of marriage. These sorts of MGTOWs’ position is absurd.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. Astrokid NJ February 27, 2015 at 16:41 #

    Old-timer MRM organizations recognize that Religion and Politics are major fault lines that have destroyed many groups, and therefore keep them at a distance. This has been my experience with NCFM and AVFM.

    At AVFM, over the years, I have seen both Left-leaning and Right-leaning commenters complain that the site is hostile to their aisle of politics. The solution for those individuals is plain. Just establish an explicitly Lefty (or Righty) MRM org. I have seen a lot of posturing by the Righty website spearhead, and Righty YouTuber Bernard Chapin for years. Both of them have substantial following, but no organized force has come out of them. I hope Lefty websites do better.

    Like

  61. zornskin February 27, 2015 at 17:01 #

    RBK has been a person I respect. He’s created a lot of great content and put many good ideas on the table for discussion in his videos. I’m completely on his side on the steer clear of marriage debate. And probably a lot of other things. That said. I am also completely on Janet’s side when it comes to marriage. This is contradictory. Sure. But RBK sees what marriage is right now, for so many men and how it uses them up. JB sees marriage for what it should be. A team. When reading a lot of JB’s posts, I feel a profound sense of sadness that the current state of marriage law makes looking for someone like her an extremely risky proposition. But the way her and her husband appear to be a team is really beautiful. It saddens me to feel like when my son gets older, I’m going to steer him away from marriage and children, because it’s just so dangerous right now. It saddens me, because I believe as great as a man can be on his own, I think he can be even more with a partner like JB. At least as she describes their partnership.

    In the past, his videos have been funny and informative and earnest. But over the last year or so, his stuff appears to have gotten progressively more bitter and insular. Less about the ideas, humor and fostering brotherhood and more about looking for a fight. I think that RBK and Barb and even Stardusk want a conflict because it’s hard to keep the fire when people aren’t fighting you. But for the most part when MGTOW pulled away from the group – people were just like “seeya!”, so they are focusing on more and more trivial shit and it just makes them look petty. Seriously. RBK focusing all this effort on Janet is like Batman focusing his energy on a tax evader while the Joker blows up the coliseum. But their real enemy (MGTOWs) doesn’t care. At all. MGTOW is off their radar, because it doesn’t interact in their space. So they focus on conflict with a group that very much cares and is in their space – the MRM. I wish he’d go back to being funny. I think his attacks on JB are a pointless waste of energy and he has bigger fish to fry. I’ll still watch most of his videos, because they are still informative.

    MGTOWS like to quote Brieffault’s Law a lot. As true as that statement is, I have always found the same to be true of the males in my life as well. So I don’t see it as all that illuminating. As long as marriage laws are wholly punitive against males, I will never recommend any man marry. Or cohabitate. No one should ever enter into a contract that only binds one participant.

    But god bless the woman that JB illustrates in her posts. She’s magnificent. But I would never recommend anyone go looking for her. Instead, I’d recommend they focus on making themselves the type of man that they themselves admire and engage loosely with women. And for god’s sake, don’t marry them. Yet.

    Like him or not Dean, you and RBK really are on the same side. Through every war, people on the same side have had differing opinions on what tactics should be implemented to resolve the conflict. It’s only when we give in to the in-fighting that we become less effective. You want to fight with ground troops, he wants to nuke the site from orbit.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. that1susan February 27, 2015 at 17:08 #

    It’s interesting learning that there are some liberal MRM folks. My understanding up to now was that feminism was believed (by MRMs) to have created horrible evil by giving women the vote, which resulted In all kinds of “nurturing” policies designed to make sure that everyone was secure and taken care of and no one had to work for anything.

    I see myself as a lot more liberal than conservative — but I’m also starting to see that many liberal policies aren’t getting the desired results — to the point where you have to wonder if those ARE the desired results for a few people in powerful key positions.

    For example, I agree strongly with Janet’s idea to bring vocational programs back into high schools, so that a young person has the option of graduating from high school with some in-demand skills if he or she would rather go straight to work — and possibly would even rather start a family right away.

    It seems like the long, long path from teenager to adult loses too many smart and talented people along the way. So I’m all in favor of making sure that disadvantaged young people — and really all young people — have many opportunities to experience the satisfaction of being able to perform a useful task really, really well — and also many opportunities to learn the satisfaction of being a reliable person who goes to work every day and really cares about excellence, to the point where customers are asking for them and managers are saying, “You’re someone I know I can always count on, so I’d like to give you a raise.”

