The white man's burden

Way back in the day, when Africa was known as the Dark Continent and America had just been discovered, taming the natives was the White Man's burden. The natives were so savage that it fell upon the white men (missionaries) to tame them and harness their power for the greater good of (white) mankind.

Today, men are the fairer sex's burden. It falls upon women to tame men, to harness them for the greater good of womynkind. Interestingly enough, this dictionary recognizes womankind as a word but doesn't recognize misandry.

Anyway, I present to you the travails of a teenage boy who just wants to have safe sex. This series of posts was made by Pentium 4 on SYG:

I was talking to my 14 year old nephew just now and he said that he had to go get a booster shot in order to go to school this year.
So, at the health department he asked for some condoms. He was told they only give them to females unless he is tested?

What does "tested" mean?

Can someone explain the logic in giving MALE birth control devices ONLY to females???

Called them, my nephew was telling the truth!

They give them to women who come in to get birth control or pap smear.

I asked if there was any condition where men could get them for free and she said only if they come in to be tested for an STD and are positive!
So let me get this straight. Women get free birth control pills and free condoms. Yet men get nothing UNLESS they are positive for an STD!!!
She said: "It was just too expensive to give them out to men".

How is this not the government giving women FULL reproductive control when they can get both the female contraceptive and the male contraceptive for FREE more readily than men can get male contraceptives for free?

Well, my nephew isn't into Men's Rights, he was just telling me what happened. He thought it was funny. I DID NOT!

Where I live (ND) they are out on the counter, where he lives apparently they are not.

I have no problem with the "it's too expensive" stuff. My problem is that the ones they do give out are given to FEMALES ONLY...unless a male has an STD.

It is all about women. They seem to want to give 100% reproductive control to women by giving them free birth control for both males and females. That she might punch holes in it is just one aspect. It sends the message that SHE is control of the use of contraceptives (ex, to use it or not to use it is not his choice as he isn't the one who brought it to the party) and if she did poke holes in it you can bet she will be pushing him to wear HER FREE condom not the one he BOUGHT! Men like to save money, even when horny.

They will give them to males ONLY if they have an STD. It is all about protecting women from men with STD's but otherwise, it is about women having 100% reproductive control in a sexual encounter. No matter how you look at it, they don't appear to give a shit about male reproductive rights but are all about helping to protect the woman if he has an STD.

A post by Brian:

Sounds about right. The woman is a victim and so she gets taxpayer paid for services for free. The man is told to get a job and pay for his own(and hers too by virtue of the taxes he pays) condoms. Now switch it around and watch how quickly the NAGS file a discrimination suit. Tell you nephew to make an EO complaint.

One from typhonblue:

I think it's even more insidious.

The idea behind it is that women need to have their precious sexuality protected. But a man only needs protection if it's necessary to protect his female partner from him.

I guess they believe STDs only go one way. From man to woman. And protection is only needed if you're protecting a woman from a man.
BTW, what about gay youth?

You could get him to ask the nurse why she thinks a girl needs protection, but he doesn't.

This is the kind of thing we're dealing with here. People just naturally assume that teenage boys aren't worthy of getting the same services that teenage girls are. If boys cost the healthcare system as much as girls do, what with routine visits, monthly appointments, pap smears and whatnots, people would blow a gasket and tell them to "man up and stop running to the doctor for every little thing."

Turning around the feminist canard of "If men got pregnant,"

If men got pregnant, they would die at childbirth, because nobody cares when men die.

For Single Guys

An excellent post by uzemandluzem... about how western women are sluts...

from Unhooked:
"Stepp follows three high school girls and six college women through a year in their lives, chronicling their sexual behavior. These girls and women don't date, don't develop long-term relationships or even short, serious ones -- instead, they "hook up." Hooking up, Stepp writes, "isn't exactly anything." It can "consist entirely of one kiss, or it can involve fondling, oral sex, anal sex, intercourse or any combination of those things."

