Tag Archives: lionel tiger

Appeal from the Foundation of Male Studies

Posted on by
Reply

  Dear Supporter of Male Studies,

 
This is the second and final mailing, requesting your help and support for a very important cause – a cause that will have a profound impact on boys and men across the country.
 
I’m getting right to the point. The Foundation for Male Studies needs your help. FMS is working hard to add courses of study, centers and departments to the educational institutions of this nation – to spread the understanding of all aspects of boys and men – from anthropology to education to biology to psychology. We must do something now to stop the tide of lack of understanding, misdirected behavior that is prevalent from the youngest of boys all the way up to their maturity as men.
 
These statistics prove that looking away will ultimately lead to a meltdown in our society:
  • According to the US Census Bureau, more women are going to college today than they did a decade ago, while the percentage of men attending college is decreasing relative to women;
  • The suicide rate for males is 300% higher than that of females, according to the National Institute for Mental Health. From the most recent data available, there were 24,672 male suicides and 5,950 female suicides during that year;
  • Boys regularly fail academically, repeat grades and are punished more often than girls in elementary and secondary schools;
  • Boys are expelled from high school in record numbers, and in some districts have only a 50% graduation rate;
  • Men accounted for 82% of the US jobs lost in the current economic downturn and now for the first time in US history comprise a minority (49%) of the nation’s work force—according to the US Department of Labor;
  • International politics continue to require the service of American males in the military. Those who die or are maimed become an outgrowth of the attitude that males are disposable;
  • Our legal and family systems fail to honor the importance of men in families by awarding 90% of custody of children to mothers, effectively limiting fathers from family participation;
  • Boys now represent 73% of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and 76% of those classified as emotionally disturbed—according to the US Department of Education;
  • 8 out of 10 children being medicated for behavioral problems are boys. Often these drugs are prescribed to quash the kinetics of boys in schools, while the real problem lies in the schools themselves—geared to the learning styles of girls.
How can we start turning things around for the benefit of everyone in our increasingly global society?
 
By helping the Foundation for Male Studies with a tax-deductible gift, you will be personally responsible for making an impact, which will help our sons, fathers, brothers, grandfathers, husbands, and uncles, as well as the women in their lives.
Simply visit http://www.malestudies.org/donate.html and fill in the form to choose your 100% tax-deductible gift as allowed by law. You can also mail a check here:
 
The Foundation for Male Studies
333 Mamaroneck Avenue – 444
White Plains, NY 10605  USA
We are working hard to address the gap in scholarship and scientific research that exists between the study of males and females. We are investigating, reporting on and teaching about the state of males within disciplines including anthropology, biology, economics, education, law, literature, law, media studies, medicine, political science, psychology, public policy and sociology.
 
Some of the crucial projects or The Foundation for Male Studies:
  • Dr. Judith Kleinfeld’s US study of Alaskan youth, No Map for Manhood revealed severe difficulties in the life-coping skills of boys graduating high school. The Foundation for Male Studies seeks to create educational programming to reverse this trend;
  • To organize conferences that bring scholars together to create courses and programs at colleges, which will increase our understanding of the educational and life needs of men and boys;
  • To create educational courses directed at changing public policy and achieving urgently-needed reform at schools and family courts;
  • To use Webcast technology to reach the greatest number of professionals, academics and researchers, and create a network of scholars and scholarship relating to the needs of men and boys;
  • To create studies that promote the understanding of fatherhood, and the place for males in the family;
  • To fund an international symposium that will lay the groundwork for the creation of a Male Studies Department or Chair at a major educational institution;
  • To fund the creation of department of male studies at a major educational institution;
  • To fund the creation of a Chair of Male Studies at a major institution of higher education.
We face significant challenge to carry out this work. Getting the attention of universities, professional organizations and corporate and philanthropic organizations worldwide is a daunting and costly task.
That is why we desperately need your help.
 
Please send us your gift in any amount. Whether $25, $50, $100, $250 or anything else, your gift will be wisely invested in meeting our enormous and crucial objectives.
 
Simply visit http://www.malestudies.org/donate and fill in the form to choose your gift online. You can also mail a check here:
The Foundation for Male Studies
333 Mamaroneck Avenue – 444
White Plains, NY 10605  USA
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, so if you donate before December 31, your gift is fully tax-deductible for your 2010 tax returns as allowed by law.
On behalf of all of us, I wish you a happy, healthy and fulfilling 2011 and beyond.
Sincerely,

Joseph M. Notovitz
Director of Communications

The Male Pill (Five Near Term Technologies & Their Social Impact Part 1)

Posted on by
23

Whilst I was on my travels recently, I came to the decision that I would put down my definitive thoughts upon the nature, history, and future of feminism, in a structured and extended essay.  Once completed, I will disseminate it across the net, and if I should decide, as I might, to close down this blog, I can be content that my thoughts have been given a concrete, lasting shape.