    It really is possible for kids to have experiences like this at a very young age, and a work-ethic doesn’t just spring up out of nowhere — it comes from our experience of getting the kinds of feedback and rewards that we get when investing our unique abilities and efforts in places where they’re needed and appreciated. Kids have so much passion and energy, but if the right programs (or people) aren’t in place to help them apply themselves in socially and economically relevant ways, that energy’s just going to come out in irrelevant ways that make them feel like big failures who shouldn’t have bothered to get up in the morning in the first place.

    Like

  63. JudgyBitch February 27, 2015 at 17:14 #

    Thank you, Zornskin, this is a lovely comment that is both critical and respectful.

    I don’t demand that commenters on my site adhere to one particular point of view, nor do I demand prissy language, but I do draw the line at abuse. It really doesn’t matter how politely you phrase it, if you are here to simply offer abuse, you will not be approved.

    Like

  64. Jason Kaps February 27, 2015 at 17:15 #

    Here’s a real question for you to answer, Janet:
    When, in your blog, you routinely refer to men performing non-traditional roles within the home as “kitchen bitches”, is that meant to be some kind of cutesy, fake-mean term of endearment?

    Like

  65. JudgyBitch February 27, 2015 at 17:20 #

    I believe I have used that term once or twice in over 500 posts, so not exactly routine, and yes, it usually a form of hyperbole to highlight whatever trend I am discussing. I’m pretty sure I used that term in a post in which I explained that “demanding” a man perform some household chore is emasculating, not the chore itself. You apparently missed that part?

    If the use of hyperbole, polemics, satire and deep sarcasm is too much for you to process, I strongly suggest a different blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. MarkMarko February 27, 2015 at 19:00 #

    Whilst I don’t really agree with a lot of your views RBK’s reaction was hysterical and I’m not exaggerating, I wrote some comments to this affect on his Youtube video.

    – 6-5 hours of video and probably days? of preparation time to rebut a few innocuous points is trying too hard. The lady RBK doth protest too much, methinks.

    What is funnier is that this clown thinks that people/you are going spend 6 hours listening to him ranting like a demented pensioner. He’s lacks any self awareness and thinks he can fool other people about his motivations. For instance, take the fact that Paul Elam, Esmay and most Manurespherians repeatedly attack mgtow and have been doing so for years. What did he do about that? Nothing. He does a few videos about Elam and AVFM, RockingMrE and that’s it, but for you he’s got 6 hours to dissect some innocuous comments – but yeah, sure synthesizer boy this is all about philosophy. No one’s buying this bull.

    In any case, why would someone open e-mail communications by calling you a “c&*$”? People disagree on all manner of topics, but sending abusive emails is pathetic. I did watch a bit of his video where he tries to justify it and it’s cringeworthy and he show’s himself to be extremely infantile.

    RBK likes to push the line that he is some kind of extremist mgtow and he tries extremely hard hard to promote and preserve this reputation. I quite like Barbarossa’s and Stardusk’s videos, they are always interesting and more ideas based from any perspective.

    A lot of these mgtow guys like $andman , RBK etc give themselves away too easily with their behavior despite what they say, and like others have remarked they have a case of butthurt ugly feminist syndrome.

    For example:

    Words : They say that men should not listen to, please, care about women etc.
    Actions: Spend hours and days overanalysing things women say on the internet.

    Words: Say that women have nothing going for them, so much free time blah
    Actions: Spend hours and days making videos talking about women who allegedly do nothing.

    Words: I don’t care about women, they are irrelevant.
    Actions: Spend time trolling videos and comments, making 6hr batshit crazy stalker videos and sending abusive emails to said women.

    I’m not really sure what is more perplexing:-

    That RBK thinks people actually listen to any of his boring long-ass speak and spell composed videos or that he thinks people seriously believe his motivation is about mgtow philosophy, rather than just being an attention seeking nerd who wants any form of female attention (preferably negative in his case) . The best thing to do with attention seekers like this is to ignore them, when you do so they get extremely angry (that’s why he sends abusive emails) and continued making epic rage driven videos. This is evidenced by the fact that on the same day as your response he makes a new video (about you) within hours, perhaps he lives in a mental asylum and has little to do all day but get mad and make videos, so in some sense he is “going his own way”.

    The crux of this is your attention is extremely valuable to him, that’s why he goes to such extents to get any type of reaction from you.

    Razor Butthurt Kandy a classic case of someone who feels attention starved and powerless. They then lash out in the hope of getting just a scrap of attention, negative attention is preferred because it provides the fuel needed to a provide future continual scraps of attention. Without being too sexist it’s a trait found mainly among narcissistic females.

