It has been my personal experience that women do take that sign of chivalry for granted. There have been two examples over the past few years that came to mind as I read this article from the The Spearhead..

Example one came up when I was in a accessories store looking for a book stand of some type and came across a narrow pathway in the over stocked store, there was room for only one person to go through at a time. At the same time two women approached, one quite elderly and one who must have been her granddaughter. I strolled through without even stopping and even though it left them room to  not impede their progress. It did not stop granny from making the obvious snide remark of "You're obviously not a gentleman", I stopped turned around and commented that if she expected chivalry, it is too late as you have killed that..

The response was worth a thousand words but I did not have a camera with me. So the "take that for granted" attitude is widely dispersed among women as they feel within themselves that they are worth more and they should be automatically given abeyance regardless of the situation. I use to in the past, but now I no longer bother as it is indeed taken for granted. My door opening days for women is over,  as they have killed that as well and I only demonstrate manners to those I know, like family and friends, the rest can open their own damn door. As for carrying weights, same thing. I have seen a few struggle and obviously totally pissed as there look, their desperate, hopeful stare, attested, I smile..

The next example came when I passed a car parked on the side of a busy access road at peak hour and noticed a women standing in front of the car, just staring at it, wondering I suppose, what to do next. As I passed I saw her edge to the side of the road and wave for help to passing motorists..
The following day there was a letter to the editor "Letter of the day" which stated that it was her who was stranded on the side of the road and she bitterly complained that no one stopped and had to call the road service club to help. She failed to state ofcourse that there would have been women who passed her as well but blamed the men for their thoughtless behaviour. I was quite surprised when the next day there was a response which stated "You wanted equality, you got it", kinda made my day..

The gift transformed into a debt.
from The Spearhead by Dalrock

Blessed is he who expects no gratitude, for he shall not be disappointed.

– W.C. Bennett

Back in 1852 the troop ship HMS Birkenhead sank in shark infested waters off the coast of South Africa. There weren’t enough lifeboats to save everyone, and the captain made the extraordinary decision to reserve them for the women and children aboard. The crew followed the captain’s order even though it meant his and many of their own deaths. This incredible example of men sacrificing for others has made what otherwise would have been an obscure shipwreck a famous event in history.

Even a century and a half later, women still understand the meaning of the profound sacrifice made by those brave men:

Men owe us.

A similar event occurred in 1912 when RMS Titanic struck an iceberg. Well over a thousand men stood aside and died so that mostly women (and a lesser percentage of children) could survive. Women understood the meaning of that sacrifice as well:

You got off easy. The women who survived are the ones who had to suffer. We didn’t ask you to do this for us anyway.

And of course: Men owe us.

One of the videos I saw after the sinking of the Costa Concordia had an overweight American woman with a short haircut complaining:

It certainly wasn’t women and children first!

She said this in the form of an indictment, with the obvious expectation that all listening would see it as proof of an outrageous dereliction by the men on the ship. She and countless other women believe that since some men have volunteered to die in shipwrecks in the past, all men will forever have an obligation to do so. What men in the past did was an incredible act of graciousness; it has been met with an equally incredible lack of grace in return.

I’ve searched the web looking for a copy of the video to share, but unfortunately I couldn’t find it. What I found instead was even more powerful however. Sheila Gregoire wrote a post/syndicated column shortly after the Costa Concordia went down titled: Women and Children First? A Feminist Tragedy (emphasis mine):

In the comments I’ve been reading on the news reports, people seem to agree that children should be given priority, but there’s a heated debate about the women. We’re equal, so why should a man lose a place to a woman? Why should a man have to help a woman when he’s in danger, too?

And, as disgusting as I find that question, it makes sense. In 1912 it was a different world. Personal responsibility was still the main ethos of the day. People took care of their neighbours; they did not wait for government to do it for them. And people had a code of honour that included helping others when you could.

Somehow we have lost that. It is no longer about honour and what we should do for others; it has become what others should do for us.

I assume the irony is lost on her that her response to men having shown incredible selflessness is to be upset that men might at times elect to take care of themselves instead of focusing on people like her. As I have written before, making chivalry mandatory or expected destroys the very concept. It isn’t just feminists who destroyed chivalry, but feminist-lite women who view themselves as traditional.

Even so it wasn’t Sheila’s blog post which really startled me, it was the comments from many of the women who read her blog. Several of the women understood the issue and why men made different choices on that wreck than on certain shipwrecks in the past. But others took an attitude of incredible entitlement, assuming that men in general exist to serve them. Commenter Rachel started by explaining that men owe this to women because women’s lives are worth more than men’s:

Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.

She then describes how she rudely bumped into a man recently in an elevator because she assumed he would understand that she has a special right to exit elevators first, even though of course she is his equal:

That being said, I was just thinking of this topic last night. I was sharing an elevator with a man about my age. When the elevator stopped, I automatically started to get off and he almost ran into me! I am so used to men letting me get off the elevator first, it hadn’t occurred to me that he wouldn’t. Once I righted myself, I got thinking about it and why would he let me off first? I am his equal. I started to think if there was a scientific reason, and I could not come up with one. In fact, I thought maybe the man should go first to let him see if it’s safe (I’ve watched too much late night drama and seen too many people get attacked getting off elevators).

Even though the uppity man in the elevator didn’t know his place, she graciously suggests that there are times when it is acceptable for a man to enter a lifeboat:

The thought process led to thinking about the “women and children first” policy and I do still think that applies, unless the child who is getting on the life boat is only accompanied by his/her father. I think then the dad should be able to get on the life boat with his child(ren).

I want to back up and remind you that before 1852 there was no such expectation that men should stand by and drown in order to save women who in most cases are strangers. The sense of entitlement so many women now have because of acts of incredible selflessness by men in the past is astonishing.

Another commenter named Britiney who writes a blog called Consider the Lillies read Sheila’s post and it reminded her of a time recently when men she didn’t know failed to snap-to and be her personal unpaid valet. It happened when she exercised poor planning while taking her computer in for repair:

Along the same lines and under the heading of “Chivalry is dead” I had to take my computer to the repair shop last week. I took it to the Apple store in our local mall and, not knowing that there was a “secret” entrance close to the store, I lugged it all the way through the parking lot, and then all the way through the mall and then BACK because I decided to take it somewhere else. I don’t know how much it weighs, but by the time I got all the way back to my car I was nearly in tears because it was SO heavy and I was SO frustrated. And here’s my point: I cannot even tell you how many able-bodied young men I passed while I was carrying something that was OBVIOUSLY too heavy for me. When I finally got to my car I called my husband and told him that my boys will NEVER pass someone who needs help and not offer to help them. I was so disgusted that not one single man offered to help me! So so so sad. I can’t influence any of the men who passed me by, but I can certainly influence the 3 young men God has entrusted to my care and if I have ANYTHING to do with it, they WILL put women and children first!!!

It reminded me of a comment Hestia made on a previous post on this topic about a woman who saw a group of servicemen returning from active duty, and was upset that they didn’t volunteer to carry her load for her:

Basically here is a group of largely men who have been sacrificing on behalf of the nation (or so the story goes) who haven’t done enough for this pampered princess. So it seems to go not only with soldiers in particular but men in general when it comes to chivalry.

One thing men need to understand is that in the event that they make the kind of sacrifice women are demanding, not only will it lead to even more entitlement, but many women will still detract from the noble nature of your choice. Commenter Amanda wrote:

Not to undermine your point, but when the Titanic sank, women and children were NOT put first. Sure, they started the evacuations like that, and there were men of honor, but there were also the men who locked the doors to the third class section so that those people wouldn’t take up lifeboat space, and the coward who pushed women and children aside in their haste to get into a boat.

After Sheila challenged her on the historical accuracy of this claim, Amanda replied with:

Well, it’s been a few years since I did all the reading I did on the Titanic, but I was pretty interested as a youngling, and the picture I got from the books was one of polite, subversive cowardice slowly escalating to outright anarchy and panic.

Understand that if you sacrifice yourself for women you don’t know that most women will simply take your act of ultimate selflessness as proof that men owe them. A significant number will also deny the bravery of your dying act.

Note: This post first appeared on my blog.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

Link to the Spearhead..

It won't be long before they turn him from this......

I am of the same opinion as Bill in this regard, there was no way they were going to hide the sex of a girl. Those lunatics, cretins for parents, were always going to destroy a boy both mentally and physically with all those inane and unjustifiable "good" intentions. They do not deserve to have a son if this is the way he is being treated. It is child abuse in the most chilling and unforgivable, way..

I did predict it was a boy, so did probably everyone else. They would never do that to a princess as there was no specific or justifiable reason..

A bit like those two cretin parents refusing to divulge the sex of their (son) child. They would be finding out about now precisely what his sex preferences are unless ofcourse they force him to behave like a girl, which rather defeats their inane intentions of not identifying as either sex.

To this, along with appropriate slander..

Gender Neutral Baby Revealed: It’s a Boy
from The Spearhead by W.F. Price

A British couple that decided to raise their child in a ‘gender neutral’ environment has finally revealed that the kid is a boy. This doesn’t surprise me at all. Knowing these kinds of nuts, it makes perfect sense that they did it to their son, because they usually try to make a point at the expense of a boy, and raising girls like boys is already common throughout the Anglo world.

They had the boy cross-dress, and when he tried to run around naked in the yard (little kids love doing that), they hustled him back in to hide him from the neighbors and gave him dolls. His mother is making him wear the girls’ school uniform, and won’t let him wear combat trousers.

Not long ago, gender identity problems in children were considered a mental disorder. There’s a reason for that. It can cause serious mayhem when puberty hits. It’s unlikely that this kid will think of himself as ‘gender-neutral’ for much longer, but if he walked into the girls’ locker room in middle school and took off his clothes, we all know what would happen to him. So does his mother, and I’m sure she supports boys being punished for such behavior.

This is why she doesn’t really believe in this garbage; she’s just using the boy to bolster her progressive cred. Pure selfishness at her son’s expense.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

The feminist mentality

I did have a laugh when I read this comment from Demosthenes -

And the first step is putting paid to the quaint notion that the answer to men’s rights is “more feminism.” That’s like saying the answer to lung cancer are more cigarettes. 

It is what we have been saying all along. Men need feminism like a bull needs boobs. It is just not a good match as feminists blindly try to steer masculinity into a congealed sphere while they take turns to beat the shit out of it and leave it useless and only a semblance of it's originality. Feminists claims have always been either to ensure that men are compliant to their wishes or be trained into cowtowing(sic) to women regardless of the situation..

While they have been busy trying to destroy masculinity, education and work environments, they have forced the opposite sex into working longer by foregoing their own needs and requirements and women have fallen for it, hook, line and high heels. Their endless poking and prodding by the likes of female feminist like Hymowitz has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to do with making a man a man. There interpretations is about as positive as feminists efforts were to increase their dwindling market share and acceptability, which has died to such a degree that they cannot even attract younger females to their functions and thereby loosing out on their much needed credit..

Feminism is basically history, only they refuse to accept that while they grapple with every issue possible to try and stay relevant. We have even witnessed ex feminists coming out of their misandric closet to declare that they are sick to death of their male bashing, male hating doctrine and will no longer abide by their nonsensical and often ridiculous methodology that they determine to be a normal discussion or debate. There version of a debate is for everyone else to listen while they talk, it can be referred to as the "Marcotte Syndrome" the "you listen while I talk method but don't disagree with anything I say or you will be regarded as the enemy. When feminists learn to mind their own damn business and stick to female issues which is what fem-ism is supposed to be all about. Basically who gave them the right to interfere with anything male and why are we even conversing with those clowns whose only wish is the destruction of all things male and replace it with a placebo. They can butt out of the conversation, so the boys can take care of it their own way which has already started to take place..





So feminism and feminists can just F*ck off and leave these important discussion to the grownups, the men..

Feminist Concerns With Male Self-Evaluation or Brothers Gonna Work It Out

The Feminist Waaaaaaahmbulance...

Feminism's Conformational Bias..

Feminists end goal of neutering males has always been present. Their endless mudslinging efforts about male violence has always been presented as being toxic and everything should be done to change male behaviour, even if it means to introduce new laws specifically aimed at masculinity..

The problem with feminism's claim about men is that they refuse to except the fact that females are capable of violence as well. When claiming that ignorance, feminists work from a level of zero violence when referring to women and then lay claim that only one sex is capable of using force in order to fulfil any mission..
Claiming that men are violent and women are not just re-establishes their stereotypical attitude towards males, making it glaringly obvious about how sexist their viewpoint really is. The other issue they refuse to face is also the use of force that women demand from men in order for them to feel safe and dominate any critic. By demanding endless protective laws and demanding and utilising state control and use of violence against males only demonstrates their innate bias. It is not that coercion or control is the issue but that feminists themselves are of the opinion that only they should control it..

Nope, feminists say "women are not violent", Check..

The endless denial that women are not violent plays into this charade. The end result is only to ensure that females control the violence as they have done from the word go. How many times have you witnessed females demanding action or demanding that males carry out their violent demands while at the same time live in denial about taken or demanding that action. The other issue being that males raised in single mom homes have already been studied and demonstrated that without a male mentor to teach behaviour and self control, that sibling will end up even more violent than would normally be the case. Another feminist achievement..

Feminists live in denial about their own situation as well, where their own agitators went about violently, actively introducing their own level of violence to achieve their end. They even resorted to coercion, threats and bombing establishments in order to promote their message. While the violence levels by men has dropped exponentially over the past few decades, female violence has increased by an astounding 255% according to one study in England. Bear in mind also that they are pointing the finger at a minutiae of the population who resort to violence and blatantly ignore the majority of peace loving individuals whose last resort would be to ever take that course of action..

It has all be orchestrated by feminists to once again introduce control and abeyance onto the male population which has always been their aim, while at the same time put up that mystical picture of females being the peace loving, nurturing individuals which they most certainly are not..

Non-violent females..

One only has to view that video out of Sweden to determine how violent females can be and how feminist females promote violence, to see where this is all heading. The entire argument is tired and has been bashed to death, feminisms hypocrisy on this subject is once again glaringly demonstrated.

Male hating feminists such as Cynthia Cockburn and Ann Oakley, have no issue at all about turning every country in the world to imitate the lunacy feminists have wrought in Sweden. That is their goal and aim. To neuter all men and boys, by violence if need be, while ending up with a sex that neither want them to be. 

Fourth Wave Feminism

Jack Donavan.
Author of "No Man's Land"..(free download)..

I’m going to begin with a small personal note. One of the regular readers here – one of the rare females who gets it – that I have known on-line for several years (going back to the Niceguy’s forum) emailed me recently noting that some people had commented on my absence from the on-line world. The reasons for that are more mundane that some people might be thinking – life, as it has a tendency to do, shucked me out a couple of jokers to try to fit into my hand.
Early in the summer I experienced an episode of having 4 strokes one evening. I was on vacation in Washington state and ended up in one of the hospitals in Bill Price’s home city. As a result of Bill doing me an extremely large favor while I was incapacitated, we finally met face to face – which was a great pleasure for me, despite the circumstances leaving much to be desired.
The largest of the 4 strokes was in the language processing area of the brain, leaving me unable to form a sentence or even say my own name. At the hospital all I could do was to take my ID out of my wallet and point to it. When I tried to write down some of my family’s phone numbers, I got all the digits right, but could not get them in the right order. Fortunately I was visiting friends who provided the needed information to the hospital personnel.
To make a long story short, my recovery has been – to me, at least – nothing short of miraculous. Fortunately, my motor skills were not affected and I didn’t lose control or use of the muscles on one or both sides of my body. Compared to what might have been, my circumstances are so favorable that when anyone asks me how I am doing – my only response is “FANTASTIC!!!” So, if anyone has the urge to offer condolences – save them. I fell into a dung heap, and came up smelling like a dozen roses.
Congratulations for my excellent luck are the only order of business on the table for me.
I related that story as a sort of sideways introduction to a whole lot of thoughts inspired by the September 28, 2011 edition of Paul Elam’s (and other’s) A Voice For Men radio show. Anyone who hasn’t listened to it yet really should do so – http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/09/28/men-going-their-own-way
The topic for that evening was Men Going Their Own Way. Paul started out the show talking about how much he hates the acronym MGTOW. There is no phonetic way to pronounce it, so it must either be spelled out or the words spoken individually. He prefers the term “Zeta Male”, which may be useful to reduce the concept to a sound bite in order to explain to someone who doesn’t know what is going on – what is going on. In some ways it is like the term “Marriage Strike” – a catchy term that people remember and eventually come to understand that it means something a little more than it actually says.
Except, MGTOW isn’t like that – it is exactly, and only, what it says. It is too simple for a lot of people to grasp.
It is the social, and cultural, equivalent of men hanging out a “Gone Fishing” sign, closing and locking the door, and disappearing to mental and emotional whereabouts unknown. And the most salient and significant characteristic is that those men who have done this don’t feel much need to explain or justify where they went – they just left.
So, for Paul’s benefit and for anyone else who finds the acronym MGTOW a bit of a mouthful, and doesn’t want to try to explain all the “Game” and “Red Pill” terminology and background which underlies it, I would offer the simpler alternative – “Free-Range Men.”
Paul went on to explore the phenomenon emerging in Japan of the men that are being called “Herbivores” or “Grass Eaters.” No one started out a few years ago and said “Hey, I have a great idea – I’m going to start a mass movement of the men in this country and I am going to call them ‘Herbivores’.” Men, millions of them, individually and on their own initiative, decided to “leave” the cultural values of their own culture behind. And, what coverage I have seen of the phenomenon gives me the impression that these men are fully aware that they don’t really need to explain or justify what they are doing – they are just doing it, and leaving everyone else to figure out how to get the load hauled that these men are now refusing to be the human mules to haul.
Explaining what MGTOW, or what being a Zeta Male or Herbivore, is all about is a bit like Lewis Armstrong responded when someone asked him what “jazz” was – “If you have to ask, it’s probably going to be really difficult to explain.” But, Paul does an exceptional job of capturing it’s essence -
“Those men are taking a look at the realities of their lives as it relates to women, and are taking the action of embracing lives of indifference toward women”- and, toward the traditional values of the host culture as well.
Because all this discussion is taking place in the context of the gender war, most discussions about men always circle back to women and how they are affected. The problem is that this obsessive, compulsive, focus on women – their wants and their needs – has blinded people to the reality of what is happening. It is like people are looking out at the ocean and saying “Hey, see that little wave out there? Doesn’t it seem to be getting bigger?”
When asked about the herbivore phenomenon, a 22 y/o college dropout describes it as a “diverse group of men who have no real desire to live up to traditional social expectations in their relationships with women, their jobs, or anything else.” Simply put, they have stopped going the culture’s way for men and defined their own. And worse, for women and the culture, they “… don’t care AT ALL, about what people think about how we live.”
It is the “anything else” in that sentence which should make the average so/trad/con’s blood run cold.
Paul goes on to point out that these Herbivores are leading lives of “Personal Abundance, according to their own tastes.” And, Captain Capitalism points out that men here, in the US, are doing it too.

Once we pay our taxes to subsidize other people and other people’s children, we still have the majority of our money to spend on ourselves. More importantly we have the majority of time to spend on ourselves. And better than that, society has advanced to the point there are LIMITLESS intellectual, physical, video, artistic and other pursuits to pursue and enjoy a happy, fulfilling life. We got our pals, we got our friends, we got a life.
And that (and you need to sit down for this) IS WITHOUT YOU!
No nagging, no crying, no drama, no divorce, no child support, no “my child comes first” BS, no jumping through hoops for sex, no abuse, no slapping, no flaking, no psychotic behavior, no mind games, no half my assets, no nothing.
You’re gone, you’re outta here, you’re irrelevant.
Congratulations! You “won” the battle and men have surrendered! Now leave us alone.

Let’s get out a measuring stick and see if we can get a sense of how big this cultural tsunami which has been building for the past 50 or more years is going to turn out to be. Don’t worry about the Grass Eaters, Herbivores, Zeta Males, Men Gone Their Own Way, or Free-Range Men – they have figured out in which direction the higher ground lays and have headed for it. It’s everyone else standing on the newly-expanded shoreline thinking how convenient it is for them that all these previously hidden treasures of the deep are now lying totally exposed, and are so busy watching their feet that they can’t be bothered to look towards the horizon, that need a clue.
So, let’s try to give them one, shall we?
All these males, who are part of “the movement which has no name”, who have individually decided on the best course of action for THEIR OWN LIVES – women and their own cultures can go hang – are the Phoenix rising from the death throes of their cultures.
And, let us hold a preliminary coroner’s inquest, even though the body has not stopped twitching yet.
Everything that men have done for the past 20 years or so has been covered over by the term “backlash”, popularized in 1991 by Susan Faludi in her book “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women” This hyperbole, this hysterification, of the fact that social change wasn’t occurring as quickly as some women wanted, is totally indicative of the the Solipism of the Female mind – any and all actions of men must only be considered in light of how they affect women. Some people claim that “the movement which has no name” (is “TMWHNN” any better than MGTOW, Paul? ) is only a “backlash” against feminism.
Nope, folks, this is not a bug of feminism, it is a feature.
These men, whatever you choose to call them, are EXACTLY the kind of men that feminism set out to create. The fact that women, cultures, and governments don’t know how to factor such men into their cultural survival is not those men’s problem.
Remember a couple of years ago during the first period of the now on-going “global financial crisis” when Harriet HARM-MEN made the statement that “If Lehman Brothers would have been Lehman Sisters, then none of this would have happened.” In other words – all that nasty competition between men is to blame and the world would be a better place if it was gotten rid of.
The Grass Eaters of Japan are the implementation of that theory, and the preliminary indications are that Japanese women don’t really like the result all that much. These men are not part of a “backlash” against feminism, but rather the result of the collision between feminism and the traditional cultural values which feminism purports to oppose – while at the same time desperately hopes will continue because they provide both the continued rationale for feminism and for the continued survival of women and their children.
Now, never mind that men who spend their lives as “salary-men” in a culture in which death from overwork is so common that they even have a name for it – “Karōshi” – after retirement became such an annoyance to their wives, now that they were not acting like pack mules supporting wifey’s consuming habits, that they were called “wet leaves.” And, never mind that the definitions of “sexual assault” and “sexual harassment” have been so broadened that if “the person being convinced instead feels coerced, it’s sexual assault” that men are still demanded to engage in pursuing women – if relationships between men and women are going to still continue to be formed – “manning up” as it were.
Except, the Grass Eaters aren’t doing it – and they are not the least bit concerned about the bloviations of the likes of Bill-Bennett-San.
Paul went on to ask why there was such an apparent reaction in Japan while the western cultures have swallowed the cultural-poison-pill of feminism with barely a hiccup. While I think what he said was very valid, I think there is a hidden part of the picture that people have to look for if they are going to find it.
OK, Roll Call – sound off.
Who isn’t here?
We know who is here, because they just announced themselves. We don’t know who isn’t here because… well, because they AREN’T here.
Bueller? Bueller?
There are dozens of reasons why a western response, and particularly an American one, will look quite different than a Japanese response. One of the biggest is that Japan is an extremely conformist culture, while the United States in particular was populated mostly by renegades. The American character is fundamentally different than the Japanese character.
Another hugely significant reason is population density. The population/area ratio is more than 10 times for Japan than for the United States – 870/sq mile in Japan, and 82/sq mile in the US.
Putting these two characteristics together – in the US one has to search 10 times as much area to figure out who isn’t there. And, if they never signed up in the first place, then their name isn’t even on the roster – which makes it that much more difficult to track them down.
Bueller? Bueller?
Now, in Japan, the tradcons used the same attempts at shaming men into following in their traditional mule, or man-bot, role that western cultures have used. They call them “Grass Eaters” with connotations of passivity and lack of effort and “Manning Up” that led older generations of men to work themselves to death.
The biggest problems for the so/trad/cons is that they are eating their own, practicing cannibalism. The persons hurt the worst by the current system are the same ones who follow the so/trad/con way – like Twogunner in this comment.
But, the problem comes in when the cannibals realize that men are practicing free-agency and are not signing up to be cannibalized by the tradcon values. And, when some Bill-Bennett-San or Kay Hymenzipped tells them to “Man Up” – they aren’t around to listen.

I just returned from a 10-day motorcycle trip through Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. Shortly before I left I was talking to a guy about which motorcycle I was going to take – the big one, (Thunderbird – 1700 CC) or the small one, (Bonneville – 865 CC.) He asked my how I got “the wife’s” permission to buy 2 motorcycles. I told him – “no wife, no one who thinks they have the power to give or withhold ‘permission’ from me.”
After 10 days, 2700 miles, 3 rainstorms, and 1 snow storm, I decided that a good name for the US version of “the movement which has no name” might be something more like “Rock Eaters” or “Wind Eaters.” Over the years I have known a lot of men who like putting their faces into the wind and seeing what lies beyond that next hill – or the one after that, or the one after that one. I have a friend who just turned 60 – whose 60th birthday party I made extremely memorable by stroking out in the middle of it – who has never been married and spend most of the past 35 years as an engineer on multiple ships all over the Pacific Ocean. Damn, he has had an interesting and fun life!! And, he never had to ask permission to do that, either.
In the USA, with its “Wild West” history, and its “Don’t Fence Me In” philosophy, there is a type of man known as the “Ramblin’ Man”, or as I tend to think of him, a “Free-Range Man.” They are a fundamentally different type of men than those men who organize school districts or public water supply districts, and the second type of man is often hugely threatened by the first – which is why they do everything they can to get them tied down to a resident “warden” – the only escape from which is the financial devastation of divorce court.
Now, one would think that a culture interested in preserving itself would value the second type of man – a man like Bill Price – over the other type of man. And yet, we live in a culture which reserves its harshest punishment for the men who would try to be good fathers.
I have come to the conclusion that the Internet was invented in order to give the Chattering Classes a more effective means of chattering. Eventually, it starts to seem that there are only a dozen “conversations” recycled endlessly with different titles.
One of the most tiresome of these is the argument about “activism.” There is a significant group of men whose definition of “activism” sounds remarkably close to “why haven’t you already taken the action to make the world the way I want it to be, and save me the trouble of doing it?” – in other words, a slightly different permutation of “manning up.”
It’s as bizarre a conversation as arguing with a compulsive gambler about “manning up”, or a compulsive adulterer about being a “Promise Keeper.” It seems that most scumbags assume that all men are as big a scumbag as they are, and arguing with them is truly an exercise in arguing with an idiot – they drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
A fundamental question which comes to mind when confronting people like this is – why should I spend the time and energy to make your world the way you want it to be, when a fraction of that energy already expended has made my own life the way I want it to be?
One of my favorite quotes is that no one ever looked back from their death bed and says “Oh no! I wish I had spent more time at the office.” When I was lying in a hospital bed 3.5 months ago, unable to make a coherent sentence come out of my mouth and not certain that I would ever wipe my own ass by myself again, it certainly never crossed my mind that I wished I had spent more time at the office; or arguing with pig-headed so/trad/cons, idiotic feminists, or newly minted MRAs whose major contribution is to piss on what everyone who has come before them has tried.
The saddest thing to me to contemplate is that guys like Bill Price are much better people than I am. He “manned up” and fought the good fight in the family courts for the sake of his children. What kind of screwed-up culture punishes him so severely for trying to keep it going, and rewards deadbeat-non-dads like me with visions of complete double rainbows?

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

Winner - Hugo Schwyzer

I do believe the feminasty movement are still annoyed over the fact that we forced them to change the named "Women's Studies" program to "Gender Studies" which ofcouse did not make an iota of difference to their male bashing, male hating agenda, they had originally installed.
The same cretins are still involved in that misnomer and occasionally, the odd named individual or three, rears their sexist, morally corrupted head and endeavours to gestate another inane thought process that only other morally corrupt feminist could possibly comprehend.
Schwyzer, (the winner of our famous Mangina Award for morally corrupt male feminists who sold their soul and their own sex out for poon) once again demonstrates beyond doubt why he is paid to promote these mindless, delusional, inane thought processes as he would find it impossible to sell that load of drivel for cash. Always good to rely on the taxpayers dollars for your rent seeking malfeasance..

The article penned by Schwyzer is about accidental rape. One has to wonder what he has been up to to warrant such a title. Feminists have already introduced a plethora of interpretations to the "R" word, so what's another one..

RapeMarital RapeDate RapeAccidental RapeEye Rape (i.e. thought rape)

Bill at The Spearhead sums up this recalcitrant nicely in this complimentary article..

Bill from The Spearhead as many others having been involved in a toxic marriage would agree that some people just do not deserve to be married as their interpretation is that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and once you get there, alone and without any chance of a relationship, that green grass was just an illusion that feminists created in order to destroy the good relationships that men and women had carved out for each other over aeons. A method that worked really well until feminist lies and exaggerations were screamed from lofty heights to inform all women that the life that you are enjoying at the moment is not really a life at all. So the feminist hegemony went to work destroying that compatibility with outrageous lies and continue to this day to malign and denigrate both sexes for having the temerity to actually co-exist with a member of the opposite sex and enjoying that, just not on.

So they convinced women in particular that they should become wage slaves just like them men, sacrifice your life in the pursuit of money and lower the wage level in the process. A method heartily supported by business leaders who saw an opportunity to lower wage bills, increase turnover as a broken homes requires more stuff, donated millions of dollars to the feminist hegemony on the condition that they ensure men and women work their butts off and not have a life. Did that work or what ?

Meanwhile, it took some women a while to catch onto that plot, they actually realised that nothing is gained without the cost being paid. Also, some men noticed their lifestyle totally destroyed by maniacal divorce court judges who cowtowed to the feminist utopia. It is a lot easier giving away someone else's money than your own. It was the right thing to do ofcourse. Women ofcourse came under scrutiny as well as they fell victim to that same lunacy that men had already faced for many years, and when they faced the same hypocrisy and lies that divorce courts allow as well as the family courts when deciding "for the sake of the children" they also came to the realisation that this system sucked. Not only did it discriminate against all men which was just fine as far as they were concerned but when the same thing happens to them by a doctrine that claims to be for equality only then did it open some eyes and women started moaning and whining out loud, how is it possible for the fallacy that is feminism, destroy both financially and psychological the sex that it was supposed to help..

Feminism screwed up in major fashion. Those middle class dysfunctional, self interested, white females actually got it wrong. Now they have enemies on all sides as they start to duck for cover and hope they don't face well deserved charges of crimes against humanity..

Meanwhile back at the ranch -

Marriage Reform Page Up by W.F. PriceIn the first step in my effort to make a positive change, I’ve started collecting and linking material relevant to marriage reform. I’d like to invite others who have some interest in the issue, especially those who have written on the subject, to visit the page and post links. Attorneys with experience writing prenups or simply in contract law are also very much welcome.
The goal is to give people who want a better form of marriage the guidance and tools to make it possible. Default civil marriage as it exists today has become an evil and destructive institution that must be changed. People who remain in civil marriages do so despite the incentives to divorce and engage in gender warfare. For the weaker and less sensible it is too often a disaster that literally ruins lives, including those of the most innocent — our children.
Feminism may have done a wrecking job on the Western family, but I am optimistic that this can be turned around. The fight against feminists must continue, but it’s time to start discussing reconstruction, and reforming the devastated institution of marriage is where it should begin.