So here’s how it happened: I’m reading Jack Donovan’s post at the Spearhead about this guy Jay Batman and his cool article, but when I click on the link to read it it’s gone. Luckily google still had it and I decided to repost it here before even reading it.
Why I Am An Anarcho-Misogynist
Posted by Jay Batman on Mar 18, 2011 at the Gonzo Times
As I’ve come to divorce myself from statist paradigms, I’ve also become increasingly cognizant of the state’s alignment with female driven concerns and motivations. The welfare state, the nanny state, all of the major advances of the state into social concerns over the past fifty years are undeniably matriarchal in their concerns. But more than that, societal conventions that deny a man’s natural and innate inclinations to preach some false idea of domestication as the ideal are the creations of a matriarchal tyranny.
We men are not naturally inclined toward monogamy or marriage. Societies that promote such end results are clearly the product of male hatred on the part of the women who drive such values. Women have appropriated the state and religious institutions to systematically de-masculinize men and relegate us to a less virile, less potent existence. Instead of celebrating our masculinity, we are taught to regard it as an impediment to the liberation of women. The two are mutually exclusive, because the feminine paradigm of thought is largely concerned with the oppositional, either/or mutually exclusive dichotomy.
It is no accident that mainline religious denominations are dominated by women from a membership standpoint. Consider the following from the article The Feminization of Christianity by Leon Podles, which finds church membership ratios overwhelming dominated by women: Roman Catholics, 1.09 to one; Lutherans, 1.04-1.23 to one; Mennonites, 1.44-1.16 to one; Friends, 1.40 to one; Methodists, 1.33-1.47 to one; Baptists, 1.35 to one; Assembly of God, 1.71 to one; Pentecostals, 1.71-2.09 to one; and Christian Scientists, 3.19 to one. Podles notes that when men do attend church, it is usually only because they are pressured into doing so by women.
Podles goes on to critique the clergy, and what he notes is informative: “Because Christianity is now seen as a part of the sphere of life proper to women rather than to men, it sometimes attracts men whose own masculinity is somewhat doubtful. By this I do not mean homosexuals, although a certain type of homosexual is included. Rather, religion is seen as a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life, and therefore attracts men who are fearful of making the break with the secure world of childhood dominated by women. These are men who have problems following the path of masculine development. Is a truism among Catholics that priests become priests because of the influence of their mothers, and many priests are emotionally very close to their mothers, more so than to men, even to their fathers.”
Lewis M. Terman and Catherine Cox Miles measured masculinity among men involved in religion, and their findings were even more striking: “Most masculine of all are still the men who have little or no interest in religion. Very masculine men showed little interest in religion, very feminine men great interest. Women who have highly feminine scores were also especially religious, while women who had more masculine scores were neutral or adverse to religion. The difference was clearly not physical sex, but attitude, or gender, as the term is now used.”
For a woman, a man must be civilized and domesticated, for in his natural state he is little more than the sum of his drives and impulses. These drives and impulses must be harnessed and directed towards the pursuits deemed productive and appropriate by women. Many of the ideals that men are driven towards, such as marriage and family and a life built on the idea of reproductive responsibility for men and reproductive emancipation for women, are indisputably the province and idea of women.
In the area of reproduction, a woman will tell you that a man’s input over reproduction ends the moment he ejaculates. He is responsible for the outcome she determines, but he has no input or choice in the matter. The correct answer is this: a man has a choice, a free choice, and he should be allowed to choose whether or not enter into the child-rearing with a woman. If he chooses not to do so, society should not punish him or denigrate his free choice. He never forced the woman to have a child. She chose of her own volition to do so, and she is responsible for her choice. To force a man to take responsibility for the choice of a woman is deeply perverse, but as in all feminist ideology, this essential distinction is never made.
Examples abound in the animal kingdom of males of a species being uninvolved in child-rearing, even altogether detached from the support and raising of their offspring. Yet feminists strongly believe that men should be coerced into an unnatural model of reproduction whereby their earnings and the fruits of their efforts are pilfered by parasitic women in the name of supporting progeny, but the truth of the matter is that we all know women who use child support as a mere enhancement of their own standard of living while the needs of their child go met.