    Liked by 2 people

  67. Christoph Dollis February 27, 2015 at 21:53 #

    I find it hilarious anonymous people who don’t have the courage to say their name talking about others having low self-esteem.

    Like

  68. The Real Peterman February 28, 2015 at 05:08 #

    ” some sort of status as the personification of TEH EVIL WIMMINZ!”

    It’s ironic that someone who wants to be a writer should have such contempt for the very idea of language.

    Like

  69. Dick Wheybrew (@dickwhey) February 28, 2015 at 05:12 #

    Come on now, Dean. You’ve told me you’re teetotaler. You’re telling me you can avoid alcohol but avoiding sex is “idiocy?” Google Matthieu Ricard. He is the happiest man ever measured by neuroscientists. He doesn’t fuck, he doesn’t beat off. He begs for food, owns a few robes, meditates and occasionally gives talks. If that’s lunacy, sign me up.

    Like

  70. JamesNunya February 28, 2015 at 12:03 #

    Shit, not only did I tl;dr his videos, I tl;dr this particular blog, AND I tl;dr your post.

    I have 0 fucks to give about some butt hurt youtuber. Seriously though, Janet. This was tl;dr on your part too (unless you were going for that to piss this guy off or something). A simple “fuck off” + “insert snide comment here” would have been my response to this guy.

    2 cents.

    Like

  71. that1susan February 28, 2015 at 12:10 #

    A good writer knows when and how to use slang. The way she wrote it packs more of a punch than saying, “the evil women.”

    Like

  72. CB February 28, 2015 at 16:21 #

    “Neotraditional”? That sounds about as retarded as Progressive Conservative.

    Like

  73. JudgyBitch February 28, 2015 at 16:46 #

    I thought Progressive Conservative was the perfect name for a party that is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. That reflects my own political beliefs of course. I believe in a small government that stays out of people’s personal lives, especially their bedrooms.

    Liked by 1 person

  74. that1susan February 28, 2015 at 16:58 #

    Some folks think anyone who doesn’t fit into a neat little category is “retarded.”

    Like

  75. Stupid guy February 28, 2015 at 19:32 #

    Nice article Janet. Humorous and eye opening at the same time. True, couples should reach an understanding and live their lives regardless of what anyone says. I have personally met a lot of MGTOW’s and they appear to be sane minded people, but as for the radical MGTOW’s, they are like feminists. Don’t pay any attention to them!

    Like

  76. Jack Strawb March 1, 2015 at 12:51 #

    It saddens me to feel like when my son gets older, I’m going to steer him away from marriage and children, because it’s just so dangerous right now.

    This rationale for this is not clear to me. It seems more a matter of risk assessment than one of avoidance.

    It reminds me, unfortunately, of men who say college campuses are simply too dangerous for men these days. In fact, the chances of a law-abiding man being falsely accused of rape or sexual assault on campus, then being convicted, are in the neighborhood of 1 in 1000. A little research will allow him to better guesstimate the numbers, but they’re certainly in that neighborhood, and a few precautions can tilt those numbers significantly in his favor.

    None of this means that rape crisis feminism and its misbegotten progeny, affirmative consent laws and due process violations aren’t grotesque, and aren’t things to be fought and condemned at every turn, but the panic over the issue that has infected the MHRM is a wild overreaction.

    I fully understand the issue is not just limited to those falsely accused and convicted, but it makes little sense for a man to allow the threat of false conviction to keep him from enrolling in a program at a college of his choosing in order to pursue the career and work he loves. Living off campus and not dating college women largely obviates the risks, while carrying a small pocket recorder further insulates a student against false charges. Nothing is completely bombproof in this life, but the dangers are far smaller than often asserted.

    Nor does it make sense to avoid marriage and children just because it has gotten more dangerous for men. Once again risk assessment is key. We often hear “judges can just throw out prenups,” but it is unusual for a judge to completely discard a prenuptial agreement, and most that are well written are followed as written. Some states have a far better track record than others wrt allowing the faithful execution of prenups. Solid research is crucial.

    In addition, the process of composing a prenup with one’s intended can serve as part of a broader screening process. A good woman will understand how stacked the deck currently is against men. It’s also presumably the case that a couple that cannot handle putting together a just prenup should not marry.

    Also, a man can freeze his sperm and get a vasectomy, only inseminating according to specific, agreed-to terms and when he’s certain he’s ready, and obviating the problem of an oops! pregnancy that’s anything but.