Most of my posts here, when they are not specifically news related (such as the previous one), can be looked upon merely as crude sketches aiming towards this intended longer piece.  Comment and discussion is welcome,  and any thoughts that end up in my finished essay will be acknowledged.

Any reader familiar with this blog’s ideas will be aware of my belief that feminism is, and always has been, a blind and sub-conscious response to new technologies directly, or indirectly, opening up the free sexual market (such as industrialisation, or the contraceptive pill), and which have left the great mass of unattractive women in a hugely disadvantaged position (in terms of sexual power, which until recently was synonymous with a woman’s economic power – and still appears to be so in a woman’s subconscious brain).

So I thought it would be useful to take a look at some new technologies that are quite likely to arise very soon, and what impact they might have upon the never-ending sex war.  As the pace of technological progress speeds up, the social impacts are likely to become increasingly hard to predict or control.  Power may come to those who are most able to predict what those effects might be.

I want to start with the idea of a Male Contraceptive Pill.  This is because it is the one technology that nearly all men’s rights supporters assume, or at least hope, could transform our fortunes. In discussing why (for me) this will not be the case, the opportunity is also given (again) to highlight the real dynamics of feminism, and detail just how the pill triggered second wave feminism without directly ‘giving power’ to women.

I also want to (briefly) discuss the male pill because, I have to humbly admit, I could be, and probably am, missing something very fundamental here, and I would invite any readers of this article to enlighten me, or direct me to a good essay that does explain clearly the importance to men of the development of a male contraceptive pill.

Because I really, really dont get it.

Well, o.k., I can see that a male pill will reduce female power in terms of not being able to trick men into impregnating them.  Beyond that, which really amounts to individual tragedies involving a relatively small number of men, I can’t see any reason to believe that it could have the transformative power upon society that the female contraceptive pill did.

As I have stated here before : the pill did not give women power over men, the pill forced women to take power from men.

The idea that the pill ‘liberated’ women is one of the greatest of modern myths.  The pill gave men consequence free sex almost as much as it did for women, and the collective long-term consequences for women were far worse (or at least were, until in some ways redressed by feminism).  The pill quickly overturned social norms regarding pre-marital and casual sex.  Who were the real ‘winners’ in such a new and sexually liberated society?  Nubile young females aged between 14 and 25, the men who could attract them into bed (there is of course a debate within the MRM as to what pecentage of men that is/was), and very, very few other people – especially not the older, unattractive woman who could not hope to sexually compete with her younger rivals.

Of course, the pill was proclaimed as a liberator of women - above all by the first white knight male supporters of feminism who were now able to get them into bed.  Women could finally enjoy sex without having to endure 9 months of hell and a life-long commitment to a resulting child.  But what really happened, as both Lionel Tiger and Neil Lyndon engagingly explain in their respective men’s rights classics, is that the sudden lack of commitment and obligation ran both ways.  Not only could young nubile females now open their legs without having their entire existences being transformed, men too, could suddenly experience as much sex as they could get, without having to fear a shotgun wedding or any other similar life-long consequence resulting from an unwanted pregnancy.

And so men stopped committing.

And the female rush into employment and education, and (seemingly contradictory) the demand for the right to an abortion, began almost immediately.  Second wave feminism was triggered by the almost overnight collapse of Judeo-Christian sexual ethics, something caused by the widespread introduction of the contraceptive pill.  A system of ethics that had served women so well for centuries had vanished.  Women could no longer rely on the life-long commitment, and economic and physical protection, of a man.  And even women already married were made insecure and threatened by the sudden availability to their husbands of millions of sexually available  and attractive ‘liberated’ young women.

Second Wave Feminism was a blind and deterministic response to a sudden change in the dynamics of the sexual market.  Most feminists at the time didn’t really have a clue what was going on.  Twinned with the convenient intellectual dressing of Cultural Marxism, talk of the pill bringing about ‘women’s liberation’ was simply a sub-conscious rationalisation of events that nobody, let alone feminists, had any real control over.

Because the second wave was largely blind and irrationalist, the response by feminists ironically had the effect of still further widening the free sexual market and threatening even more the sexual and economic power of older, unattractive women.  For example, the sudden rush into the University system of legions of attractive young females only served to intensify the culture of casual, pre-marital sex, as well as (and with those young women entering careers after university) delaying the age at which women expected to marry – thus making available to the free sex market millions of single young women who would otherwise be tied up in marriage.  As EvilWhiteMale put it here recently, feminism is an (irrational) self-feeding loop.  One that is quickly destroying Western civilisation.