As I stated in another thread, "The real and not often recognized root of women’s power in our society is that 90% of them are really only truly interested in 5% of guys. Just as importantly, when these girls are young (under 30) they’d much rather share the 5% than have one of the 95% all to themselves."
Obviously, it can only be a best guess but I would breakdown the 5% as follows:
Players: 2%
Bad Boys: 2%
Studs:1%
Good players are smooth talkers so they generally do well in clubs. While they do get plenty of sex, its not necessarily easy sex because they still have to make the effort and encounter lots of rejection. While they do have many more one night stands than the average guy, most of the time they still have to take the girl on at least one date before they get any action.
As for bad boys, women perceive them to be very masculine, adventurous and dangerous - and when dealing with the shallow, arrogant creature that is WW, perception is reality. If a bad boy isn't a smooth talker then he won't get laid like crazy but like rich dudes, he will always have a girlfriend because girls tend to be drawn to them like stink on shit.
The Studs however, are the true chosen ones: they get easy sex and lots of sex because they have the package (like the bad boys) and the skill (like the players) that allows them to bypass the whole dating scam - I mean scene. The classic example of the stud is the hi school or college quarterback. The following are just a few of the characteristics of the stud:
He has lots of female friends (and many of these girls have borefriends) and he is the king of the "one thing just led to another" hookup - No need to get numbers and certainly no need to waste time or money "dating".
For example, as the article above alludes to:
He'll be just hanging out watching a movie with 2 girls and the next thing you know (ATNTYK) he's piling both of them
He'll be studying with a girl at a library ATNTYK they're fucking under the stairwell
He'll go to a party ATNTYK a girl's blowing him while her bf's in the other room
He'll go to a club with his buddies ATNTYK he's fucking a girl in the bathroom
He'll give a girl a ride home from work ATNTYK he's riding her in the back seat or
He'll meet a girl on the street ATNTYK he's on her sofa with her ankles pinned behind her ears like bugs bunny.
Of course, the distinction between players, bad boys and studs is not black and white but the important thing to remember is that women are really only truly interested in the studs and the bad boys. They are entertained by players and the good ones do get lots of action but mainly because there are not enough bad boys and studs to go around - despite the fact that they do their best to spread their seed.
So what about the other 95% of guys?
As far as WW are concerned they are worker bees and sexual drones. In other words, WW simply are NOT INTERESTED IN 95% OF MEN. Instinctively, your gut has been telling you that and your gut has been 100% right as the article above proves.
It proves it because you can only be "casually hooking up" with these whores if you are already in their circle. Women operate in cliques and they only let the studs and bad boys into their cliques because they are the only guys that they are really interested in. For everyone else, including the players, they make it extremely difficult just to talk to them. This is not an accident.
The players and rich dudes are third and fourth in line but they are still made to jump through hoops (i.e. do the dating thing) whereas the studs and bad boys get the "advance straight to pussy - no need to ask for my number and no need to take me on a date" pass.
To Summarize
For non gold digging woman their genuine preference in men before they are ready to get married is as follows:
First Choice: The Stud
Second Choice: The Bad Boy
Third Choice: The Player
Fourth Choice: The Rich Guy (he can provide material excitement)
Fifth Choice: The Catch (good looks, right family & fast track career)
Last Resort: The Average Joe (who in reality is far more of a "catch" than the average WW)
When WW are ready to get married the key thing to remember is that their preferences stay the same but their choices change. So even the non gold diggers will try and get a rich guy or a catch. Since there are not enough of those men to go around they will begrudgingly settle for an average Joe.
And therein lies part of the reason why the typical wife is so angry. She is deeply resentful that she wasn't able to land a meal ticket and retirement plan so payback comes by cutting her hair, ballooning into a beached whale, making her husband's life as miserable as possible and of course (in 75% of the cases) the coup de grace, eventually divorcing his ass and cleaning him out.
Of course, we can't forget that if she thinks she can get away with it she will try and find a stud, a bad boy or a player to knock her up and have the sucker (the rich guy, the catch or the average Joe) raise it.
The irony is that even if a WW can land a rich guy or a catch, in her shallow, arrogant, twisted and entitled little mind, she still will not be happy because to her, such men are not really men, they are personal slaves - suckers, just like the average Joe - only a lot more useful.
Always remember that a western woman's "heart" will always be reserved for the studs and the bad boys.
To summarize:
WW love Studs & Bad Boys (to the extent that WW are even capable of loving)
They respect players (women only fuck guys they respect**)
They use (while resenting) rich guys and catches & (most disturbingly)
They contemptuously think of average Joes as last resorts
Since bad boys and studs are born not made, unless you've always been getting tonnes of easy pussy while rarely spending a dime, the only self respecting option - aside from opting out from dealing with WW completely - is to (learn to) be a master player.
Uzem & Luzem
**hopefully by now, having the "respect" of WW means about as much to you as having the respect of a vulture or a rat - it only matters if you want to fuck them.

Our Own Enemies

Here are a couple of posts I made recently, about how I feel that men are our worst enemies.

It started with this post by Mr. X:

yeah that whole ED stuff is really pissing me off. Men haven't changed. Its not like some meteor hit the earth and all of a sudden men are impotent. I think women are actually insulted men aren't on the jazz 24/7 and thinking with our groins like they were told.

