Since I was recently commended so
heavily for posting an excerpt from Esther Vilar's The
Manipulated Man, I thought that I would seek to gain some further
applause for myself by pinching some text from one of the most popular
Men's books in recent times.
The book is Sex-Ploytation by
Matthew Fitzgerald.

Link to book at
Amazon USA ...
Amazon UK
The beauty about this book is that
it is blunt, straightforward, in your face, and there is no dithering
about. In other words: It is a man's book! And, most importantly,
it gives the reader a very good insight into how, and why, men have
ended up being treated like fourth-class citizens and how it is that
they have recently even been described as 'parasites' by academic
biologists.
This book would also make a great
gift for any chum of yours who has yet to see what is being done to him
At his own expense!
And, while on the subject, men are
notoriously hopeless at thinking of what gifts to buy for their chums.
Those in the men's movement must never hesitate to buy them a good Men's
book for a birthday or a Christmas present. Not only does this spread
the word, but it also supports those very authors in the front line of
the movement.
And, of course, thanks to online
sellers, you won't even have to spend hours wandering
through any stores!
Yo!
That's what I calls shopping!
Anyway. Revel in this glorious
piece.
But, Watch Out, he's vicious!
SEXIST SOCIETY
Ours is an overtly sexist society,
biased toward women. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming - you
don't have to look any farther than common sense. In times of war, men
are the cannon fodder conscripted to die in battle, while women are
offered the choice of military service; it is men who are forced to
initiate courtship and finance sex; men must shoulder the primary
responsibilities of mortgages and college tuitions and weddings (not to
mention diamond rings). The justice system is disgracefully
female-friendly: judges regularly give the nod to women predators who
practice divorce as a business; custody of children is routinely awarded
to the wife, even if she is a known abuser (fathers win custody of
children in less than 2% of divorce cases, and usually only when the
mother is deceased or otherwise incapacitated); and when men and women
commit the same crime, men are many times more likely to be sentenced to
prison.
Women have hoodwinked male society;
the slave mistresses have conned their drones into thanking them for a
beating. They bully men with their vaginas. But by positioning
themselves as innocent, sexually pure "victims" of male
"domination", women have manipulated men into granting them
tacit sanction of their whoredom. It is women who are the true
oppressors, not the oppressed: the logo of the feminist movement should
be not a female gender symbol, but a leather-clad dominatrix raising a
bloody whip. But even though they can gain easy access to male incomes,
still, like spoiled children, they want more. They lust after men's jobs
as well, manifestly in a spirit of personal validation. With one hand
dipping into masculine pockets, they brag of their equality to men. But
the ethics of "liberation" must have made their prostitution
self-evident, even to them -a situation absolutely intolerable for such
practiced self-deceivers - and their response was to campaign harder to
insinuate themselves into the workplace, to try to legitimize their
gender with titles and offices.
In the business world men are natural
egalitarians - proof enough is a recent Gallup poll which recorded that
99% of men approved of equal pay for equal work. The emphasis here is on
the word "equal". Men don't care who does the job, as long as
the job gets done and done well. Accomplishment generally presupposes
hard work, but a new generation of "feminists", trained from
childhood to be takers, and so accustomed to manipulating men into
giving them what they want, marched into office buildings expecting a
sinecure and found labor instead. They assumed that men would hand them
equal jobs and equal pay just because they were biologically female, and
were shocked to learn that their superiors weren't writing out fat
paychecks for flirting and baring cleavage. Instead of working harder,
women began to use their energies to bitch about how unfair the
"man's world" is. It would never dawn on them that they are
the sole authors of all their problems.
For centuries, business has evolved as
a male domain because men, conditioned by women to have to purchase
female attention, have been constrained into performing as workhorses.
Women have forced men to create such a unique environment, yet they are
dismayed to discover that their idle and alien presence is not
particularly welcome here, unless they are willing to toil as hard as
men. What works well in the bedroom fails miserably in the boardroom.
Business depends on effort-that is to say, giving, not taking. With few
exceptions, the higher the salary, the greater the requirement of time
and labor, and women, spoon-fed a diet of female pornography (women's
books, magazines and television shows), have discovered that the
true-life business world isn't elegant lunches and deal-making on the
slopes of Aspen, but stress and deadlines and traffic jams. So
accustomed to getting something for nothing, they have to come face to
face with the awful realization that profit exacts a price: the road to
commercial success imposes an expensive toll.