To oppose these arrangements is to reject institutionally centralized authority, and to say that choice extends to a man as broadly as it does a woman. It is the duty of all humanists, all anarchists, to reject feminist thought for a new mode of thinking which posits that men, like women, are entitled to choose their own course as sovereign and autonomous beings. Simply put, anarcho-misogyny is a new way of viewing antiquated arrangements like family and monogamy, neither of which can be said to be the natural state of males. Who benefits from such institutions? The only possible answer is to say that such institutions, specifically monogamous marriage, benefit only a woman by allowing her to establish monopolies over a man’s capital assets and the work product thereof. Society as it currently exists provides perverse incentives against the free choice of men, incentives that conversely provide women economic motivation to consider divorce as a viable economic alternative to marriage, especially in community property states. Moreover, a woman within a monogamous relationship has a monopoly over the only asset sufficient to make any man entertain the prolonging of marriage: sex.
A man should be able to freely choose his sexual partners, even when he is within the confines of marriage, and no free choice can be had when semantic denigrations of male sexual emancipation exist such as infidelity and promiscuity. We are taught from a young age that a man who engages in such behaviors is a rolling stone, but the simple truth is that he is a man engaged in the fullness of manhood. He celebrates his being and all that is elemental about being a man. A man’s assets, the fruits of his labor and his creative genius, ought to be his and his alone. Women are attracted to wealth for what it represents: attainment with minimal effort or genius on their own behalf. Through marriage a woman may yoke the product of a man’s efforts and genius for herself without ever contributing anything of value to the generation of those efforts or the genius that enables a man to achieve for himself.
It is not infidelity, or promiscuity, or irresponsibility when a man chooses to engage in sexual congress with many women. It is not wrong when a man makes a simple choice to direct his assets towards pursuits beyond the provision of capital for a woman and the children she utilized his sperm to gain. It is mere choice, and a man ought to be entitled to make that choice. A woman who cannot provide for her own children absent a man’s contribution should not be having children in the first place. We are all responsible for our own choices, and no cogent argument can be made that a world with abortion as a reality condemns women to child-rearing. If a woman makes the argument that her values prevent her from entertaining an abortion, she is still making a choice as to her values and the consequences should be hers alone to bear.
If and when total emancipation for man is achieved, and women find that marriage is no longer binding on a man’s choices to the point of limiting his sexual options to his wife alone, we shall see how many women value marriage as an institution solely on the basis of sentimentality. The sole value of marriage as an institution to a woman is coercive. Coercion is why women value marriage, divorce, and monogamy as ideals.
A man yoked in marriage cannot escape without the stigma of divorce, nor can he hope to elude the possibility of losing half of his property. Even if his income contribution to the marriage was much larger than that of his spouse, the courts will not take into account his disproportionate contribution relative to the division of property accumulated during the marriage. A woman knows this, which is why the threat of divorce is such a deterrent to men who are questioning why they are involved in a marriage that does not meet their needs as men.
Only a man who has been feminized through societal pressures and conventions can buy into the idea that marriage is fulfilling. A man who is true to himself, and who truly knows himself, can only come to the conclusion that marriage is the antithesis of everything he is as a man. We are hardwired for polygyny, and our physiological realities prove as much.
According to an article in Psychology Today, we know as much much because men are taller than women:
“Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.”
The work of Darwinian historian Laura L. Betzig confirms this: “[W]hile powerful men throughout Western history have married monogamously (only one legal wife at a time), they have always mated polygynously (they had lovers, concubines, and female slaves).” This begs the question of how we arrived at a dominant paradigm of monogamous marriage, with infidelity being denigrated as a moral wrong rather than a natural outcome.
The answer is female-dominated and defined religion, specifically Catholic sexual mores, with their veneration of virginity and Marian devotion. As women came to the forefront of religion, sexuality became distorted into an egalitarian matter. For attractive women, polygyny didn’t work because they couldn’t monopolize the assets of their wealthy male partners through marriage. For unattractive women, polygyny didn’t work because they were unlikely to gain anything beyond an unattractive man with little in the way of assets, and even then, a man was free to decamp and pursue a better deal.
Simply put, marriage in its current form is the product of female apathy. A man is expected to be reduced and subjugated, first wooed by a woman who holds out the prospect of incendiary carnal delights during the stage before marriage, only to withdraw such delights after vows have been exchanged. She has no incentive to keep the illusion going, because she has arrived the moment marriage becomes a reality. All of society and the law is oriented towards punishing a man who chooses to reject the unnatural and pernicious institution of modern marriage to follow his natural inclinations.
Feminism is the natural outgrowth of phallic hatred. It is not an instrument of advocacy for equality or egalitarianism, and even if it were, we are not equal. It is one thing to insist on equality before the law and the state; it is another thing entirely to insist on equality of outcomes and results. Feminism does just this, as do the matriarchs who have seized the state in order to direct its efforts towards uniquely female social efforts. The state has been redesigned to care about health, about education, about egalitarian outcomes, and about promoting the universalization of said concerns throughout the globe through NGOs and other institutions. Given the pairing of security with nation-building and other maternal acts in our foreign and military policies, we can say without doubt that feminization has been the driving force of imperialism and fascism over the past forty years.
Remember the note of Podles, and his concern that religion in its modern incarnation attracts men of doubtful masculinity. There is an argument to be made that statism in its current form attracts men of doubtful masculinity, and so does every other ideology which posits matriarchal concerns such as social justice and welfare. To allow socialism and other communitarian ideals to have their way is execute the Promethean impulse within men that reaches towards fire to achieve greatness on an individual level. Feminization teaches us that individual achievement, and any insistence on reaping the rewards of individual achievement as an individual, is selfish and evil. It denigrates that within ordinary men that might give them the chance to be extraordinary.
I am an anarcho-misogynist because I believe in the autonomy of individuals, and the right of every man to determine for himself his course in life. I believe in absolute choice, and I repudiate the idea of law now and forevermore insofar as that law emanates from centralized institutions or majoritarian consent. I am my own law, an individual fascist. I am Man, Superman, and I aspire to a higher morality whereby my choices and consequences are my own apart from all others. I believe in no higher order beyond that of individual choice, and I reject the idea of centralized order. I believe in voluntary associations for individual transactions, with nothing being the immediate exchange.
The fact that I ejaculate during sexual intercourse does not mean that I consent to all possible outcomes including pregnancy and fatherhood. I have consented to the immediate sexual act, and in order for me to be considered a father, I must consent to fatherhood, which is a separate transaction altogether. I retain autonomy and sovereignty throughout all phases of my existence, and reject the idea that consent can be implicit. A woman may choose to engage in motherhood, but that in no way obligates me to the converse of fatherhood. It does not matter how many times I engaged in sexual intercourse, if my stated intention was merely sex, I cannot be said to have consent to reproduction.
Reproductive freedom for a male is summed up by the ability to deny consequence for consensual action, just as it is for a woman. If we are to be equal, a male’s ability to abort his decision by refusing to accept obligations for the consequence of sex in the form of parenthood must be honored. Feminism is nothing more than the authoritarian, statist attempt to enforce an equality of outcomes over the consent of individuals. A woman who chooses to engage in parenthood can use the state to enforce parenthood and its obligations over the will of a man. She can bludgeon the man into accepting responsibility for her choice, while obliterating any rational distinction between the choice to have sex and the choice to bear a child to term. There are two distinct choices, but a woman’s feminist outlook seeks to render one choice out of two for any man in order to coerce and force him into a role she wants for herself. His capital must be pilfered to support and sustain her choice.
This perverse arrangement, as oppressive as it is, can only be termed misandry. As Warren Farrell noted in his work Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, “In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.” If you wish to be free of the dominant paradigm of misandry that is all pervasive throughout our society and its media, then you must reject everything that society speaks against manhood. You must choose the existence of a solitary individual, choosing only those relationships or interactions that complement your desires and further your interests as a man. No woman is entitled to pilfer or rob the fruits of your effort and your genius simply because she chose to get pregnant. Your capital is the beginning of your power, and your values as a man who believes in self-determination and individual autonomy are the foundation of the accruing of capital.
It is unnatural to deny that we are inclined to desire women sexually, even intimately. But these desires should not be exploited by women for material gain, and those women who cannot separate desire from tactical strategy are unworthy of our esteem. A society that incentivizes and enables such manipulation and exploitation is unworthy of our support. A state that builds and perpetuates entire institutions out of misandry is our enemy and must be deracinated altogether.
Modern feminism is not concerned with equality; it is concerned with denying justified supremacy to those men who earn it by virtue of their own labors. No matter how hard you have worked, no matter the merit of your achievements, you are to accept equality and even subordination to women as a corrective for perceived slights and oppressions of the past. Many women who assert such injustices have arguable never experience said injustices personally, but they claim them as a means of gaining a superior footing that they have not earned, or an equal footing that they do not deserve by virtue of their own effort.
Feminism is a shortcut to equality and supremacy for women who seek such standing without the requisite labor or effort involved in achieving it. Equality of our outcomes, even superiority of outcomes, must be statutorily mandated in the interests of justice or some remedy ideologically associated with justice. One cannot be a feminist without hating men on some level, for feminism involves dissociating women from blame by forever casting aspersions on men for the result of a woman’s choices. It is absolutely absurd to blame a man for a woman’s pregnancy and the reduced economic status thereof because the man she had sex with does not surrender his money and his wealth to enable her choice. The choice a man made was confined to the act of sex itself, and did not in any way represent assent to parenthood or the support of a woman who choose parenthood as a result of the act of sex. A woman who makes a such a choice knowing that she does not have the self-sufficiency to support herself, much less a child, is a monster. A woman who makes such a choice with an eye towards confiscating a man’s wealth through the state is a parasite, nothing more and nothing less.
It is time to reorient the priorities of society and human existence, to reject the state and the male-hatred it perpetuates. It is also time to say that women are not entitled to equal pay for equal work, because the reality of the matter is that few women ever engage in anything equivalent to equal work. As a retail manager, I encountered resistance from female employees when I would close a store. Almost universally, female retail employees felt that men alone should be tasked with cleaning the restrooms. It wasn’t a girl job. But as Gail Kelly, CEO of Westpac noted, despite the fact that equal pay was the line at her company, a gender pay gap still existed because the choices made by men and women are simply different when it comes to careers. What feminists are after is not equal pay, but unequal pay whereby they are able to do less at work and prioritize other matters while receiving the same pay as men who prioritize their career over all else. Equal pay is a pernicious misrepresentation, a totally disingenuous argument put forth by feminists seeking to perpetuate privilege rather than equality.
Moreover, women could engage in sexual dialogue with males on the job at will, and most males, being the men that they were, would not object. However, a woman’s objection to a male’s advances or banter was rooted in subjective and shifting standards. Women tolerate desired advances on the job, reciprocating the sexual banter of men they like, often as other men witness the interactions. However, if one of those witnesses gets the idea that a woman is receptive due to her reciprocation, he is likely to be in for an unpleasant surprise and a harassment complaint. The critical distinction to understand is that onus is always shifted to a man, and no liability for conflicting signals can ever be imputed to a woman, who always plays the part of a victim at her convenience.
I reject categorically the idea of sexual harassment, because it is never tied to any objective standard in either theory or application. Guilt where sexual harassment is concerned depends not on any reasonable or universal standard, but merely on the fiat declaration of a woman who very often tolerates the same or similar behavior from men other than the alleged perpetrator.
In much the same way, women engage in sexual dalliances with men and state after the fact that coercion was involved. Simply put, women falsely accuse men of rape on a scale that is staggering, consuming vast amounts of money and time with their false accusations. There is the example of 27 year old Lisa Fraser, a woman in the United Kingdom who consumed 600 hours of police time searching for her non-existent rapist. The authorities decided not to prosecute Lisa Fraser.
There is also the case of Warren Blackwell, who was convicted of rape and jailed, only to be released when the authorities were forced to admit that his accuser had a history of crying rape. Blackwell’s conviction was overturned on appeal, but due to laws in the United Kingdom, his accuser remained anonymous. His accuser was not prosecuted, and Blackwell has no opportunity to sue her for defamation because she is guaranteed anonymity by law.
Then there is the case of Biurny Peguero, who accused William McCaffrey of rape, resulting in his being jailed for four years. There are so many examples you can find in a simple Internet search that the end result of feminism are obvious: women can hide behind anonymity while their victims languish with their reputations forever tarred by the mere accusation. I am an anarcho-misogynist because I oppose the fundamental unfairness of this arrangement. Anonymity for rape victims is fine, so long as the anonymity extends to the accused as well. In the United Kingdom, such reforms are underway after a case in which a serial rape accuser was revealed to have driven one of her victims to suicide.
Feminism is not for everyone, despite the arguments of the supposedly enlightened progressives who buy into such nonsense. As an ideology, feminism ought to be re-christened as what it truly is: gender resentment and male hatred. The dominant ideological paradigms of our time render hatred of males and whites acceptable, because liberalism has a stunningly asinine moral calculus that posits reciprocal action as a corrective for deeply immoral past bigotries. Two wrongs do not make a right, unless of course you are a feminist.
I do not hate women, of course, but to speak against feminism is often characterized as misogyny in and of itself, much like any query against the policies of Israel is reflexively labeled as Anti-Semitism. Such knee-jerk reactions are rooted in a surrender of intelligence and logic on the part of those who resort to such nonsense, but such is the way of our world. If opposing feminism makes me a misogynist, and seeking to tear down the state as a construct makes me an anarchist, then I am, proudly and forevermore, an anarcho-misogynistic capitalist. Power to the phallus. The song below is dedicated to all of the women who covet what a man has, and seek to appropriate through the emasculating rhetoric of feminism and the coercive force of the state.