    Arbitration processes can be agreed to in the prenup as can custody arrangements. A man can create a Trust in advance of a marriage that shields his assets. The prenup can further allow for the deposit of more assets during the marriage in a Trust that will be protected. Belated accusations of abuse are indeed problematic, but even those can be addressed in advance.

    You can do what you want, of course, and I’d be a fool to try to tell you otherwise, but with something as integral to the human experience of pair bonding and having children, I’ll teach my nephew risk assessment, not avoidance.

    I would steer him towards intelligent risk assessment, rather than away from marriage and children.

    Like

  77. Clay March 1, 2015 at 15:41 #

    Jack,
    ‘Risk assesment’ will not stop a vindictive women from taking advantage onces she has decided that she can get everything in ‘her’ divorce because, even though she was ‘groovy and wonderful today’, lots of her ‘sistas’ around her will advise her just how easy it is to win-it-all IF SHE WANTS IT simply because she has a vagina! No other reason is needed or allowed. I have always said’ “we would not ever marry in the first place the person we are now divorcing” or in other words, people change. Women change. And it is at this point that you will remind the readers that “men change too so don’t blame the women” but look now, some 80% of the petitioners are women. That says all we need to know right there. I have heard many times a prenup was not even allowed to be introduced. And of course, it was the man who wanted to introduce it. Imagine that. I believe you are incorrect when you say that most judges will adheare to a prenup. That has not been my finding. There is little to no money invovled (and therefore no cut to them) when they do so this is rarley ever a safety net for men who have beed duped. We must always remember, it is all about getting the money. Fathers money that is. In order to make it easier to steal it from him, the women must win NO MATTER WHAT! in the fantastically corrupt family court shame.
    The only possible way to stay safe is to stay away. And I will continue to tell this to my son.

    Like

  78. Carchamp March 4, 2015 at 03:39 #

    Earth to JB, those 50% of marriages that last forever are largely of the dysfunctional and miserable variety. You are so naive about all this. You have no idea what goes on. You have no concept of the male experience in marriage and under our “family” courts.

    You might want to stop using your experience as a wife and mother and start listening to the husbands and fathers around you. Your experience doesn’t even remotely apply to men.

    Like

  79. that1susan March 4, 2015 at 12:12 #

    JB actually does listen to the husbands and fathers around her. That’s how she got into Men’s rights.

    Like

  80. that1susan March 4, 2015 at 19:28 #

    What a fucking asinine things to say.

    Like

  81. that1susan March 4, 2015 at 19:34 #

    P.S., I wasn’t calling your comment asinine, Stupid guy — I was referring to Carchamp’s little blip here:

    “What’s this? Yet another woman-child housewife looking out for men? What a fucking joke.”

    I’m not sure if my comment ended up in the right “parking” spot, LOL.

    Like

  82. JudgyBitch March 4, 2015 at 19:36 #

    Susan, I kicked him out of the conversation and deleted that comment.

    Like

  83. Astrokid NJ March 4, 2015 at 19:46 #

    Carchamp is a special bitch that came to AVFM to bitch on your video ‘Is JB a traditionalist’
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/judgybitch-a-traditionalist/

    These guys are crabs-in-the-bucket, always ready to drag down MRAs who are actually getting some shit done.

    Like

  84. that1susan March 4, 2015 at 20:22 #

    Oh thanks! Could you please delete my two comments about that too then, if you haven’t already? Thanks again!

    Like

  85. Aporiac Socrates March 4, 2015 at 23:52 #

    I left a response to the latest RBK blog, which I’d be interested to hear your views on so I’ll repost it below.

    This is what has informed my thinking: –

    I, like you, think that marriage and fatherhood are both very high-risk for men these days to the point of being imprudent. You wrote in one of your comments above that some marriages still last a lifetime and if people have good judgement in their choice of partner then things are likely to work out well for them. This is where I disagree with you.

    In real life people change and often behave quite differently when their circumstances change. I think it’s very easy to make a ‘bad’ judgement, but not to discover this until a long way down the tracks. I don’t think many people enter marriage without a high degree of confidence that it will work out and that they’ve made a good choice of partner, but the evidence suggest that many of them are wrong for whatever reason.

    In the modern world the stigma of divorce is not nearly what it used to be. Furthermore, there is no longer the view that people should remain in unhappy marriages. The old saying ‘marry in haste, repent at leisure’ is just no longer considered as something people should accept. The average marriage now lasts for less than 10 years, so the old notion of marriage being for life is clearly out of date. The gap between aspiration and reality is wide and I don’t see a ready fix for this – that genie is out of the bottle, as it were.