RADICAL, MAN
Since the mind-bending days of the
late 60's, the equal rights movement has struggled to come of age. But
it has been a journey beset with complications. Since women's brand of
"logic" is mercurial at best, it was hardly unexpected when
the original coalition of like-minded thinkers splintered off into rival
factions, each devoted to their own polemical agendas. One such
sisterhood is the radical feminists, a peculiar and vicious cult of
man-haters who prey on lesbians, the psychologically crippled, and
unsuspecting college co-eds as recruits for their fanatical crusade. In
archetypically cultish fashion they insist on a polarized philosophy: if
you're not for us, you're against us. This is the worst kind of
intellectual cowardice.
A truly paranoid cabal, they are
alienated from any appeal to reason, convinced that some ill-defined
"patriarchy" is conspiring to oppress the female gender, and
is solely responsible for all the horrors ever conceived by the human
race, from rape to war to having sex with men. They have tried and
convicted male society in the kangaroo court of their sadly freakish
dogma and have pronounced the entire gender to be scum: in fact, a man's
only hope for salvation is to have his testicles shrivel up into
ovaries. "Male", it seems, is a particularly nasty four-letter
word.
Radical feminists indulge themselves
in half-truths, skewed statistics, and outright lies. Hopelessly
chauvinistic, they refuse to tolerate any criticism or intellectual
scrutiny of their claims. As with all women, they have quarantined
themselves against reality with seasoned self-deceit. A typically
egregious example of their data manipulation is an oft-cited
"fact" in feminist literature which mourns that each year at
least 150 thousand women die from symptoms related to anorexia and
bulimia (since, wouldn't you know it, it is men who pressure these poor
victims to be thin). The actual number, according to government
statistics, is about 100 (not thousand-just 100). But such alarmist
teachings will be a booby-trap for uncritical minds. The radical
feminists are far too narrow-minded to get it through their heads that
women contract neurotic disease because they are uninhibitedly obsessed
with themselves and their appearance; because they are trying to mimic
the willowy models glamorized in check-out counter magazines (published
by and intended for females); and because they are aspiring to such an
unrealistic ideal because they have been brainwashed (by women) that
such an appearance is beautiful, and will therefore attract a wealthy
man.
The radical feminists are militant
bigots; they are bitter and mean-spirited hate-mongers. They divide the
world into black and white, them and us. Their doctrine sanctifies the
female as the moralizing and ennobling force of the universe, angelic
victims of male treachery and perversion. In contrast, all men are
potential abusers, killers, child molesters, and rapists, a hand's reach
from the violation of their precious female bodies (someone might want
to inform them that men don't have sexual thoughts about women with
butch haircuts and figures like packing crates). Men are despots who
plot to control women's bodies by denying them birth control and rights
to abortion; they are domineering opportunists lusting to procure women
as sexual playtoys. Marriage is another trap of the
"patriarchy", enslaving women to drudge as housewives
"for free" (they conveniently ignore the actuality that if a
housewife were to be paid a fair wage for labor, out of which was
deducted her share of the mortgage, utilities, various insurances,
repairs, car payments, food, clothing, and entertainment, she would have
to get a second job just to pay her husband what she owed). Make-up,
presumably another male fiat, degrades and victimizes women; and men
invented high heels to hobble women from fleeing from sexual advances.
It should be obvious to any rational
thinker that such hysterical nonsense is the fruit of a very perverse
solipsism, the equivalent of a lunatic ranting at his own reflection in
a mirror. But it's pernicious nonsense all the same. Like all women, the
radical feminists are masters of self-delusion, and so they have
hyperbolized a world of sweeping generalizations unencumbered by facts.
To pronounce that all men are potential rapists is like saying that all
boys can grow up to be President-the possibility may exist, but the odds
are exceptionally low, and depend on many specific sets of
circumstances. But by depersonalizing men into rapists and the
"oppressive patriarchy", the feminist bigots can assuage any
sense of guilt when they despise the masculine gender. These women
desperately want to ennoble themselves as martyred revolutionaries, but
the truth is that they are nothing but angry and bitter broads who can't
get a date.
