Missouri sperm donor case found here: http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/29/secret-of-the-sperm-bank/ No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Scenario our teams fed: Man gets married. His income increases. She’s implied her desire to receive gifts, flowers etc. With extra money he sends her flowers. She listens to her friends who have no incentive to be glad that she’s happy in marriage. They help convince her that he’s cheating with women at his work. He’s OBVIOUSLY trying to make up for his cheating.Don’t take my word for it. Hear this audio:
It’s the Huffington Post script in ‘real life’ in play on the most important radio show in the world. Ryan Seacrest & Ellen K attempt to bring reason to the scenario, but once a man marries, he is seen as a problem. About 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Men are fine with that.
Just know that we know you’re that super intelligent woman that’s terrific in every way. This book is a must have, it came out October 1, 2013.
If you’re a man who’s chosen to accept abuse from pervasive ubiquitous programming, it is your fault. Why? Because you haven’t read The Rational Male, therefore, you’ve no right to complain. Don’t blame Mort Zuckerman either. he’s one of the most intelligent men on the planet. He understands women. Look him up, connect and ask him about Sam Botta. It will be an interesting conversation.
If you’re a man complaining about how your doing everything she asked has not worked out for you, it is your fault. Instead of finding great men to learn from, you found it easier to feed a dumbed-down clueless existence. It’s so sad you fell prey to cheesy promos pitched by obese people that appear to be male. You purchased programs by false prophets like that one named Stepping Up™. You did it because you’re afraid of the truth. There’s a reason some living idols of religious teaching are able to obtain massive funding to create misleading programs. Have they reduced the divorce rate? NO. Don’t take my word for it, get the real data.
Oh, so you’re too busy in the cubicle or watching sports to notice the stat that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. You’re correct, it won’t happen to you. When you meet her, you’re Cinderella, even though you’re a guy, and you’re relishing the fairy tale.
It’s time to recover and become a man of greatness, a WINNER instead over at BOLD AND DETERMINED.
Cut the long, boring teachings from out-of-shape ‘men’ who are paid to tell you how lacking you are in masculine traits. Start with a no BS resource ($9 at time of posting) from philanthropreneur/guru Victor Pride. Mix that with the proven experience and genius of psychologist Rollo Tomassi, who is simply the best source for advice leading to long term enthusiastic love in monogamy with the woman you insist you want to share life with. We think Rollo Tomassi is crazy for not charging you the price of that new Tesla for the content he gives away free.
I’m a fan of marriage. Like other men, my grandparents enjoyed almost 70 years of beautiful lifetime love until she passed away. Yes, yes, a large percentage of men want this. BUT … If you CHOOSE to avoid the knowledge from Victor Pride and Rollo Tomassi, then you are sick. So be sick… continue sucking up to the protectors of the destructive mundane.
“Oh, but that movie — that song — that popular relationship book at Harms & Gullible, all say — those magazines she reads, all say — the church leader says — Mom says…”
Just remember, when you lose everything you have worked for in life, remember we tried to tell you. Most of what is popular has intentions.
“She learns from all sources, all forms of media, all of her friends: the same message… she sees you as weak, She will say ‘ew’ behind your back. You’re not attractive to the kind of woman you say you ‘dream’ of.”
You have the freedom to choose to take the simple recommendations. If the day arrives when you realize you chose a life of blubber instead of becoming a real winner, remember this conversation. . No one has empathy for you when you complain … We will all know that you said no to Victor Pride and Rollo Tomassi.
Boys past college age want to be actors, not ‘as in Hollywood’ – no, they prefer to pose as attractive men of greatness. Most people are not fooled.
Here is one thing you can Victor Pride. It has helped many others focus enough to open their eyes and recognize the truth. Give it a try.
Awww, do you feel these are random thoughts pasted onto a page? You’d be correct. Try to embrace the urgency here. Women want marriage, but not for the same reasons that men want marriage. Therefore, without education, marriage (for a man) is not going to be this beautiful thing he’s been brainwashed to believe it should be.
If you’re a woman and you’ve not bought the men in your life this resource from Victor Pride, it’s clear that you hate these men.
Lastly, if you’re an amazing woman that needs your man to understand how to attract you, send him to this post by Rollo Tomassi. If that’s too much work, they say Victor Prideworks, but don’t take my word for it.