So where do these reflections leave the male pill and its power to ‘liberate’ men from the feminist yoke?  Ask yourself - will a male contraceptive pill bring about changes in behaviour as radical as did the female version in the 1960′s?  I can only see it further encouraging casual sex, and lack of committment from men, even more than did the female pill.  Thus, rather than transforming the situation of men, I see it only further opening up the free sexual market, and thus intensifying the feminist backlash.  Together with a couple of the other new technologies I will discuss in the next couple of weeks, we can say – fourth wave of feminism, here we come.

I would end by stating that those who think that a male pill will be something revolutionary and liberating for men are deluded about the true cause and effect relationship between the original pill and women’s ‘liberation’.  However, I have to admit that Lionel Tiger is a man who patently does understand that relationship, possibly more than any other human being alive.  Yet in his classic work, The Decline of Males, he clearly intimates that he believes a male contraceptive pill to be vitally important for men.  Thus, I have the uncomfortable feeling that I am missing something really glaring and fundamental here.  If you can spell out just what this is, please do so in a comment underneath.

The other four technologies I intend to discuss in the next couple of weeks are : 3D Hologram/Virtual Reality Porn/Sex Bots ; Mind Reading Scanners ; Life-extension/anti-aging, beauty and rejuvenation therapy ; ‘Female Viagra’.

By the way, suggestions are still welcome for my forthcoming list of the greatest ever anti-feminist music videos.

Snark and Human-Stupidity on Gynocentrism

Posted on by
21

A brilliant comment by Snark spotted at (the-spearhead) – on ‘Gynocentrism Theory’

Women who are not feminists are not feminists because they do not need to be; i.e. they do not lack the power over men which they covet.

Hence, among the younger women, it is usually neurotic and/or ugly women who tend to be feminists; and women tend to become feminists once they are older, i.e. they have passed their Wile E. Coyote moment; their power in all these cases is threatened because they lack the physical attractiveness required to control men. Hence they seek it in other ways (affirmative action, penal, etc.) and are as motivated by vindictive rage (perhaps stemming from self-hate at the realisation of no longer being ‘worthy’ enough to control men through their own assets) as by self-gain. On older women seeking to disempower younger women’s use of said assets, see http://www.theantifeminist.com/

BUT, back to the women who control men but are NOT nominally feminists. I.e. young, attractive women.

There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.

Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.

Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. They create conflict between men where there is and should be no conflict. Why? To determine the stronger, of course. It’s the cause of primitivism at the pinnacle of civilisation and it’s why we have so many of the enduring social problems we still struggle with.

Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.

The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.

On the other hand, the women with power which is not sexual – i.e., older feminists – motivated by the same basic psychosexual forces but unable to manipulate men any longer using their bodies, having faced years or decades of internal torment from the aforementioned rejection and self-hate, engage in a whole different kind of manipulation. That is, exponentially increasing penalisation for masculinity and maleness itself.

The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.

Further: today we are subject to the new phenomena ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. Just think about how standards of decency have changed throughout the last hundred years and you’ll realise that we really are living through a previously untested social experiment – we are oversaturated with female flesh to the point that it’s surprising a man can find the time to think straight outside of his ‘cave’. To reiterate, our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem, and although I am generally uncomfortable with ideas of historical inevitability, this was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote. This is, unquestionably, the tyranny of the majority that De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill warned us of. Men are the 49% minority, and women are the 51% majority, empowered by democracy to abuse us as they will.

Extract from another essential anti-feminist piece by Human-Stupidity :

Get a Lawyer before sex : 27 precautions every man should take

Check ID for Age & Identity :

3) Check ID of your prospective partner for age Make sure your partner is above age of consent.
It does not matter if your prospective parter looks like 70 years old, s/he could suffer from Progeria, which makes 7 year olds look like 70. The disease is admittedly rare, but do you want to go to jail for 20 years and get special attention because you are labelled a “child rapist”?
4) Verify the ID for authenticity The ID could be fake. So check the ID for authenticity.
No matter how well you checked, how well she falsified her ID, this will not keep you out of jail. This should be known since the times of Tracy Lords
5) Make sure the ID does not belong to someone else. The ID could be authentic. But it could belong to another person. So check the photo, compare it to the person. If there is a signature, have the person sign a piece of paper. Get a graphotechnical (handwriting expert) analysis to assure the signature in the ID matches the signature in the ID. If there are fingerprint and other features, have an expert check this.
6) Hire a detective to run a background check, to independently to confirm all data on ID, to make sure she is off age and really over the age of consent Even if s/he has a government emitted ID, if she deceived or bribed government officials to give her a false ID, that is no excuse.
So the detective, ideally, should check out the family, school records, birth certificate, verify records at her birth clinic. Ideally he should run a DNA test to make sure there is no stolen identity.

Human-Stupidity is a rare MRA who understands that feminist generated paedohysteria is as much about middle-aged women stopping men having sex with 20 year olds (for fear that they might turn out to be underage) as it has to do with stopping sex with 15 year olds (and nothing at all about stopping genuine perverts having sex with pre-pubescent children).

Promptly added to my list of essential anti-feminist aticles (see sidebar on the right).  As has been Roissy’s classic 2007 article on sexbots and the future of the sex market.  (I honestly only became aware of Roissy and his brilliant article this year.  Likewise with the brilliant Anti-Feminist Tech, who also writes about the impact that sexbots and other future sex tech will have on the balance of power between the sexes).

There is only one hope for men’s rights, as I have stated here often.  That technology makes the sexual trade union redundant or impotent.  Ironically, the fact that the single invention of the contraceptive pill has had such a blind and uncontrollable effect upon society and the relationship between the sexes (i.e. the free sexual  market and second wave feminism), is our most inspiring piece of evidence that this hope is not futile.

Lionel Tiger Proven Right : Birth Control Pills Alter Structure of Female Brain

….a recent study in the journal Brain Research comparing the brains of women on birth control pills with brains of other women and men. When the study’s authors examined high-resolution images of participants’ brains, they found the women on hormones showed more matter in some areas of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with cognitive activities like decision-making.

The Brain Research study prompted breathless news reports suggesting that the pill makes you smarter. But Kinsley and Meyer point out that the brain works like a “neural beehive,” and disturbing one part of the hive could impact the other. The fact that one brain region becomes larger than the next does not mean a woman on hormones is more intelligent or effective. It is also possible that her brain is going haywire. (Kinsley and Meyer actually use the word “catawampus.”)

It would be good to have a drug that could make women as smart as men.  Or perhaps it would just make them even more devious and cunning in defence of their selfish sexual mating strategies.  Anyway, essential reading is the latest article from Satoshi Kanozawa : Girls are more intelligent than boys, men are more intelligent than women

As other MRAs have noted, girls don’t really mature much past the age of puberty.  Or in the words of Schopenhauer :

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’

‘I hope no teen girl will be forced to remove her burqa’

Posted on by
3

Burqa Ban : Why Must I Cast Off the Veil?

A 29 year old post-peak fertility muslim woman explains to Islamaphobic white knights why she is against their attempts to ban the burqa (even though she detested the idea when she was a hot 18 year old – yes, neither she nor I should have to explain it anymore to enlightened readers of the antifeminist.com)  :

At the age of 18, the thought of covering my body in a shapeless black gown and hiding my face so that only my eyes would show was inconceivable. It was humiliating, violating, dehumanising….

…The uniform black costume has a charming egalitarianism about it, and is both a social and physical leveller. Once social status or physical beauty cannot be established, all sorts of hierarchies are flattened…

..Eye make-up and footwear took on extra significance. As the feet were the only part of the body one could legitimately flaunt, a good pedicure was not only necessary, it was an integral part of the ensemble. All of a woman’s sexuality resided in how she carried herself, and how groomed her extremities were. In that context, the outfit became empowering, enabling a reclamation of one’s sexuality by not fulfilling modern commercialised definitions of what makes a woman attractive….

…as a fashionable 29-year-old, I sometimes pop it on to go to the corner shop rather than show the world my tracksuit bottoms…

…I sincerely hope that no 18-year-old Muslim girl will ever arrive in the UK and be forced to take off her niqab.

 

Female Judge let’s Muslim mother walk free for murdering her sexually promiscous 14 year old daughter

CALGARY — Calgary mom Aset Magomadova doesn’t have to go to jail for strangling her promiscuous, 14-year-old daughter, a judge ruled Thursday.

Justice Sal LoVecchio said a non-custodial punishment would be sufficient for Magomadova’s killing of daughter Aminat.

LoVecchio sentenced the city woman to a three-year term of probation.

A feminist warning to little sluts everywhere.

Michel Houellebecq on just what drives the feminist bitterati :

I felt no desire for Catherine Lechardoy; I hadn’t the slightest wish to shaft her.  She was looking at me and smiling, drinking Cremant, trying her hardest to be brave ; nevertheless, I knew she really needed to be shafted.  That hole she had at the base of her belly must appear so useless to her; a prick can always be cut off, but how do you forget the emptiness of a vagina?

(extract from ‘Whatvever‘)

 Lionel Tiger on Sex and Rules

Lionel Tiger explains how differing male/female reproductive strategies account for our obsession with sexual morality :