Category Archives: Feminism is Evil

Fox News Host Jesse Watters Eats Steak as He Debates Feminist Vegan

Meat

Jesse Watters eats a thick steak in front of a self-righteous, feminist vegan

Ever notice that like feminists, their sickly cohorts – vegans – enjoy loudly passing judgment on supposedly inferior, knuckle-dragging men who not only like sex, but (gasp!) also enjoy eating meat?

Our latest foray into the land of deranged women comes from the normally irrelevant, plain vanilla MSM. A feminist vegan (who looked pale, sickly, and yellow, in her Fox News interview like most vegans) recently descended from her perch inside the moldering halls of an institution of higher learning institution of lower living to blame – you guessed it – meat eaters for fostering the evil, evil patriarchy. From Meninist:

Over the weekend, Fox News host Jesse Watters decided to troll a Penn State University doctoral candidate who he invited on his show. This specific young woman was arguing the point that her studies in Argentina showed that the presence of meat reinforces gender stereotypes.

Let’s examine some of Anne DeLessio-Parson’s academic gobbledygook she espoused during the interview.

In patriarchal societies where hegemonic masculinity implies an imperative to eat meat, vegetarianism disrupts food culture, raising questions about how vegetarians do, re-do, and rework gender. Analyzing 23 interviews in La Plata, Argentina, I find that the narratives of conversion and social pushback reported by women and men expose gender enactment and social reinforcement of the binary. At times, vegetarians compensate by drawing on scripts of femininities and masculinities that uphold difference, e.g. women cook meat and reassure meat-eaters; men make rationality-based claims and demonstrate strength.

What? Eating meat is associated with masculinity? Hmm. Sounds pretty sexist to me, Anne. I know a lot of women who enjoy eating meat, too. If this doesn’t illustrate how far Western academia has fallen, nothing will. Also, notice the important subtext: Anglo feminists are doing their best to infect Latin America with their cultural degeneracy and misandry. She did her research in Argentina for a reason.

Anne goes on. Grab some Excedrin before trying to untwist this hamster-wheeling, logical pretzel she twists:

Yet in other moments, vegetarians defy attempts to hold them accountable to gendered social expectations. Women, for example, assert authority over their diets; men embody rejection of the meat-masculinity nexus by adopting a worldview that also rejects sexism and racism. I contend that in such a context, we cannot separate the ways people ‘do vegetarianism’ from how they ‘do gender.’ Doing vegetarianism in interactions drives social change, contributing to the de-linking of meat from gender hegemony and revealing the resisting and reworking of gender in food spaces.

Gender stereotypes evolved for reasons that have little to do with meat. Women are better at some things than men; and vice versa. Feminists never realize that trying to turn themselves into the very men they hate rather than embracing their female qualities is the height of irony. Feminism is, at its core about women trying to be men rather than trying to be women. How’s that for a gender study?

So, where does feminism and veganism lead? If the priests of these liberal creeds have their way, we’ll all be reduced to herbivores. Those who know biology know men are meat-eaters, and we always have been meat eaters. Our anatomy helps prove the fact man and meat are inseparable because top-level predators have forward-facing eyes rather than side-facing eyes. Forward-facing eyes give men the depth perception necessary to hunt and kill animals for food. (Cows and other herbivores have eyes on the sides of their heads to help them see all around – scanning the landscape for predators.) Meat-eating gave us the nutrition we needed to become a successful species.

It seems women marinated (pun intended) in toxic, man-hating Anglo culture want to drag the entire human species down to prey status. Deranged feminists want us to become cud-chewers rather than meat eaters. Their lack of understanding of biology is also plain to see in other ways, as it confuses them about penises, vaginas, and gender.

Luckily, Fox News host Jesse Watters had producers bring out a nice, thick steak laid that he proceeded to enjoy in front of the haggard-looking harradin. The interview ends with Anne calling for universal healthcare for animals (mind you – this is a doctoral candidate at a once-respected American university) and Watters asking how America can afford it now that the nation is $20 trillion in debt and sinking faster than the Titanic after hitting ice in the North Atlantic.