If men are "pigs", then
these deluded evangelists are sexist sows. If one of them were suddenly
transfigured into a beauty queen, she'd be thrusting her cleavage at men
instead of screaming at them from behind a protest sign. They are too
self-indulgent to be proper whores-it's far less trouble to scorn men
than to go on a diet.
Radical feminists are responsible for
the majority of negative aspects of the equal rights movement, including
"sexual harassment" and "date rape", which open a
Pandora's box for false charges and flagrant abuse of men's rights. They
warp logic by trying to deny that hormones define and control female
behavior, that emotionalism is biologically determined. They insist that
human beings are born sexually neutral, clean slates on which society
etches prescriptions of gender-specific behavior patterns. Unfortunately
for their unstable theories, science has proven beyond doubt that the
male and female brain differ not only in size (the male brain is
bigger), but in functional activity. In many respects, behavior is
hard-wired into the neural structure. What's more, these women argue for
test-tube conception, so that marriage and mating would become
redundant. They promote androgyny in the schools and workplace and
attack traditional sex roles. Their notion of "equality" is
really sexist fascism: women should have absolutely no contact with men.
And they are oddly obsessed with feminizing the vocabulary (womyn
instead of women, ovular instead of seminar), as if a new language can
somehow validate their credo or invent novel ideas. These are women with
immense chips on their shoulders, raging because their bodies are too
unattractive to be able to control men.
Radical feminism is a failure because
it is a segregationist movement, interested only in promoting its own
poisonous agenda, not in assisting beneficial cultural change. Like a
billboard with meaningless jumbles scrawled across it, the radical
feminist message may evoke curious attention, but in the end signifies
nothing.
HISTORY LESSON
While the radical feminists are a
small and rabid cult, the majority of modern equal right advocates, the
true heiresses of the cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's, never
really lost sight of their commercial goals. These "liberated"
women couldn't afford to hate men (at least not openly) - it would be
like biting the hand which was writing out the check that fed them.
In 1963, when Betty Friedan (who,
twenty years later would champion Dustin Hoffman's "Tootsie"
as the masculine ideal) published her seminal book The Feminine
Mystique, she lit the fuse on a time bomb of social controversy. Friedan
moaned that women had been "forced" into "dreary"
lives as wives and mothers (Gloria Steinem termed the home, unbelievably
enough, a "pink-collar ghetto"), wasting their brains and
talents by being excluded from the business world. She was hardly an
inspired emancipator, however-liberation of all sorts was already
stirring in the underground, like new shoots pushing up in the spring.
In the south, blacks were campaigning for civil rights, and hippies had
begun to challenge the Leave-It-To-Beaver mythology of suburban comfort
and security. Notwithstanding, The Feminine Mystique touched a raw female
nerve; for women, it was as if someone had suddenly turned on all the
lights in a huge, abandoned mansion. Friedan told them that they could
have their cake and eat it, too: while their husbands labored to pay the
mortgage, housewives could go back to school or take a glamour job or
work for a charity to convince themselves of their productivity and
worth.
And this was the problem in a
nutshell. Entranced by her own militantism, Friedan had neglected to
factor feminine delusional systems into her equation: it's easy to be
liberated when someone else is paying your bills. All at once women
wanted to crusade for equality, but not at the expense of their
comfortable lifestyles. Whether Friedan realized it or not, The Feminine
Mystique was pointing a very indirect finger at dishonest whoredom, and
sowing the seeds of the most brazen hypocrisy which was to come.
The 60's housewives had amused
themselves with setting up the props and the scenery, but it fell to
their idealistic daughters to act out the proper roles in the play.
These young women were open-hearted revolutionaries, who shook off
inherited "truths" and seized the new zeitgeist by the throat.
By the early 70's women were stampeding into universities. Bras came
off, drugs were mind-expanding, and the commercialization of the birth
control pill banished any fears of pregnancy. Freed from the puritanical
restraints of their mothers' "morality", for the first time
women allowed themselves to be uninhibited and unmercenary about their
sex drives- suddenly they were demanding orgasms instead of cash. A true
New Age of female honesty seemed to have begun: they had ripped the mask
off their self-deception and exposed the fraudulence of their whoredom.
It was an era of unransomed freedom and hot-blooded exploration. It was
the foundry of true feminism (which doesn't hate or use men), untainted
by greed, a philosophy which furloughed women to educate themselves and
pursue careers, while at the same time pleasuring their bodies without
selling them. Waving their banners of peace and love and unqualified
sexuality, the young women of this generation had stumbled across the
great secret of successful relationships: partnership instead of cash.
But as glorious as it should have
been, this "New Age" was doomed, almost a stillborn child. Its
tragic mistake lay in overlooking women's venal history, believing, in a
Camelot-like moment, that the female soul could exist unsullied by
greed, and that women were capable of being tutored by the natural
rhythms of the human heart. By the mid-70's the buoyant idealism of
youth had been rubbed a bit raw: thousands of new graduates were having
their eyes opened to the reality that college life was a false image of
the real world-it had granted them freedom without the chains of
responsibility. Young men and women were matriculating into the
marketplace, and were surprised to learn that they could no longer get
away with partying all week, then cramming at the last minute to fulfill
their sales calls. Men, indoctrinated by their mothers to be workhorses
to support women, reverted to this lethal brainwashing; and as soon as
they saw the college partyers earning money, women scurried to swap
their baggy sweatshirts for plunging necklines. When nobody had any
money, it was fine to give sex away, but now the old adage rang clear
and cold in their minds: why should a man buy the cow when he can get
the milk for free? Prostitution was back, and free love, the sexual
revolution, had all wisped away to a fading memory, like the remnants of
an hallucinogenic dream. These young liberationists, rebellious though
they were, had internalized their mothers' messages too well. No longer
were they burning their bras-now they were stuffing them. No man was
going to sneak a peek without first paying the admission fee.
Cultural change does not proceed in
quantum jumps, but evolves at a much more erratic pace, often
encompassing times of transition. The Disco era was one of these
transitional stages, arising from the social disintegration and
scattering of forces which was the wake of the 1970's. Directionless
young people were searching for a hook upon which to hang their lives;
they stood poised between the dying vestiges of innocence and a surging
new riptide of materialism. The riptide swelled, and Disco emerged,
pointing like a flashing neon arrow at the brutal avarice which belonged
to the future. Like the hippies, Discoers wore costumes to assure
themselves of their identities: they traded in love beads for gold
chains and tie-dye for polyester dripping with dancing sweat. But
whereas the hippies had celebrated lovemaking as a wholesome and natural
act, now the campfires of the communes were electrified into the
dazzling lights of the city, and a new sensuality was throbbing through
the urban nightclubs. The beat of Disco music was deliberately
syncopated to the pulse of the human heart; women's dresses were slashed
to display thigh and breast; and men's pants looked shrink-wrapped to
their crotches. When they danced, partners interlaced fingers and
caressed bodies, just as their parents had 20 years ago. But the cult of
materialism put a price tag on such contact. Women were once again
baiting men with their sexuality and selling it to the highest bidder.
The sexual revolution had emancipated females to express their
sensuality, but love was no longer free-Disco had snapped its fingers
and awakened a hypnotized greed.
In a perverse way, the radical
feminists were more committed and loyal to their doctrine because, even
though their innate bigotry presumed more sexism than the claims
imagined for their "oppressors", at least these women were
flying the flag of solidarity and not relying on men to support them.
Their hate was virulent enough to strangle down normal female avarice.
But with the dawning of the 80's-the Yuppie era-a new brand of feminism
had emerged: the pseudofeminist. In a milieu of designer labels, power
lunches, corporate raiders, and soulless consumerism, these women forged
their ideology with a viperous will. They dissected the feminist
manifesto with their manicured talons and culled whatever suited their
best interests. Their amended version of equal rights was gimmee, gimmee,
gimmee. Men were making money-lots of money-and women wanted it, and the
message they had harvested from the hard-core feminists was an excuse to
plunder male bank accounts. "Empowerment" was translated into
a license to steal. Their mothers might have been bothered by a
suspicion of inner deception, or perhaps even wrestled with their
consciences because they were living off the fat of the land while their
husbands sweated over deadlines and cursed their lost dreams; but these
newly-created hypocrites were tossing out even these proprieties - they
expected to be handed everything free of charge. At least their mothers
would have rolled over on their backs once in a while, but these women
weren't even bothering to lure men with the promise of sex-they just
wanted and took and held their hands out for more. The only bulge in a
man's pants they were interested in was the bulge of his wallet.
Drunk with power, calculating and
self-centered, the false feminists trampled men into peonage, and
sexually famished males doled out anything these harpies grasped for.
Women had become true oppressors, and they were scavenging male flesh
with red tooth and claw. But in order for a tyrant to most ruthlessly
exploit her victims, she must first depersonalize them into
"things", so what little conscience she has will never bother
her. Thus the pseudofeminists borrowed the hate and blame cards from the
radicals' nasty deck. With shrill, venom-laced voices they began to
vilify men as "pigs" and "liars", to label them as
sex-crazed seducers worthy only of scorn. Such depraved creatures could
hardly be thought of as sex objects; instead women degraded them into
"money objects". And when these women weren't handed a job or
a promotion, they put the blame on men-never on their own incompetence
or inexperience. If no one asked them for a date, it was because men
were "intimidated" by their intelligence or position, not
because their arrogance and bad attitudes betrayed them as unpleasant
companions. And if they weren't married, the reason was that men
"can't make a commitment", not because no man would relish a
lifetime of living with a cold-hearted bitch.
The Yuppie empire was built on the
shifting sands of an artificial economy, and when its infrastructure
began to crumble, social theorists happily predicted a New Age for the
90's, which was supposed to be an era of diminished materialism and
enhanced intergender relationships. Shirley MacLaine had already tried
to blaze a trail with her silly pastiche of 19th century spiritualism
and modern pseudoscience: crystals, pyramids, and channeling touched off
a worldwide fad for the supernatural because these sophistries provided
an antidote for the yawning emptiness of the "greed is good"
80's. MacLaine preached anti-materialism (although she made a fortune
from seminars and book sales) and "going within". Sheep-like
women followed her in herds. They may have taken a journey inside
themselves, but apparently there wasn't much to be found, because when
they came back out again, their mercenary attitudes had not been
channeled away.
Somebody - men - had to be paying the
rent while these women were off seeking harmonic convergence or running
with the wolves. Shirley MacLaine's "New Age" was more of a
whim than a renewal-it takes more than mumbling a few chants over a
shard of rock to make a woman relinquish her whoredom.
The 90's were supposed to be the
"we" decade. But such idealism does not take into account the
voraciousness of female avarice. Like sharks sensing blood in the sea,
women had been gorging themselves in a feeding frenzy of lust for
masculine earning power, a hunger which, once awakened, would prove
impossible to slake.
It is crucial to understand that
nowhere in the separatist gospel of the radical feminists, or in the
mercenary gluttony of the pseudofeminists is there any conviction of a
true desire for social equity. The hard-core feminists despise the male
gender so much that they believe that a man's only possible redemption
would be to become a woman; and the false feminists, besotted with their
self-serving doctrine of predation, seek only societal permission to
take men for everything they have. But attacking or objectifying men are
just childish shortcuts; this is not aiming at a solution, but focusing
full attention on me, me, me, and consigning blame to everyone but
yourself. These women want to alienate themselves from men, and use
them, but they are working at cross purposes. What they don't realize is
that their third-rate philosophies are ultimately dependent upon men,
not only to define themselves, but also to subsidize their duplicity.
A true feminist - and there are very,
very few of these - likes men. She revels in their company, just as men
revel in the company of an honest woman, not for monetary gain, but
simply for the excitement and mystery which glamorizes the opposite sex.
She lives with the profound belief that men and women can exist in a
spirit of harmony and partnership. This, of course, is the point which
the dishonest feminists shut their eyes and ears to (and couldn't care
less about): that men and women are fundamentally different, both
physiologically and intellectually, and that nature has designed them
this way so that they will complement and reinforce each other, so that
each gender will contribute its own remarkable strength to a successful
relationship.
But the pathetic reality is that the
false feminists care only about themselves. They are their own worst
enemies. Without even a glimmer of insight or understanding, they are
diligently erecting the gallows which will hang them all.
....
And, finally, also from the book,
here is a good piece of advice for all you men out there ...
Participate fully in the coming
backlash. The founders of our nation championed the slogan "no
taxation without representation", and you cannot any longer pay
tribute to those who abuse and take advantage of you. By continuing to
manipulate men while still reaping the rewards of equal rights, women
have abrogated their rights to easy privilege.
|