    I’m not sure that the judgement of people whose marriages last a lifetime is wildly better than that of people whose marriages don’t. I think there is probably as much luck as judgement, except in those few cases where the couple are quite clearly being irresponsible and reckless. Even then the unlikeliest of couples can make fantastic and durable marriages.

    Also, modern life is complex and changeable. Some couples may remain married for life because they have not faced the adversity that would otherwise have split them up. There is a tendency in people who have good fortune to overestimate their agency. I’m not saying that people who make successful and durable marriages don’t play an active part in making that success, but sometimes they also just happened to make a good roll of the dice.

    Even if we accept that a couple got married with their eyes not fully open, and might have been more prudent in their choice of partner, we have long ago abandoned the notion that they should pay for this mistake for the rest of their lives. It is a very human mistake to make and they should not have to ensure punishment well beyond the pain of the marriage breaking down. However, this is not the situation for many men. On his side the penalty for his ‘mistake’ can be life-wrecking. It might even kill him. There are no longer that many errors what we punish with a death penalty, and for too many men divorce is a death penalty.

    After a marriage has broken down, both people are in a whole new ball-game. I have sat around a table with on too many occasions with groups of middle-aged women advising a recently divorced friend to “take him for everything he’s got” without hearing a single voice of dissent. Her lawyer is likely to be telling her the same, although in more polite language. There are lots of ready-made excuses to behave selfishly and unscrupulously that an aggrieved ex-wife can find herself supplied with that make her feel that giving into her worst impulses is behaving perfectly justifiably. This is reality. Yesterdays rules of honorable behaviour no longer apply.

    We need a new dispensation. To a large extent we still have divorce laws that assume marriage is a lifelong commitment because they come from an era when it almost always was. They also come from an era when a man was expected to provide for his wife in perpetuity because she might well be destitute if he did not. These conditions no longer apply. Widows and their children used to starve, as did wives who were abandoned.

    Here is my post to RBK: –

    “Men and women in modern society are both equally capable of working and equally capable of exercising free choices knowing the likely consequences. Your problem with marriage, as I understand it, is that the woman makes the choices and the man pays. The corrective to this is to place the risk where it belongs – with the person making the decision.

    I think that whatever arrangement men and women come to in marriage is no ones business but their own. You have to assume they are adults and are expressing free choice. If this means that the husband agrees to his wife neglecting her career in order to be a housewife and full-time mother this must be assumed to be a decision they have arrived at jointly as the best private arrangement for them. One consequence may well be that the husband must get serious about his career, and must be prepared to bear the entire financial burden of supporting the family. If the husband doesn’t like this, he can refuse. The wife can do the same. It is a mutual decision over which either has a veto. If they disagree it may cause conflict, but there are plenty of things couples disagree about in relationships that lead to conflict. In any event, it’s a decision they are specifically making about their marriage and their respective roles in it. If they cannot come to an agreement, they can solve the problem by separating. That is what happens sometimes in a relationship – the couple hit a make-or-break issue where they cannot find agreement. If it relates to their respective roles in the relationship then they must come to agreement or break that relationship. People always have this latter option, including within marriage in the modern world and so anything they do within that marriage must be assumed to have been arrived at by mutual consent. A relationship is a negotiation. So long as the relationship continues, consent to the settlement must be assumed because they are not obliged to consent.

    On this basis, for example, Janet Bloomfield can agree to stay at home and not develop her career, and her husband can agree to pay for her upkeep. Great! But in my scheme Janet is taking a risk. She takes the risk that if the marriage comes to an end at some future date, she may not be able to sustain the standard of living her husband provided for her as part of the ‘marriage dispensation’ because by accepting that dispensation she reduces her future earning capability. If the marriage comes to an end, she will have to accept the consequences. She has not invested in her personal capital and if she becomes a single person again, this will likely affect her earning potential as a single person. The only alternative to this arrangement is to effectively make the marriage for life, despite the fact that nobody actually wants this anymore, least of all women. What we have presently is the man continuing to play the husband-provider role for life after he is no longer the husband. This was fair when women had few options – when the end of a marriage could mean destitution for them.