Quick thoughts/review on @RationalMale book the Rational Male: http://t.co/rxEGN1xoF7
— Law Dogger (@LawDogger) January 29, 2014
she woman so more from who if all we man will when was one about can do there how sexual them just than my most feminine has game because male social into even would own like no only other ve some want re up out me being think don sex any get been alpha him our these november guy should better which says had hypergamy make rational porn guys time see never also really were ll imperative same now good still rollo much may point d why tomassi while need way beta very after know doesn well love first pm say right then am over life best long many its too those wife here become could desire girl people edition marriage back locations does themselves relationship find real before new years another fact however value where use less understand female always ever both enough term take power makes must having yourself work go off believe such part personal lot every often potential children reason understanding since frame come change society pill look read something thing order going course without rather needs afc becomes us might conditions husband conventions intimacy single terms options least common control idea truth plate influence made etc sense masculine behavior world against effort dynamic far divorce old smv actually problem commitment either thus friends convention natural once set himself things means married based important comes down rejection anything between care two gender personality girls adultery getting feel others tell theory did case true simply upon nothing reality person red blog conditioning biological doing communication through making words ltr interest lack around great give past experience manosphere psychological myth attention again let mind few used due concept lives yet gets wants fuck degree attractive sure response quality form got said plates strategy physical level seems feminism capacity consider fear masculinity thought purpose realize aware friend status age though emotional post away accept high exactly already using nice question investment provisioning wrong behaviors year put process usually anyone whether confidence human mindset thinking culture rule shit anxiety keep each nature perspective genuine certain bad oneitis end maybe socially someone times positive matter example kind relationships respect husbands sexually conditioned aren wives wall little last breeding easy mentality root constant today told security pua default com different serves play looks state result comments system yes almost everything job didn becoming psychology family hard possible until mean feminized essentially primary whole looking issue monogamy day ljbf seem doubt worth ability lifetime spinning under short community able done whatever trying soul-mate ideal hope ones second next efforts place necessary saying individual e higher found help kids sexuality call matrix competition th live prior wont operative mental book reading healthy law perceived success later comfortable schema cannot afcs strong within given average probably hot concepts reasons opportunity agree behavioral definition rules else wouldn testosterone playing above moral takes friendship situation bit feminization perfect young interests develop heart partner context walsh knows forum beyond market jeremy particular intent standard risk genetic mother sometimes valuable date overt commit matt latent necessarily living side dating john belief truly goes girlfriend unplugging media attraction remember argue condition begin sin god known itself wait considered future effect exist evolved involved majority money turn learn interested attempt convenient believes laws aspects myself resources open christian herself innate sperm half position start stop literally pay appreciate free peak identity males feeling ways threat learned deal difficult buffer working iron interesting school night expect answer available benefit regret birth came seeking committed role test define greater posts smp – naturally party wonder comment works education list difference coming collective longer everyone attitude overtly message honor jerk further ask pretty general long-term moment move assume principle behind developed meet comfort show along opposite mate generation argument dynamics add particularly conflict phase willing seek problems spin tend perhaps covert certainly blue easily child act word face betas feminist taught debate taken focus return feelings entirely seen complete wanted otherwise fit thinks dalrock parental ready prefer allow paid among months critical story internalized maintain exchange tool attracted anyway unique early environment home big approach large obvious met laid jesus information facilitate try began posted heard legitimate prove responsibility ourselves expected hear rights decisions therefore livingtree break completely agency nor profile useful bear mystique topic vs white traits asking selection function stuff boyfriend sosuave ought defined relations asked enjoy provide beginning cause remain father intimate motivations happy imagination similar lets generally personally idealized shades easier avoid knowing full controlling confident lost search equity cases fantasy led across source sexes imagine stated john mcg seeing attract favor advantage knew considering accommodate chump comet church fail choice acceptable dread changed line lt fucks inter-gender fucking http emotionally original following together subject sounds popular excuse ago practice recognize mating create lose slut please advice apply grounds ego evolution feminists maintaining extreme articles primacy scarcity idealization communicate whore associated books degrees haven hit gone inability thread effective knowledge goal support whom decision readers offspring left issues th art needed experiences hypergamous late quite instead marriages covertly leave hooker talk provider honest top bitter light view catch ideas shame points lie career tfh character cast taking freedom proof possessiveness mature virtue compete clear hold rooted mothers likely balance body serve religious denial jobs ldr younger frustrated reader rarely regards directly intended mistake various week successful pursue college giving drive internet regard actions simple present run gives established aspect identify modern to connection reward capable awareness establish minesweeper learning reinforced sacrifice choose encounter article pass fall requires model access ambitions written method presumption buffers fight funny parents dominant refusal responsible forced multiple according results determine deductive sluts secret step expectations marry accepting benefits online stand outside actual subconscious finally offer public simultaneously hate importance option respond base depending arousal started share lust intelligent ok reaction strategies meaning guilty familiarity amount basic levels number low mom questions blogs indeed expectation loss liberty ultimately impulse motivation follow fully earth element thanks sets evidence health pluralistic limited desires methods mystery previously corey equally encourage beliefs older logical although studies opportunities enter uncomfortable dominance definitely qualities pregnancy sorry convince manner discussion loved head desirable
The gynocentric mindset
The concept of gynocentrism, first written about among men’s rights advocates ongynotheory.com, but also discussed on blogs such as Under the Goddess andGynocentrism and its Cultural Origins (whose premise I profoundly disagree with), describes a state of affairs in which the needs, expectations, requests and demands of women are placed ahead of those of men; in which, if a woman’s needs were ever to come into conflict with those of a man, he was expected to abolish his needs in favour of hers. While social phenomena may be called gynocentric, I mainly use this term to describe people’s mindsets, since social phenomena are merely the product of these mindsets.