Ultimately, the interview makes for a cutesy challenge to feminist doxy, but TNMM would have liked to see Watters getting in Anne’s face a little bit more. He did do a nice job making a mockery out of her. At least feminists are now getting some pushback from mainstream media outlets.

In a related story, millions of college graduates like Anne can’t repay their student loans because they can’t find real jobs after creating nonsensical narratives like “meat-eating fosters the evil patriarchy”. The implosion of the education bubble looms.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

Advertisements

MSM Lists Reasons Women Get Divorced, But We Tell You The Real Reason

woman-1979272_1280

Everything is just fine and dandy in a relationshit or marriage – as long as you’re literally paying your dues to the female

The MSM loves to come up with clever, psuedo-explanations for just about everything. It’s an industry that runs on pretty lies.

Low-paid, gynocentric propagandists recently compiled a nice and tidy, hamster-wheel inspired listing of why women divorce men, and published the results in Business Insider. TNMM decided to peruse the claims and come up with our own, Red Pill conclusions rather than trusting those who have turned deception into an art form to tell us why divorces happen.

Right away, we can glean bias in the article by merely scratching the surface. The first mistake the story makes is assuming “couples” get divorced, when the plain truth is women initiate or are directly responsible for three-quarters or more of divorces. The report about why “couples” get divorced (as if men have any say in the matter) was driven by research conducted by Psychology Today:

When it comes to studying divorce, social scientists have two options. They can observe different couples and try to figure out on their own what predicts the end of a marriage, or they can simply ask people why their marriage ended.

Enter Hamster Rationalizations to taint the results. Asking women why they got divorced isn’t scientific, as females can effortlessly come up with a pocket full of excuses to hide their ulterior motives. Further, henpecked, Blue Pill men often go along with what women say was the cause of divorce without sticking up for their own interests. In any case, here’s the study’s methodology:

Researchers either ask participants to choose from a list of potential reasons for divorce, or they ask participants to answer an open-ended question about why they divorced.

Here are the reasons listed by this non-scientific study of divorce, based on research from psychologist Scott M. Stanley:

  • Infidelity: Predictably, this is blamed on men. The study highlighted this response: “He cheated on me … Then I met somebody else and did the same thing. And when he found out about it we both essentially agreed that it wasn’t worth trying to make it work anymore because it just hurt too bad.” Maybe he started cheating because she sucked in bed. (I just wrote an article discussing good sex vs. bad sex.) Maybe she could have used some pointers on how to be better in bed. (Women always enjoy giving men pointers on how we can do… everything… better. Why not return the favor?) Maybe she, like most women, turned into an ice cube when she didn’t get something she wanted (like $$$) out of him.
  • Substance Abuse: Also, blamed on men. From the study: “I said ‘absolutely no more bars’ and as soon as I found out he was back in them, I asked for [a divorce].” Never is the idea that maybe a bitch who is hell on wheels drives a man to drink. In my Beta days, I had several Anglobitches that made me want to drown my problems with tequila.
  • Lack of commitment: You guessed it. The man’s fault. Do you see a trend emerging from the gynocentric media? “It became insurmountable. It got to a point where it seemed like he was no longer really willing to work [on the relationship]. All of the stresses together and then what seemed to be to be an unwillingness to work through it any longer was the last straw for me.”
  • Too much conflict and arguing: I’m sure the belligerant tone we’ve already seen from women who chimed in on this study has nothing to do with conflict. Hell, I can barely stand to be in the same room as two loud-mouthed, entitled Anglobitches clucking around like hens laying an egg. Moreover, lock me in a room with a woman who treats me like I’m her man slave, and there will be arguments.
  • Growing apart: A female favorite. We’ll translate this hamster rationalization for you – Beta bucks guy isn’t thrilling her with the emotional ups and downs she grew accustomed to while riding Alphas on the cock carousel. So, cupcake feels herself growing apartNever to women seem to grasp the fact Betas are boring because they have to be.
  • Getting married too young: Actually, getting married young is how our grandparents managed to stay together 50+ years. What man wants to marry scratch and dent merchandise at age 35? But, here comes another neat rationalization spun off the hamster wheel: “The main reason [we divorced] was because of our age. I think that being 19 at the time we got married, it just didn’t take. I think that we didn’t take anything as seriously as we should have.”
  • Financial problems: This excuse means wifey has pushed her Beta Bucks husband to the very edge of a financial cliff with her wasteful, spendthrift lifestyle. Now that she can no longer extract any value from him, Briffault’s Law kicks in and she doesn’t want anything to do with the used-up bastard. She pushes him into the chasm.

Of course, all of the above are divorce excuses that sound good on the surface, but any man who has been through the frivorce meat grinder knows any and all of these rationalizations really come down to money. Financial problems are the real cause of divorce. But how many? It’s hard to put a figure on the number that are caused by money because the conflating factors provide convenient cover storys. In any case, from CNBC:

Finances are the leading cause of stress in a relationship, according to a survey of people in a relationship or partnership released by SunTrust Bank. Some 35% of all respondents experiencing relationship stress said money was the primary cause of friction. Among respondents with relationship stress aged 44 to 54, 44% said money was the primary cause.

The numbers are likely much higher than one-third and one-half, since money is clandestinely connected to the other listed problems as we will later explain.

womens-power-2245102_1280

If you haven’t figured it out, marriage is legalized prostitution

Saving Face

The New York Times confirms money fights and money problems accurately predict divorce rates. An important study helps us go beyond the divorce factors listed above:

A new study, by Jeffrey Dew at Utah State University, attempts to quantify that risk. His finding: Couples who reported disagreeing about finance once a week were over 30 percent more likely to get divorced than couples who reported disagreeing about finances a few times a month.

Professor Dew looked at responses from about 2,800 couples surveyed by the National Survey of Families and Households. In this survey, both husbands and wives were asked, separately, about how often they disagreed with their spouse over chores, in-laws, spending time together, sex and money.  These same respondents were then contacted again several years later, and asked if they were still married.

Of all these common things couples fight about, money disputes were the best harbingers of divorce. For wives, disagreements over finances and sex were good predictors of divorce, but finance disputes were much stronger predictors. For husbands, financial disagreements were the only type of common disagreement that predicted whether they would get a divorce.

Here’s the takeaway from that study. No matter how many neat excuses women and their enablers in the media make up, the simple fact is women only see men as walking wallets. Women make up other excuses for divorce so they don’t come out “looking bad” when all is said and done. Face is very important to a predatory female – she doesn’t want to look like the savage solipsist she is.

Once a woman has extracted the valuable marrow from one man’s bones, just as any predator move she moves on to the next kill. In our species, that means a call to the frivorce lawyer. Indeed, family courts have ballooned into a $50 billion a year industry in Anglo America as lawyers have turned innate female behavior into big business.

Here’s how divorces ultimately come down to money. A woman who feels she can no longer get money out of her boyfriend or husband, or feels she can monkey branch to a more profitable man, will often cut off sex and become quarrelsome and emotionally detach herself from the relationship – leading to the aforementioned infidelity, substance abuse, lack of commitment, conflict and arguing, and growing apart problems. An otherwise loyal, well-behaved hubby is going to screw around, get drunk, not be committed, argue with, and grow apart from a mean ass woman. How neat for this woman that by turning into a frigid cunt, thereby estranging her husband she now has ready-made excuses to ditch him in a court of law. She’s saved face, and she’s conveniently attached the blame for the divorce to her ex – even though she spurred his bad behavior with her own. How’s that for female manipulation?

It all comes back to Briffault’s Law: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. Benefit = money and resources.

It hurts to know women don’t see you as a human being worthy of love and respect unless they feel you can bring some benefit to them in the form of financial or other types of resources. But, it’s far better to know the truth about women than to persist living inside the candy-coated cultural delusions that create the suffering of so many millions of well-intentioned men.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

How Many Sexual Witch Trials are Fake?

midsummer-142484_1280

Anglo culture is still having witch trials over 300 years after the tragedy in Salem, Massachusetts

Day in and day out we are treated to sexual assault witch trials of mostly heterosexual, white men in the headlines of the corrupt American media, mouthpieces of the globalist establishment. But how many of these accusations are false? How many men unjustly lost jobs or had their reputations destroyed by female lies?

Roy Moore’s senate candidacy ultimately failed because of made-up allegations first floated by despicable, feminist attorney Gloria Allred even though the primary accuser admitted she forged Moore’s signature in her yearbook. Worse, since the allegations worked, and his accuser suffered no consequences for her actions, we’re likely to see even more made-up sex charges. Trump will be targeted by the mob, make no mistake.

It seems sexual assault witch trials are the latest ploy to totally neutralize men in Anglo America. Did the MSM turn their cameras around at Beverly Nelson and look at her story with a skeptical eye after she admitted she “added notes” to her yearbook? Of course not. Due to rampant gynocentrism in Anglo media, a woman can admit to making false accusations that could destroy a man and still get off scot free.

Unfortunately, this sort of rampant hysteria that destroys innocent people is nothing new to Anglo culture. It has a long history going back to Puritan days. Think of the Salem Witch Trials in rural Massachusetts way back then. Only today, men are the “sorcerers” that have to be “purified” of their evil sexual urges. American Thinker took note of this narrative both TNMM and Anglobitch have long been discussing in an interesting article entitled #MeToo: From Salem to Now. Does this sound familiar?

Salem Village, 1692. Young girls, caught up in the frenzied hysteria of rampant devilry and witchcraft as explanations for the problems plaguing Salem Village, led to the accusation of more than 200 men and women of witchery, leading to the execution of 20 innocent people.

Feminists haven’t literally executed anyone yet, but they have executed quite a few men’s good names and bank accounts. The more things change, the more they stay the same:

Today, it is generally believed that these young women and the later accusers voiced their accusations for attention, personal gain, or to capture a moment of relevance in a popular wave of accusations that were then-thought “brave” by local religious leaders, who were both the media criers and political leaders of their day.

How many women are now “riding the wave” of false sexual assault charges today? Worse, the media are judge, jury and executioner in the current climate. And we all know how trustworthy talking heads in cheap suits scrambling for a sensational scoop are.

Here’s some hard data to consider with the accelerating pace of sexual witch trials in the media: 41% of rape accusations are fake, according to the government’s own National Institutes for Health. But why do women lie? Well, beyond what Schopenhauer knew was the innate talent women have for deception and treachery, NIH says:

These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.

Well, well. False sexual allegations result from the same female motivations that led to the Salem Witch Trials. I’m not surprised. Are you?

Here are other studies that serve as a testament to how baseless claims, usually made decades after the supposed “assaults” should be viewed with a skeptical eye. From the comments section of a popular men’s blog:

Other researchers have come up with similar numbers for false rape accusations: Gregory and Lees, 1996: 45%. Jordan, 2004: 41%. Chambers and Millar, 1983: 22.4%, Grace et al., 1992: 24%. McDowell and Hibler, 1985: 27%. Buckley, 1992: 25%. Washington Post, Virginia and Maryland, 1991: 25%. Even the lowest number is TEN TIMES the number of false rape allegations that feminists will admit to.

American Thinker rightly suggests rationality rather than media sensationalism and Puritanism reborn as secular feminism should rule the day. Revisiting the Salem Witch Trials:

Myriad lessons were learned from this horrific event. Chief among these is the realization that there is a distinct problem in weaponizing random accusations of wrongdoing amidst mass hysteria about the rampancy of a peculiar moral evil.  That is, innocent men and women are invariably punished when accusations grow from the passions of a frenzied mob.

Frankly, Anglo culture is entering dangerous territory as Socialist social engineers bring down load-bearing cultural walls, legal precedent, and pillars of cultural wisdom gleaned through centuries of experience, one by one. American Thinker’s conclusion should be one of the culture at large, but it isn’t:

Facts should still be stubborn things, and a dearth of convincing facts should still stubbornly presume innocence.  Accused men or women should still be presumed innocent unless it is proven otherwise.  If we lose our grasp on those simple principles because we excitedly get caught up in the zephyr of popular outrage against leftist targets of similar accusations, we cede centuries’ worth of costly-to-win ideological ground.

The longer feminists get by with destroying men on a whim, the harder it will be to reverse this cultural precedent. Soon, if a woman wants a man’s job all she’ll have to do is get in a room alone with them, then cry wolf. Presto! The dude is tossed out on his ass by HR.

P.S. Note to Anglo men: Get those crazy Anglobitches under control before they burn the totality of your civilization down and turn you into literal geldings.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

Feminist CEO Accused of Sexual Harassment – Crickets from the Misandrist Media

Miki

A feminist CEO quietly settled serious sexual misconduct allegations, while the story went largely unnoticed by mainstream media

While the misandrist mainstream media have been foaming at the mouth as they conduct one sexual misconduct witch trial after another from behind their benches in plexiglass studios, they’ve remained oddly mute about a feminist CEO doing some very un-feminist things at her company. One has to do some sleuthing to even find this article on CNBC:

Miki Agrawal, the founder, former CEO and now “SHE-eo” of THINX who aimed to take on the feminine hygiene industry, finds herself awash in allegations that she touched employees inappropriately and created a hostile work environment.

Oh, but her crimes are well beyond inappropriate touching. The listing of the feminist CEO’s transgressions is quite extensive. Imagine the screaming, flopping on the floor, and foaming at the mouth talking heads would descend into if a man did these things.

  • Inappropriate touching – fondling breasts of female employees
  • Workplace nudity – employees would be treated to views of Agrawal in the buff at her office, or she would “pee” while conducting video teleconferences
  • Raises were rare and reserved for men – the only two staffers who got raises were male (well, we do earn raises rather than considering ourselves entitled to them)
  • Agrawal expressed sexual interest in employees – at one point telling a lesbian how “hot” she found her
  • The company used “culture queens” rather than human resources

Of course, according to the way the geniuses in the media treat men, we have to believe all these allegations without questioning the motives of the chicks making them, because why would a woman lie?

What does this luminary in the fashion industry manufacture?

THINX makes “period underwear” and is known for its cheeky New York City subway advertising campaigns.

How innovative! Finally, women don’t have to wear tampons or maxi pads anymore! Agrawal responded to the allegations with a predictable denial in New York Magazine:

We spoke on the phone about the sexual-harassment allegations, which she called “baseless” and with “absolutely no merit.” Agrawal said her legal team has contacted third-party employment counsel. She noted that she was speaking for herself, not the company, and recorded the call.

It seems the “pussy pass” worked again, as Agrawal was spared the “raked across the hot coals” treatment high-level men in the business and media world have suffered. The allegations were “quietly settled” meaning she bought her way out of the mess.

What are we knuckle-dragging men supposed to think of the whole ordeal? “Andrew” on the Meninist web site offered his shocked commentary on the story:

This has to be a joke! How can a woman be behind sexual misconduct? The media told me that only men are monsters. What’s the deal here?!

Heh. Andrew is a shitlord if there ever was one.

So, we are left with several recurring themes in this story. Feminists think they can pursue sex at work while men cannot. Women think they own sex, and have turned it into a commodity that they offer only to men they think they can exploit for resources or social status. Media misandry is at an all-time high. Puritan sexual mores have morphed into secular feminism. And, there’s hypocrisy all around.

Anglo culture has gone insane.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

Feminist Logic on Display

Femlogic

Hmm. Could this be why women can’t be Strong and Independent™ without Big Daddy Government robbing Beta male tax money and giving it to them in myriad handouts?

This juxtaposition works on so many levels. It illustrates hamster logic so well. Inside the female mind, where causality is reversed, this feminist with a buzzcut can’t afford a 20¢ pack of noodles, but she can spend over $100 on some ugly ass boots. (That works out to over 500 packs of noodles she gave up for the ugly ass boots).

It’s like when women say they Don’t Need a Man™ but they do need Beta male tax money forcibly redistributed to them from the men they snub by an increasingly totalitarian government, or they’ll go broke. One study posted the lifetime deficit the average Anglo woman runs up over the course of her life to ring up to the tune of $100,000 to $250,000. Women, on average, spend over 90% more than they earn over the course of their lives.

In fact, women are so bad with money in many cities in America a man only need log on to dating apps to find Empowered™ women now offering sexual favors for cash. This, despite the fact 70% of all government revenue is extracted from men – and the vast majority of it is spent on women and their reckless lives.

Stop the government from robbing men to pay women and watch in awe as wannabe, sexually ambiguous feminazi bullies transform into kind and cuddly ladies within a generation’s time. If you want to know why relations between the sexes are so screwed in Anglo America and other nations which have instituted soft Socialism, it’s because forced wealth transfers have negated Briffault’s Law:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

Without Big Daddy Government paying for their temper tantrum-laced insanity, women will have to return to deriving benefit from the male rather than the state.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

Paper Chase: Exploring the Links Between Feminism and Law

Sexuality is being warped and other assorted cultural insanity is now being unleashed by endless legalism

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.

Despite the State’s unstinting legal support for false sexual abuse claims and misandrist divorce settlements, very few manosphere writers discuss the strong links between law and Anglo-American feminism. This is a startling omission, when one considers how many prominent feminists are lawyers, legal academics or politicians with legal backgrounds.

In fact, it must be said that law contains the intellectual ‘cream’ of the Anglo-feminist movement. Of course, the subaltern wing of academic feminism resides in the social ‘sciences’, with its non-patriarchal mathematics and other nonsense. The manosphere expends much (digital) ink discussing these poltroons, largely ignoring the legal wing of academic feminism. This is a pity, because the legal profession contains the best feminist minds; it is also the strongest feminist link to official institutions, the conduit through which feminism is imposed on the wider society.

Men always enquire, ‘How did this come about?’ whenever some misandrist agenda is arbitrarily applied to schools, public washrooms or sentencing procedures. More often than not, the answer is feminist legalism acting directly on ‘official’ institutions without reference to electoral processes.

Manosphere scholars seldom address feminist legalism for several reasons. First and most important, law is an obscure field full of specialist jargon. Second, manopshere scholars prefer easy conceptual victories against the (much weaker) arts-humanities wing of academic feminism. Third, the anti-Marxist fixation of the traditionalist manosphere blinds it to the intimate links between Anglo-American feminism and ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon culture. In this case the link is obvious, since ‘rule of law’ defines Anglo civilization. Indeed, law ‘rules’ Anglo-American society in a very literal way: think how many prominent Anglosphere politicians have a legal education or worked in the legal profession. In Continental Europe, a far higher proportion of politicians are scientists and economists (Angela Merkel is a scientist, for example).

Feminist legalism should therefore not surprise us, since the Anglosphere is defined by its legalism. The US is legalistic above all other nations; it has countless branches of law, all ever-growing like a vast tree. To pursue a biological analogy, if Anglo-American societies are the phenotype, law is their genotype; that is, they are regulated by pharisaic legalism above any other structural principle. Indeed, it might be said that the Anglosphere is law, in essence. Not only does Anglo-American feminism derive its legalistic character from this fact, it also derives much of its power from it. Curious, then, that the manosphere remains blind to feminist legalism and its power to engineer dramatic social change.

Some admiration is called for: dissident males in the Anglosphere raise a lot of rhetorical dust, while their feminist counterparts infiltrate the cultural genotype – namely, the legal system – and proceed to systematically fashion society in their own image. Equally important is their domination of legal education, since it will shape the next generation of lawyers, judges and judgements. Unlike the social ‘sciences’, law is one of the oldest and most prestigious of the university subjects: all elite universities have law departments and these attract high-status students who will become active members of the future ruling elite.

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and a host of other political feminists all trained at elite law schools. In sum, feminism has been wise to infiltrate Anglo-American jurisprudence, for whoever controls law has the true keys to power. Feminist sociology might be the yeast, but feminist jurisprudence is the finished loaf.

Law is the “teeth” of social engineering schemes, making entrenched feminists puppeteers

Legalism Begets Social Engineering

My research for this article unveiled a veritable hornet’s nest of feminist jurisprudence. Nearly every major law school in the Anglosphere has powerful feminist representatives, as we can see from the following website:

http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/

It is no surprise that the site unambiguously links law to social engineering. Since no one really understands law except for specialist experts, it is perfect for the underhand manipulation of society in this way. Even more disturbing is the close link between law and politics, a seamless association in the Anglosphere. RF and other American dissidents talk a lot about America’s lapse into a police state: Feminist Law Professors is where that process really begins. The following passage gives some idea of the kind of articles posted there:

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of judicial opinions rewritten to reflect a feminist perspective, and commentaries on the cases and rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions.  This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States.  The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press.  Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.

It is easy to see what these legal activists are doing: rewriting legal precedents in order to create a corpus of pseudo-precedent for future judgements. In so doing, the future will be theirs (for as long as this dysfunctional civilization lasts).

The Anglo-feminist domination of the legal profession is of seismic significance, when one considers the vast power of jurisprudence in the Anglosphere (not to mention its deep historical links to politics and social administration). Conversely, masculinist activism in the English-speaking world lacks any legal wing, let alone an organized one. Instead, it assumes being ‘right’ will automatically confer ‘victory’ over feminist lawyers and politicians; sublimely missing the point that law, not truth, is the key to the Anglosphere.

Perhaps the fact that most male rights activists are engineers and tradesmen explains their political impotence; after all, engineers and tradesmen do not create/interpret laws or become politicians. To be blunt, Anglo-feminists are winning all the battles because they fight on the right battlefield, namely the legal one. Unless the Anglo men’s movement adjust to this reality, they will always be marginalised and powerless.

Unless they leave the Anglo-American Matrix, of course.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

The “Gender Pay Gap” Myth is Actually About the Deficit Women’s Reckless Lives Create

business-1067978_1280

Women make crappy career and life choices – the essence of the “Gender Pay Gap” myth

The infamous “Gender Pay Gap” myth is a recurring theme on both sides of the corrupt American political aisle. Even Ivanka Trump touted this leftist narrative during her dad’s coronation at the RNC convention in 2016. Why do we keep hearing about the pay gap, and why are political game players so interested in it? Let’s gobble up another of the Establishment’s false narratives like a Bon Bon with the cleansing truth of Realtalk. (Are you noticing America is an empire built atop a mountain of lies, yet?)

It starts with this fact. Since the nuclear family was destroyed by The Anglo-American Matrix and its feminist “turn women into corporate drones” schemes, Western women have started to run deficits of $100,000 to $250,000 over the course of their lives due to their financial recklessness, spendy ways, and general irresponsibility.

How does The Anglo-American Matrix intend to balance the books, forcibly transferring money from hardworking, sexless Beta males to fat, frigid, sassy, demographically sterile, insolvent women? In much the same way it steals resources for any of its Big Daddy Government campaigns: using the Hegelian Dialectic to create a false narrative with the preconceived solution (robbing men to make up for the deficit created by women) hidden behind the Big Lie. In other words, by promoting the “Gender Pay Gap” myth.

The pay gap myth is a nefarious, clandestine solution to an actual problem created by feminism and women in the workplace: America will literally go bankrupt post-feminism without legions of man slaves ready and willing to be cucked even more than they already are by their government. We are already seeing foreshadowing of national financial ruin directly tied to the fallout from feminism with the ongoing retail apocalypse. Retailers are collapsing because YouGoGrrl, career women don’t have the money nor the time they once did to waste inside these churches of consumerism. They’re too busy enjoying their “liberation” as wage slaves on the corporate plantation while barely making ends meet.

As TNMM recently reported, the retail collapse in America and Britain – the two sides of the gynocentric Anglo cultural coin – has been brought on by the fact women have screwed themselves financially (and temporally – they don’t have free time, anymore) by working 70 hours a week while barely getting by. They were better off (and happier) when they were stay at home moms.

Women will bankrupt more and more institutions unless money is stolen from men to make up for the deficit women create. It all goes back to the fundamental difference between the sexes elucidated by TNMM: Men are natural minimalists, and women are natural materialists. Once again, biology refuses to bow to fantasies of equality spun by Socialist social engineers. The Gender Pay Gap myth is all about paying men less for the same work to make up for the fact women are wasteful with money. Meninist recently destroyed this false narrative by examining the statistics:

By now, you’ve probably heard the statistic that women earn between 77-78 cents on the dollar compared to what men earn. However, with just a little bit of research and some logic, it can easily be proven that the statistics are misguiding.

Quelle surprise! More lies from the matrix. Let’s delve into the stats:

One large factor is that women statistically choose lower-paying fields of work. Citing two lists, [Glen] Kessler [of the Washington Post] shows that nine of the 10 highest-paying fields are dominated by men, and that nine of the 10 lowest-paying fields are dominated by women.

The long and short of the matter is women want jobs where they get to wear fancy clothes, and men want jobs that pay well.

Contrary to the beliefs that patriarchy forces women to choose lower-paying jobs, the numbers support that women, in fact, choose the careers they prefer, they just happen to not be as lucrative as the ones chosen by men.

Even the Establishment can’t prove the validity of its own false narrative.

Lisa Maatz, a spokeswoman for the American Association of University Women, has confirmed that there is indeed no evidence that actually supports discrimination as the reason women earn less than men. When asked about how the wage gap is due to discrimination, she responded, “We’re still trying to figure that out.”

Well, we’re not trying to figure it out around here, Lisa. We know you are your minions are trying to cook the books in a way that will further disenfranchise men. Big Daddy Government already stole men’s families away with the welfare state, now he intends to steal all of the productivity of male labor and give it to women so his Socialist schemes don’t bankrupt the nation.

If realized, the “Gender Pay Gap” wealth redistribution scheme could turn men into abject slaves. Women will be happy, as they’ll be able to continue spending free money. The state will be happy, because its main enemy – the family – will be hopelessly lost as women won’t have anything to do with men who can’t provide them utility. Men, however, will be left to miserable lives of loneliness, drudgery, and poverty. (Except for those of us who Go Galt, adopt minimalism or become MGTOWs.) Orwell’s famous quote comes to mind:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

It seems that face will be male if the matrix has its way. Is it any wonder the U.S. government is so worried about its own security? Turning itself into a grotesque parody of democracy with surveillance and police state forces popping up all around us? It’s taking a massive dump on men everywhere, on top of all the other misdeeds and wrongdoings it spearheads throughout the nation and the world. As Gore Vidal put it:

You can’t have a war on terrorism because there’s no actual enemy. It’s an abstract. It’s like having a war on dandruff. That war will be eternal and pointless. It’s idiotic. That’s not a war. It’s a slogan. It’s a lie. It’s advertising. Which is the only art form we ever invented in America. And we use it to sell soap, wars, and presidential candidates in the same fashion.

And the matrix also uses public relations techniques to sell college debt slavery, a War on Drugs in which the CIA allows drug producers to bring drugs in while the same government kills and incarcerates people it sells drugs to, and of course, the latest lie, a pay gap myth. Wouldn’t you be worried, too, if you were king of the hill of this mountain of deceit and treachery with Internet truth tellers nipping at your heels?

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

« Older Entries