    In addition, under my ‘modern marriage’ scheme if the couple have children, the man must step up to the mark as a parent after separation. He should have full parental rights, but accompanying responsibilities. This includes picking up his half of the childcare so that his wife is no more restricted by her duties as a parent than him. For older children this isn’t that difficult, but it does impose constraints which typically require parents to adjust their work-life balance somewhat. But this is best for kids and is the only assurance of a full relationship with both parents post-parental separation. If the husband wants his wife to do most of the practical childcare within the marriage that’s fine, but after the marriage comes to an end, he is single just like her, but he is still a father and needs to act like one. If he is unwilling to contemplate having this role he should not have children, just as his wife should not neglect her career if she is unwilling to contemplate the consequences of one day finding herself single and having to adjust accordingly. In the modern world that men and women have made between them, marriage can be for life, but usually it isn’t. Marriage laws need to be updated to reflect this reality. My view on fathers is that they should indeed have inescapable responsibilities when it comes to their children. However, they must be given commensurate rights or it’s a one way street.

    This is an outline. The basic idea is that at all points the couple are in a voluntary arrangement entered into willingly under current circumstances. There is at all times a real exit option that doesn’t involve penalties so crippling for either side that they may be life-destroying. A woman having to support herself is not life-destroying. If she fears it may be, she had better not neglect her career when she gets married. If a man so neglects his parenting skills that he cannot take his share of parenting when he no longer has a wife to do everything, he is also behaving irresponsibly and imprudently when considering his possible futures. Just as it does not kill women to work, it does not kill men to look after their kids.

    I think above and beyond this there is room for flexibility between separated couples. However, this must be voluntary on both sides.”

    If you trust your judgement in your choice of husband, Janet, none of this would be a problem to you. However, if he or you or both of you have made a mistake and things don’t work out, neither of you has a loaded gun.

    I think above and beyond this there is room for flexibility between separated couples. However, this must be voluntary on both sides.

    Like

  86. Clay March 5, 2015 at 12:47 #

    No loaded gun you say? Most of us here fervently disagree with you.

    Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them)1 – ‘J4MB’ – recommends that men don’t marry, because the institution has been highly risky for men for decades, and remains so. The state gives wives considerable power over husbands, because of their preferential treatment in divorce settlements – it’s as if they’re given loaded guns to use at any point during their marriages, however well they’re treated. This is toxic for marriage. Women institute 75% of divorce proceedings. Even if you bring most of the financial resources into your marriage, and earn much more than your wife during it, you could find your financial position devastated by divorce. If your ex-wife maliciously denies you access to your children – a grave emotional assault on your children, you, your parents, and others – you’ll face a lengthy, costly, and highly uncertain legal battle to gain reasonable access to them. Even if you’re denied that access, you’ll have to provide for the children financially. If you’d like to learn more about why you shouldn’t marry, visit the J4MB website dedicated to the matter.

    Would You Sign This Contract?
    “Your employer can, at any time, dismiss you, without justification, and he can have you imprisoned if you object too strongly to your dismissal. For example, if you raise your voice in anger at the way in which you are being treated, your employer may have you arrested for ‘violence’. In any event, your employer can dismiss you regardless of the circumstances, and at his sole discretion.
    “Your employer can fire you from your job whenever he wishes, no matter how long you have served his company, and even if you have done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, your employer can insist that you are evicted from your own home, and never allowed to re-enter it.
    “Your employer may further demand that you must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to your employer for some considerable time into the future.”
    How many incidents of violence against employers would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all employees?
    An enormous number, one would imagine.
    Now read this. It’s the Lovers Contract.
    “A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for ‘domestic violence’. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion.
    “She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong.
    “Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future – and, in some instances, this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his.”
    How many incidents of DOMESTIC violence against women would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all their male partners?
    An enormous number, one would imagine.
    But, here in the West, they are the terms and conditions for their male partners!
    Is it really surprising to find, therefore, that the incidence of ‘domestic violence’ against women has hardly decreased in 20 years?
    I say ‘hardly decreased’, but no-one actually knows the true figures for domestic violence. The official figures are virtually meaningless in that they derive mostly from incidents that would paint us all as ‘domestically violent’.
    domestic violence is now largely defined by the woman’s attitude to whatever she claims to be experiencing at the time which now even means arguing of withholding affection! Something WOMEN are better known for…
    The legal reality, however, is that domestic violence is now largely defined by the woman’s attitude to whatever she claims to be experiencing at the time. And the problem with this – apart from the sheer unfairness of it all from the point of view of the man – is that her attitude is not something that is objectively definable, and neither is it ‘fixed’ – in the sense that a woman’s attitudes can change and fluctuate almost as much as the wind. Indeed, in the USA, some 20 million women experience clinically severe emotional disturbances every single month through PMS, and about 5 million have significant personality disorders.
    And sometimes, of course, a woman’s real attitude isn’t even ‘observable’ – such as when she’s exaggerating, lying, or ‘confused’, perhaps through drink, drugs, medicines. We’ve been very encouraged by the interest already shown in this campaign, which we launched yesterday.
    We live in an increasingly gynocentric world – one that panders relentlessly to the needs and wants and whims of women, regardless of the costs to others. Married men have volunteered to become slaves to their partners, a matter well outlined in many articles.