As an example of a gynocentric mindset, someone (a man or a woman) may think that men ought to protect women, and that women ought to protect themselves (and possibly each other, but never men); that men ought to provide for women, and that women ought to provide for themselves (and, again, possibly each other, but never men). That they ought to receive support from men, and should care for themselves (and each other, but never men). Notice that gynocentrism can be either individualistic and solipsistic (men should do things for women, women should only do things for themselves), or collectivist and feminist (men should do things for women, women should do things for each other), but always parasitic, since its adherents demand that women extract benefits from men that they never think of reciprocating.
Under gynocentrism, men should make efforts to help women, women should make efforts to help themselves or to get themselves helped. Under gynocentrism, when women cry helplessly, men jump to their rescue; when men cry helplessly, women look upon them with contempt, for helpless men cannot fulfil their gynocentric role of jumping to women’s rescue. Under gynocentrism, men should never deprive women of anything, whereas women should never let themselves be deprived of anything.
In a gynocentric marriage, the man must ensure that the woman is happy; the woman must ensure that she herself is happy. If she is not happy, she may freely divorce the man, for he is clearly not fulfilling his marital obligations, whereas she is clearly doing her best to fulfil hers (by divorcing to ensure that she is happy). In a gynocentric marriage, the man’s property is there for the woman to use as she sees fit, while her own property is there for herself to use as she sees fit. If, after divorce, she needs the property, she should clearly have it. Likewise, in a gynocentric marriage, the couple’s children are hers alone, and she should keep them after divorce for her own emotional satisfaction. Just as well, since the man should provide for the woman whereas the woman should either provide for herself or be provided for by the man (depending on her choice), the man should, in the end, pay her part of his income after the gyoncentric divorce, simply because she needs it.
In gynocentric courtship, the man must live up to a woman’s expectations, and the woman must be liberated from the man’s own expectations. The man must jump through whatever hoops the woman brings forth, and the woman must bring forth whatever hoops she wishes, for her own entertainment and convenience. If it turns out that some of these hoops (e.g. male dominance, fame, aggression etc) are invisible, and only jumping through the invisible hoops counts as a success, then everything is perfectly all right, for it is up to the woman to decide which hoops are to be jumped through, and she need not inform the man of her preferences at any time. She is free to let her hypergamous desires run wild in her body language, while verbally demanding that the man lavish her with acquiescence, and so creates the mix of invisible and visible hoops that form the basis of modern courtship. The fact that no man can jump through both types of hoops is simply evidence of men’s inferior nature, for the woman is doing everything required of her within gynocentric courtship (i.e. demanding both male dominance and male acquiescence), while the man always fails to do the things required of him within this courtship (i.e. providing both male dominance and male acquiescence). This forces the “poor” woman to settle for either being sexually dominated by the man (“oh, but he never lets me win!”), or lavished with special treatment that sexually turns her off (“I only see him as a friend.”).
Read that again, and you will understand why women’s double sexual strategy seems perfectly logical to them. If a woman instinctively believes in the false premise of gynocentrism, she will demand both dominance and acquiescence, and will resent men for being incapable of doing both at once rather than resent herself for being gynocentric. Gynocentrism explains the entirety of women’s sexual hypocrisy in one word.
I’ve briefly touched on gynocentric courtship and marriage. What about a gynocentric country, inhabited by a whole glut of gynocentric people? Well, let’s look at India, a den of gynocentism if there ever was one. In India, according to section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, only men suffer penalties for sexual assault. Likewise, section 498a allows women to lock up their husbands and the husbands’ families without due investigation over charges of “dowry harassment”, charges that only target husbands, never wives, as perpetrators. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, released in 2013, disregards male victims, as its very name indicates. That these and other laws have been written explicitly to address men as perpetrators and women as victims – never the reverse – is a manifestation of gynocentrism at the level of the state. I don’t want to single out India here – the US, Britain, France, Spain, Sweden, Canada and other Western countries have had their share of gynocentric laws – but it makes for a good example of how the unilateral concern for women’s well-being translates into laws.
I could not finish this brief introduction of gynocentrism without mentioning Feminism, for Feminism and gynocentrism are like Nationalism and tribalism: one is an aspect of human nature, the other is its ideological outgrowth. “Don’t tell me what to wear, tell men not to rape!” means “men should do what I want, I should do what I want!”. “Stop violence against women!” means “men should never hurt women, women should tell men not to hurt them!”. “My body, my choice!” means “men should let women decide what happens to the baby, women should let themselves decide what happens to the baby!”. “Fringe fathers’ rights groups threaten mothers’ sole custody!” means “Men should ensure that women are catered to after divorce, women should ensure that they are catered to after divorce. Not the reverse.”
To sum it up, gynocentrism means that men should do good things to women, and women should ensure that good things are done to them; men should take care not do bad things to women, women should ensure bad things are not done to them. There is no reciprocation, no compensation, no gratitude, just gynocentrism, gynocentrism and more gynocentrism.
The good news is that rampant gynocentrism will stop if men decide to stop it.
Some men, notably conservatives, believe in complementarianism – the idea that women should be the helpers of men, and men should be the leaders of women. A good helper will let the leader lead, thereby holding patriarchal attitudes, while a good leader would compensate the helper for her lack of autonomy by providing her with greater support, thereby holding gynocentric attitudes. In any society in which women instinctively want to follow, and men instinctively want to lead, patriarchy and gynocentrism naturally arise, and in theory (though sometimes not in practice), each of these principles keeps the other in balance. Nevertheless, in the last 50 years, feminists have campaigned tirelessly to strip men of their patriarchal benefits while ensuring that women retain, if not receive more of, their gynocentric benefits.This has created an imbalance that led to many of the problems men’s rights activists campaign against: the gynocentric family courts, the gynocentric laws on domestic abuse and rape, the gynocentric use of affirmative action laws, as well as the overall gynocentric culture in which we live.
Gynocentrism, or at least, gynocentrism without patriarchy, can give evil women the opportunity to ruthlessly exploit men, whereas patriarchy without gynocentrism can give evil men the opportunity to ruthlessly exploit women. The same goes for androcentrism without matriarchy and the reverse, although these latter two systems only exist in very rare cases. The important thing is that, from the 1960s to the current year, we have gone through a half-century of gynocentrism without patriarchy, leading to the widespread exploitation of men by women, and this imbalance can be solved in two ways: by dismantling gynocentrism or by re-establishing patriarchy. Both solutions can arise at once, in their own separate communities.
My guess is that we will see three movements progressing to overthrow the current state of gynocentrism-without-patriarchy, each going in its own direction. One is a conservative movement with ideas currently expressed by the writers at The Art of Manliness, as well as by androsphere bloggers such as Dalrock, W. F. Price of The Spearhead, Laura Grace Robins of Unmasking Feminism and The Native Canadian of the eponymous blog; this movement’s goal is to restore patriarchal attitudes as complementary to gynocentric attitudes, and to ensure a balance between the two. Another is a leftist “humanist” movement that opposes both patriarchy and gynocentrism, at times under the naive assumption that most people can be convinced to give up their natural inclination towards both. Some authors who ascribe to it include Dean Esmay, Alison Tieman, and others at A Voice for Men, the well-known mens’ rights academic dr. Warren Farrell, the ex-feminist academic dr. Elly Tams on the Quiet Riot Girl blog, the Amazing Atheist on YouTube and the writers at Feminist Critics. The third and final movement is a secular moral one, to which I would ascribe but which does not seem to have any outspoken adherents so far. It would seek to establish communities for those men and women who, while being true in their devotion and caring for one another, as well as having strong morals, believe that, within these communities, patriarchy and gynocentrism should not extend beyond the bedroom, if they are to exist at all.
Given recent trends, I am confident that the dual push to remove gynocentrism from some circles, and to re-include patriarchy in other circles, will succeed to everyone’s benefit. People who want to live in patriarchal-and-gynocentric communities will come together and establish (or revive) them without fear of retaliation from the feminists, while people who want to live in genuinely egalitarian communities will hopefully do so as well. My only concern is that there might be far fewer non-gynocentric women than non-gynocentric men in the world, warranting a need for artificial wombs to allow these non-gynocentric men to reliably procreate, and that is a topic I look forward to tackling throughout this blog and elsewhere.”