As usual, my reply was tangential. I responded:

The problem is that men are their own enemies. Men are the ones who keep prattling on about how we men think with our little heads, we tell our daughters that their boyfriends are only interested in one thing, and we are the ones who make a big deal of wanting to bone every attractive woman who crosses our line of sight.

Not all men obviously, but too many.

To that, LAYM said:

Rather,such men are the enemies of independent thinking MRA men,and pretty much whoever comes his way the wrong time,like a father hating on his daughter's harmless boyfriend. Of course they are hypocrites,as they allowed themselves to inseminate a young woman once in their youth,despite the similar guys of the then generation giving the same look. I don't think you believe what you wrote really hard. As it implies all of men's problems are caused by men and only by men.

And I said:

I don't think all of men's problems are caused only by men, but its pretty close. Men have willingly allowed themselves to be sacrificed for the good of societies for hundreds of years, and its showing now - in the way that misandry is everywhere, in how feminism took over our justice system and in how men commit suicide more than women at any age.

Often, men are the first ones to cut other men down. I don't expect a positive response from women, but I also don't expect such a negative response from men.

And its true. How can men catch a break when the people most willing to hold them back are other men? When a thousand men will stand up and say "there's no problem" in any discussion about gender issues or about boys falling behind for every one man saying "there is a problem," how can we get ahead?

Feminists are all too quick to point to the bootlickers and say "Well these men don't seem to have any problems," how can the rest of us persuade any audience that there is a problem?

How can we be in any debate when other men are the first to muzzle us and push us down, and out of sight?

Responsibility for the other

You know, it is often said, mostly by feminists, women, and women-firsters, that men need to take responsibility for who they marry. If they marry a gold-digger, they themselves are solely responsible for her actions, she is but an agent of nature and does not have any more conscience than a bird, whose shit has an equal chance of falling on a Lexus or a Lada. Your mistake for keeping the top down, now the poo is on the seats and has stained the leather.

The assumption is that men need to apologize for another's behavior when it doesn't turn out right. So if she decides to leave you and takes half of everything, you should have seen it coming because you're a man, and men are clairvoyant.

Sayeth the woman - they aren't? Then how come they always know what gifts to give me? How do they always know where all the romantic places are?

Heh, heh.

I was reading a letter that Glenn Sacks put on his blog, from a witch (who else can be that angry and evil?) who doesn't like that her ex has a new life. Vindictiveness and spite, ahh what a beauty the fair sex is.

There's a rabble-rouser in the comments, a female supremacist in the purest sense of the word - Annie. You can read her comments if you have the stomach. I bet the WKKK would be proud of her. There are a few choice comments too...

Here's a comment from Mark:
The other problem I see on this blog is that men tend to get a pass on everything, feminism in reverse if you will. The answer isn't not getting married, it's making a good choice on whom you marry. Sorry, but there are no shortage of men that think it's just great the woman they're dating is really impressed with their car and Visa card then act shocked when they "pretend" to realize the woman was just after someone to pay her bills.

Comment from Rosemarie:
Ding ding ding! We have a winner - Mark, you have hit the nail on the head when it comes to men who try to impress women with their Porches and their sailboats and their Amex, then cry foul when they realize they've attracted a money-grubbing opportunist.

As usual, the man gets the responsibility, the woman gets a free pass. I'll show you why.

Just think for a moment that a man meets a woman. She is highly sexual, sensual, free with her body and takes care of his intimate needs like no other. Let's not bring money into this; let's say they are both young and carefree with nary a penny to their name.

They marry, thinking that the bliss is going to last forever. Pretty soon, she pops out a kid, then another. Her gyno puts her on some pills, the sex dries up, she doesn't feel attracted to him anymore now that she's got what her biological clock was telling her to get.

Does the man have a right to expect sex to continue? Actually, if you answer in the affirmative, your opinion doesn't matter because of a simple little thing called marital rape. Law trumps opinion. This little feminist invention allows men to be prosecuted for the most basic function of marriage - sex.

He's a beast if he wants sex when she doesn't.

He's a beast if he doesn't want sex when she does.

So if a man cannot expect the good sex to continue, and cannot take it from her forcibly, what right does a woman have to expect the support to continue?

Ah, there we have the double standard. Money is not deemed personal like the body is, because men have money and women have the body. Simple gender politics.

A woman having to have sex with a man she does not like is a travesty, a human rights violation, it is everything that is wrong with the world; whereas a man having to support a woman he does not like is called marriage.