    Is it any wonder that women are so eager to get married and that men are rejecting marriage in droves? The feudalistic model reveals exactly what men are buying into via that little golden band – a life commitment to a woman culturally primed to act as our overlord. As more men become aware of this travesty they will choose to reject it, and for those still considering marriage I encourage you to reconsider; your ability to keep or lose your freedom depends upon it.

    Like

  87. JudgyBitch March 5, 2015 at 14:18 #

    The solution to a scary fight is not to run away, but to plan a strategy and fight back. That is what the MRM is attempting to do.

    Like

  88. Clay March 5, 2015 at 16:24 #

    With the corrupt law i.e. (fairness and justice) squarely on the FEMALE side only, and the fact that men are automatically guilty because of penis, I simply don’t know how to fight back. I don’t have thousands to spend on corrupt lawyers, who don’t give a shit anyway, and society at large believes any lie the media tells especially those negative about males, just how does one guy stand up and fight against such a corrupt system (funded by your and my tax dollars no less) and stand any chance of winning? MRA’s are not doing enough as 50 years has gone by with nary a change in sight. In fact, lots of things are even worse. Much worse-

    Like

  89. JudgyBitch March 5, 2015 at 16:27 #

    Clay, one guy CAN’T. That’s the whole reason the MRM exists. Together we can change the laws that are so unfair.

    Like

  90. Aporiac Socrates March 6, 2015 at 10:14 #

    “With the corrupt law…”

    Laws are made by human beings. A corrupt law has been made by human beings and can be unmade by human beings.

    Our current divorce laws come from an era that no longer exists, but have not been revised to reflect this reality. They provided special protections for women when women were economically dependant on men. However, women are no longer economically dependant on men, or at least not by necessity, and so the laws should be changed. This is going to involve a battle because many women benefit from the laws as they are, but then nothing is ever changed without a battle.

    Liked by 1 person

  91. Clay March 6, 2015 at 12:55 #

    It is my belief and understanding that women never really needed those ‘special protections’ even from the beginning. Men have ‘protected’ their women (not the other way around) and so in return, females decided to repay that kindness by taking advantage of our generosity. Yeah. Thanks. Females have been bilking men since the dawn of time and we, yes WE men let them do it!
    Now that we all understand what’s going on and just who is taking advantage here, the question is why to we men let them continue?

    Like

  92. Aporiac Socrates March 6, 2015 at 15:03 #

    Women have not always been economically independent, and were subject to restrictions that prevented them from becoming so. A wife, say, 150 years ago relied on her husband to support her and their children. By and large things were arranged so that he could.

    There may not be a gender pay gap now, and barriers to entry to particular jobs, but there have been in the past and so women were dependent on their male relatives for survival. Once a man married he was expected to provide for his wife, although, of course, she also had duties to him. If she broke the marriage contract, say, by hooking up with another man, the husband was freed of his obligations to her. If he broke the contract he was not. In Victorian times abandoned wives who did not have other family to support her could end up in the workhouse. Men made laws so that husbands could not put their wives in this situation.

    However, none of this history really matters because we cannot fix the problems of yesterday, but only those of today.

    “Now that we all understand what’s going on and just who is taking advantage here, the question is why to we men let them continue?”

    I’m a man, and I don’t. I’m also more interested in trying to change things than complaining about them.

    Like

  93. that1susan March 6, 2015 at 15:54 #

    I don’t think it’s that typical for a divorced woman to get alimony today. There’s pretty much only child support for the custodial parent.

    As I’ve already mentioned on this blog before, in my state, when a father fights for custody, he does sometimes get it and then the woman sometimes has to pay child support to him. I think some mothers even prefer the joint custody route now because it’s better than a nasty fight — so if fathers would like to make shared custody the norm, it needs to start being the norm for divorcing dads to fight for this.

    Of course, what will be even better is that more women will think twice about divorce if they’re no longer guaranteed full custody of the kids and a fat check to go with it.

