Link.


Yep he's right on the money.

Marc's best ever article! Finally I can warm to this lawyer. Super. A call to arms is what is needed from many quarters, and this is right on the buttton.

$$$$Come get it bitch!$$$$

Washington knew he could win the battle of attrition against a tyrant, and so should we. It is a marathon, not a sprint.

This man is akin to a church in the middle of downtown Las Vegas.

California is definitely an evil woman.

I can understand his frustration, but it's not that simple.

Avoid voting for gynocrats? I don't know anybody in our parliament who isn't a gynocrat, except maybe the members of a small fundamentalist protestant party (2 seats) who are opposed to democracy and want social order to be based on the scripture.

Not marry a mercenary, manipulative harpy? Maybe Rudov thinks everybody has as much choice as he has. Somebody's going to get stuck with them, and there are many.

Anyway, it seems Rudov is more and more taking to man bashing.

It's an honest and simultaneously depressing article about how modern man has completely surrendered to a gynocentric hell, without any semblance of a fight. I've made similar points previously how men will fight tooth and nail in just about every other scenario that doesn't involve women. Here, they dare not muster a wimper. Truely pathetic!

As for gynocrats, yes most male politicians are too varying degrees. Whats the alternative? Given that most female politicians have feminist inclinations, a sinking realization is experienced given what a monumental task we face - in the void of any real tangible alternative. Whoever we vote for, it's only differing degrees of the same pathology.

Totally agreed. If you don't vigorously uphold such necessity of thought, your part of the problem.

He says that men have been stripping themselves of their rights. What rights have been taken away from men? (Please don't shoot me for asking this...it's not a challenge, it's a point of confusion for me.) What I see is that men AND women have been supporting legislation that gives privilege to women, benefits to women that go beyond equality and into the realm of entitlement.

It doesn't seem that men have lost rights, but it does seem that men are contributing to (but not solely responsible for!) the fact that women now have a privileged status.

So how do we realistically approach this? Do we need to remove the privileged status, take away the benefits that have led to entitlement, and enforce the equality that remains? Or, do we fight for men to have the same privileges, the same benefits, and the same entitlement that women have been enjoying and hold that as a measure of true equality?

My thoughts: we need to remove the privileged status, and enforce true equality in regard to our laws and practices.

How to go about doing that is another story altogether...

The problem is tera, mens "rights" that have been "removed" where those rights that occur naturally, they did not need enforcing or writing down because they, just were!!

The best example is the male head of family.

That used to be presumed in marraige, yet clearly the laws have changed to make that no longer true.

I agree that stripping away female priviledges and rights is the way forward.

But, since the state has assumed family headship effectively, its a matter of getting the state to back out more than anything as women do also have natural rights that "just are".. Such as the natural right to get pregnant and breastfeed!

I agree. Men are their own worst enemies in allowing these things to happen.

Mainly because they will not fight to hold on against the state.

TERA asks: An intelligent person would look around and see the answers and I for one recommend that you do, TERA.

I will give you a starter: The right to me measured against a public standard of Truth.

Men are not afforded Truth anymore in public life or private. It has been strangled.

Women on the other hand have been afforded access to an unprecedented reverence for Lies. It is given to them to consume at will in academic smorgasbords by researchers who do not bother to wash their hands; by Judges who require the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth only to refuse to let it be spoken; by cops who wear ear defenders to drown the voice of Truth along with the hiss of their sprays and the thud of their truncheons; by mainstream media who make their living selling coverup, starting with the face of the Princess; by the Politicians that create power from female hysteria engines constructed in the dark cellars of the feminist soul.

From this imbalance comes the wobble that breaks the axle; that shaft that links women and men in harmony.

The right of a man (as opposed to a woman or opposed to both men AND women together) to be the head of a household, was that ever a right or was it a privilege?

I suppose it was a right...way back when women could not vote nor own property and she was legally viewed as her husband's property.

I can't say I'd want to return to those times, even if you do. Though I agree the state of things today is that women now hold much more power than any other member of the common household, and that is not just, either.

Why can't both men and women be heads of their own households?