    I know of divorced parents getting, or receiving child support, but I don’t know anyone who pays or received alimony. But again, even though it’s not the norm here, I guess it could still be the norm in other regions.

    Like

  94. Clay March 6, 2015 at 19:08 #

    “I’m a man, and I don’t. I’m also more interested in trying to change things than complaining about them”.

    *If* thats true, then you are CERTAINLY in the minority for it is WE men who allow this to continue. And since continuing it is, it stands up to logic that men are doing more complaining than action. And further logic would suggest that it is exactly what men prefer, else they would actualy do something about it. Which of course, is not being done.

    Like

  95. Clay March 6, 2015 at 19:12 #

    I fought like hell, spent all my money and still because I have a penis, lost out. My ex made the same money as me, and I was involved in the day to day JUST AS MUCH as she, and STILL I pay mommy-support and of course, alimoney because I was the one standing there in court with a penis. There is no better or more logical explaination for the blatant corruption. The entire system is a corrupt as the day is long. Everybody knows and and nobody give a good god-damn!

    Like

  96. that1susan March 6, 2015 at 19:57 #

    I agree that the legal justice system is corrupt, and it’s really a case of “follow the money-trail.” While complaining certainly can’t hold a candle to actually solving a problem, when a solution hinges on enough people becoming aware of the situation and getting fed up enough to insist on changing it — well, sometimes you have to talk about it enough for that critical mass of people to get pissed off.

    Like

  97. that1susan March 6, 2015 at 19:58 #

    And I’m really sorry about what happened in your own case.

    Like

  98. Aporiac Socrates March 7, 2015 at 00:26 #

    “And further logic would suggest that it is exactly what men prefer, else they would actualy do something about it.”

    People tend to be only interested in things that affect them personally. It’s not necessarily what they prefer – more a combination of ignorance and apathy.

    “*If* thats true, then you are CERTAINLY in the minority”

    Change is always driven by a minority.

    Like

  99. betaoptics March 8, 2015 at 21:41 #

    Ummm… I sort of get this but one objection here.
    MGTOW is not an acronym that is to be defined directly. It is the rejection of gynocentrism. In essence it is the idea that women should not be treated specially and while you can make your marriage technically work with mutual and equal respect, it still is the government and law institutions that do support gynocentric ideals and so you can not be married and a MGTOW at the same time.

    You can support that philosophy. In fact I would coin the term to call these people ‘ Red Pill Philosophy (RPP) ‘ – supporters and really we are mostly talking about semantics but it is important to distinguish the two for the sake of identifying and more accurately understanding where that individual currently is being located and who they are.

    Meaning that technically they are not MGTOW since they are married but they can still identify the value and follow the value of Red Pill Philosophy.

    As far as I am concerned, marriage and MGTOW are in direct opposition and contradiction in terminology and so you can not really be a negative positive at the same time. Not mathematically and not logically speaking anyways. In the same way one can not really be an Anti-Feminist Feminist as those two terms are the polar opposites of one another and in a sense marriage and MGTOW philosophy are polar opposites in that scale.

    Otherwise I got to agree that I find it a bit silly how so many fellow MGTOW are so self absorbed by their own rhetoric that they look at the world in such a black and white terms. Fact is that even if ” a lot ” of women act ” bad they are no more slaves to their social conditioning than what we all used to be once.

    Then again I haven’t ever been able to hate a person for being who they are if they do not know any better than that. I just think it would be unfair to hate the ignorant in that sense and i have always approved moderate stances over radical extreme ones.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 5+ hours of video all about me? Yeah, no thanks. | Manosphere.com - February 26, 2015

    […] 5+ hours of video all about me? Yeah, no thanks. […]

    Like

  2. The hedonistic slagheap. | Dark Brightness - March 3, 2015

    […] Most humans, like it or not, are pretty predictable. Most women want to be at home with their young children, and most men take great pride in providing for their families and there is nothing wrong with that. Enforcing that as an immutable social requirement is not acceptable to anyone, one hopes. There are plenty of women who are perfectly happy to spend an hour with their children on an average day, and plenty of men who would love nothing more than to be at home with their little ones, making mud pies and doing laundry. Those men and women should find each other. […]

    Like

  3. Karen Straughan wants to know how to create a society that is forced to care about men. I have some ideas….. | judgybitch - March 12, 2015

    […] to add: my Facebook feed shows that the video is from that crazy RazorBladeCandy guy who dedicated five hours of his life to describing how much I hate men and wish to enslave them. Apparently he is obsessed […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: