The Lost Art of Discipline VIII - End.

(Image courtesy of Daikinbakuju.)


Greetings Ladies and Gents,

Sorry about the massive delay. In between working, studying, child rearing and investing, I completely upgraded all of my home office equipment, which involved a lot of set-up time.

Now that a former bedroom has been completely transformed into a fully functioning office, I'm ready to rock!

Since I've been known to prognosticate, let me just say that I believe that telecommuting from home, based on current internet and computer technologies, will be the new wave of the future.

Why commute, waste fuel, and blow money on office space when your workforce can submit industrial strength reports, spreadsheets, etc from anywhere in the world via email, skype, web-based ERP systems or Google Apps?

Not only can individuals and organizations save a ton of money, folks will quickly realize that one can do a tremendous amount of work in a very short period of time. Will the Four Hour Workweek become the norm rather than the exception? Indeed, is the end of work itself virtually upon us??

Only time will tell.

In any event, I'll stop digressing... 'cause Kirigakure is back at you with that real talk!! Today's post is the last in a series [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].


Previously, we've talked about discipline as a virtue, why it is a much needed ingredient in any successful relationship, how feminist public policy has outlawed discipline between man and woman, how the lack of discipline is destroying relationships across the Western world, and why good girls hook up with the bad boys who give them a twisted version of the discipline they crave.

All of this leads us to today's subjects: 1) Further exploration of why good girls like bad boys, 2) why women test men to see if the man is going to give them the discipline they need, want, and desire, 3) and what must be done to reintroduce discipline as a virtue into modern relationships.



Why Good Girls like Bad Boys, Continued.



Mr. F Roger Devlin, in his thought provoking paper, Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers, writes:

Women often speak of seeking "commitment” from men, but this would seem to imply a preference for marriage-minded men over others. (Michelle) Langley observed the very opposite tendency in her interviewees:

They often form relationships with men who are emotionally inaccessible. Instead of choosing men who are interested in developing a relationship, these women choose men who make them feel insecure. Insecurity can create motivation and excitement. Women who seek excitement in their marriages (and many do) will often forego the possibility of real relationships for the excitement of fantasy relationships…. It’s not uncommon for women to pine for men who shy away from commitment, while they shun the attention given to them by men who are willing and ready to make a commitment.

If we replace the word "excitement" with manliness or thumos, then we have another observation that supports my contention that women seek and desire a man who is stronger than they, and is able to express his manliness through thought, word, and deed. I would also add that a woman needs to feel respect for her man, and be secure in the knowledge that he is prepared to discipline her as circumstances warrant.

Mr. Devlin continues:

... Langley distinguishes, based upon her interviews, four typical stages in marital breakdown.

1) The wives begin to feel vaguely that “something is missing in their lives.” Then they experience a loss of interest in sexual relations with their husbands.

Part of that missing something, would be the manliness that initially attracted her to him in the first place. As discussed previously, a man, under pain of legal sanction, must keep his emotion and his thumos firmly under wraps. As his woman loses respect for him, the magic sex factory shuts down.

Getting back to the essay:

Like other observers of the contemporary scene, the author notes the pervasiveness of female anger. “It’s impossible…to understand anything about women in this country today, unless you understand that a) they’re angry, and b) their anger is directed at men. Women today aren’t seeking equality. They want retribution-revenge."

At this point, I would like to share a passage written by Dr. Robin Skinner:

Men must stand up for themselves instead of cowering in a corner, hoping the women's movement disappears like a bad dream, and international family therapy pioneer, Dr Robin Skynner, said yesterday.

Women around the world were waiting for men to engage in the debate and fight back like real men, Dr Skynner told the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists conference in Wellington.

"For the family to work well, men still need to retain some aspects of the traditional male role and fathering functions," he said. "Women seem to desire this too, and appear to feel sexually repelled, or certainly not attracted, if the man ceases to retain some element of his assertiveness"...

... In family therapy, women were encouraged to spell out their men's faults, and for a while the men would stonewall but eventually fight back.

"Women were always pleased when their men at least fought back and became men."

Letting the anger out also freed up the positive feelings they had for each other and often revived their sex life.

"Women don't want men to fizzle away," Dr Skynner said. "They want men to be men still. They want a man who's a man, and sticks up for himself in more ways than one. If he doesn't they despise him. That's what men have to do, they have to fight it out."

Unfortunately, men are prohibited by law and custom from taking the appropriate actions to confront and dissolve female anger, complacency, and boredom. Our entire culture, from television broadcasting to feminist public policy, literally brainwashes us to avoid taking the appropriate actions that would prevent much infidelity, discord, and strife. It seems that our society has mandated an all or nothing approach that helps to produce complete male passiveness and female resentment, or, in some cases, drives women and men alike to commit heinous acts of violence against one another as tempers flare and things get out of control.

Either way, political feminists win, and men and their families lose.

Mr. Devin informs us that:

Much of this [female anger] is due to feminist indoctrination. An ideological regime (and feminism may now, I think, legitimately be called a regime) paints the past in the darkest colors possible in order to camouflage its own failures...

No arguments there. The author continues:

It should also be pointed out that the very terms “retribution” and “revenge” imply that husbands have wronged their wives somehow. If this is not the case, and Langley admits that today it mostly is not, the proper terms for the women’s behavior would be “wanton cruelty” or “sadism.” This supposition is strengthened by some of the author’s own observations: “I’ve noticed that once a woman reaches a certain point, not only does her anger persist, she wants to continually punish and inflict pain on whomever has angered her…. The men that I talked to often used the word evil to describe the behavior of their wives...”

If someone is attacking you in a cruel and sadistic manner, the ordinary response would be to fight back, either in a physical or a literal sense. And, on a larger scale, liberal governments have traditionally defended its citizens against wanton acts of cruelty whether it be libel, slander, or assaults against property and person, and supported those who defended themselves by legal, intellectual, or physical means.

Unfortunately, in our time, men and men's natural rights are fair game. Men have no rights, property, reputation or honor that are worthy of defending in the face of female onslaught.

Consider rumors surrounding Tiger Woods' marital dispute at his home [1]. Contemplate the now proven FACT that Rhianna started her now infamous domestic battle royale with singer Chris Brown [2]. Note the fact that these two men have been widely mocked and dragged through the mud as enemies of women. Note that the women involved in these incidents (allegedly, in the case of Elin Woods), have been absolved of any potential blame, responsibility, or accountability for any actions that could be considered acts of domestic violence.

After all, there is NO EXCUSE for domestic violence... except when the perpetrator is a woman.

Indeed, as E Belfort Bax pointed out, back in 1913, Western law and culture has failed to uphold a man's honor in the face of female accusation.

It goes without saying that, when one class of humanity has the right and privilege to abuse and oppress another class with impunity, they will cheerfully do so. And naturally, the oppressor will despise the oppressed for their weakness, and for their acceptance of cruel and sadistic torment.

Men will receive no respect unless and until they stand up for themselves, as well as for one another, and impose much needed discipline upon their wayward female counterparts, as well as upon the politicians and institutions that are abusing their power and using their high offices to enslave the male masses. Unless and until we do so, women will become even more angry, and government, business, and academia will become more controlling, usurping, and totalitarian.

After all, what politician respects the rights of a class of people, if the downtrodden group accepts their second class status?

Getting back to our article, Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers, we read that:

... Women may want men to make them happy, but they do not say, and probably do not know themselves, how this might be accomplished. “Women want men to read their minds—or, more accurately, their emotions—because it’s what they do, easily…. Females want males to anticipate their needs and desires.” (Obeying their every command is not enough.)

And here is the crucial point. The Wise man must know and understand female behavior in order to survive in a long term relationship as defined at the beginning of this series. Dating is one thing... marriage with children is quite another.

However, feminist propaganda has taught men that they should obey their wives' every command, say "Yes Dear" as a response to everything, and avoid conflict at all costs. The fact of the matter is that men must know and understand HOW WOMEN REALLY ARE, WHAT THEY REALLY NEED, AND WHAT THEY REALLY WANT. And, the politically incorrect truth is that women need men that are unafraid to correct them and put them in their place when their hormone driven minds decide to embark on foolish, selfish, or self destructive behavior.





(More on the Female Brain.)




(Even more.)



This is the cold reality that political feminist society and political feminist public policy refuse to acknowledge. Indeed, as many Men's Rights commentators have pointed out, men themselves refuse to recognize the truth because it is much easier to "love 'em and leave 'em" than to put in the sometimes difficult and dangerous work of inter-relationship conflict management.

Whoever said that men seek "Patriarchal Domination" as a matter of course must not have lived with a woman for very long. Any man who has successfully dealt with the full fury of female insensibility will tell you that it is extremely stressful to deal with the difficult, moody, or demanding women in their lives. Be it tongue-lashings, the silent treatment, or small objects hurled through the air with the greatest of ease, women have a profound ability to drive a man absolutely crazy, even if he is the most knowledgeable and Zen like gentleman to ever walk God's green Earth.

The path that I and others like me have chosen, i.e. Male Headship of one's household, is NOT easy by any means.

Indeed, it is much, much easier to let sleeping women lie than to enter the Lion's Den!

But I digress.

Mr. Devin proceeds to detail for us what men SHOULD NOT be doing in the face of irrational female behavior:

... most men blamed themselves and “beat themselves up” for the things they thought they had done wrong in the marriage. Their initial response to their wives’ stated unhappiness was to try to make them happy. “In most cases, their husbands launched futile attempts to make their wives happy by being more attentive, spending more time at home and helping out around the house.

Regardless of these women’s past and present complaints, the last thing they wanted was to spend more time with their husbands.” (Langley notes that wives do often complain that “my spouse doesn’t pay attention to me,” but calls this code for “I want another man.”)

In fact, wives often became angry precisely over their husbands’ efforts to please them, because this increased their own feelings of guilt for infidelity. Some also perceived the similarity between this behavior and their own earlier efforts to get their husbands to “commit;” women know better than anyone that efforts to please can be a form of manipulation.

The women sometimes responded with a kind of countermanipulation: “they thought if they were cold and treated their husbands terribly, the men would leave, or ask them to leave.” Sometimes this happens—which, incidentally, explains why divorce initiation statistics can be misleading. A significant portion of the roughly thirty percent of divorces which are formally male-initiated result from the wife deliberately maneuvering her husband into taking the step...

But it is not always easy for women to obtain a divorce in this manner: “Some of the women couldn’t believe the things their husbands were willing to put up with.” (So much for men not being committed.) The author recounts cases where women deliberately tried to provoke their husbands into striking them because they calculated it would be to their advantage in the looming child-custody dispute.

One reason husbands may be so difficult to provoke today is that they realize the only result will be a jail term for “domestic abuse” or a restraining order preventing them from seeing their children.

Most of the men didn’t have anyone to talk to other than their wives, which is why I believe they tried so desperately to hold on to them…. Some of the men were so dependent on their wives, they didn’t think they could live without them, but one thing all the men shared was a fear of losing their children.

The men I interviewed feared losing their family, but the women didn’t seem to have that fear. The women thought of it as losing their husbands, not their family. More often than not, the men were forced to move out of their homes and away from their kids. They lost all of their attachment bonds and felt as though they were losing their whole identity.

Many of the men became suicidal when their wife left and remained so for a long time afterwards. A few of the men said that they felt homicidal.

On the other hand, “the word used by the majority of women I interviewed to describe their husbands [was] ‘pathetic.’” When the full extent of their husband’s emotional dependence upon them comes out, women are not moved or gratified; they feel contempt for what they see as weakness.

This is powerful stuff gentlemen... I would urge you to download and read Mr. Devin's writing in its entirety, as he has much more to say on this topic.

For our purposes however, let us understand that the typical woman, as defined at the beginning of this series, HATES A WEAK MAN, AND RESPECTS A MAN THAT IS STRONGER THAN SHE. This is the cold truth, and all the political feminist propaganda in the world will not change this important fact. Once respect has been lost, the relationship is, without a major miracle, doomed to Splitsville.

In our modern political feminist landscape, the vast majority of men who refuse to obey political feminist social graces are the "bad boys", the pimps, and the Playas. Their very unwillingness to bow down and conform to the rules of political feminist social intercourse is what makes them so appealing to so many women in our day and age. And, incidentally, I care not if a woman says she disagrees with this thesis... the actions of the 80% (i.e. the majority) of her sisters speaks much louder than mere words of protest.

It doesn't matter what women say. It does matter what women actually do.




Testing a Man's Resolve.



And now, we get to the heart of the matter. What's a man to do, once he comes into the understanding of what woman is, and how she really wants to be treated?

To start our discussion, let's begin with this tract from website Fondly and Firmly.com:

Without giving examples or going into detail, a recurring theme is women who nag or taunt their men. For those men who negotiate, plead or try to avoid this taunting, the process may seem to be interminable. In fact I believe it is not interminable at all: those men who respond decisively find that this stops the woman's troubling behaviour immediately. This deliberately annoying, frustrating, unpleasant and anti-social behaviour by women is what I now call the "test the man's resolve mode". It is an all-too-common feature of man-woman relationships - though I know of some relationships, including some of my own in the past, where the woman did not behave like this at all.

This "test the man's resolve mode" is not necessarily done deliberately or consciously. Unless the man does respond decisively, the taunting can lead - over time - to irrevocable breakdown and loss of love. It can also cause the man to loose control and hit the woman in a dangerous fashion - in a way which is entirely out of character. This is a decisive response - although not the cool, controlled, authoritative physical response which would best have satisfied the mental processes which were driving the woman's nagging, taunting or occasionally violent behaviour.

The "test the man's resolve mode" is usually emotional taunting, complaining about things not being right, complaining about his behaviour or attitudes, pestering him to do something impossible or pointless. Sometimes - according to some surveys, quite often - the woman initiates physical violence.

Whatever the barbs directed at the man, lets assume for the purposes of this discussion that the provocation is without any rational justification. It is however keenly pursued by the women, who feels that it is her right or that she has not alternative but to combat or pressure her man as best she can...

Many women cannot abide men who do not stand their ground. Many women fall out of love with a man who doesn't deal decisively with the shit a woman can dish out.

Men who may be emotionally ready to deal properly with this crap - thanks to their biological inheritance and perhaps what they have learnt from their father - may not in fact act demonstratively since they are trying to be nice sensitive guys. Things can then develop rapidly along tragic lines - with a spiral of more provocation and violent outbursts and quite likely destruction of trust and/or the relationship.

This in-built, instinctive "man testing" mechanism, (Lord forgive them for they know not what they do) is obviously an evolutionary advantage since women need a man who can defend her and her children against wild animals and the Hun. She does not want to find out that her man is weak when the Hun come over the horizon - the automatic test method has evolved to detect signs of weakness during ordinary life, when the Hun are likely to be far away and while she has time to seek out another man. (A successful quest leads to the most dangerous manoeuvre in a woman's life - buttering up the new man, without arousing aggression in the first and then leaving the first one for the second without getting killed in the process - but this is getting off topic.)

So she leaves the man who does not act decisively and falls in love with the biggest brute she can find, often dreaming that she can win his heart and make him tender and caring towards her, but remain a pushy bastard towards everyone else. Such a bloke, if he is truly the leading, action packed man she seeks, won't take any nonsense when she (instinctively and non-deliberately) taunts him...

So here we are. We know that the women in our lives are going to test us, whether we like it or not. The challenge is, how do we manage these inevitable conflicts in an appropriate and responsible way? How can men deal with these tests without resorting to wanton and unwelcome violence, or without indirectly contributing to total relationship breakdown?

These are thorny questions, but we need to start asking them and start coming up with solutions that will enable marriages and long term relationships to survive and thrive in the 21st Century.

As I will discuss in future posts, I believe that political feminism is on its way out, and that social, economic, and political upheaval will be the main drivers of evolutionary change.

As we speak, Bond market bubbles around the world appear to be ready to burst. I believe that when sovereign debt defaults begin in earnest, it will force widespread and massive social and political change.

Ultimately, I think that strong families are going to be the bedrock for peace and economic prosperity in a new age. And, in order for man and woman to live together in harmony, virtues such as discipline, long legislated out of the social compact, will need to be relearned and revitalized. As I have detailed over eight postings, discipline is a vital component that cannot be ignored any longer.

Someone is going to have to take the lead in the typical family, and in 80% of couples, that leader is going to be the man. Most women, consciously or unconsciously, aren't going to have it any other way, as we have plainly seen.

So then, what tools should the Average Joe keep in his toolbox?

At the present, there isn't much a man can do when faced with a woman that seeks to test his resolve. He is in an inferior social and legal position, and he should therefore avoid hazardous situations such as these as best he can. Until feminist public policy finally implodes upon itself, the safest and best thing a man can do is to avoid marriage and family AT ALL COSTS, or relocate to a jurisdiction and culture that respects marriage and manliness.

But, for the sake of argument, lets assume that feminist public policy is completely overhauled. When this actually happens, then the Wise Man should observe these guidelines:


1) Don't be afraid to express yourself, and don't hesitate to engage your woman in verbal debate when she is clearly in error.

As we have seen, there is no way to avoid conflict. Consequently, men should not hesitate to state their minds and show their emotions with the goal of bringing harmony and balance back to the relationship. And, when correction is needed, a man must bring the argument to his woman. Even if you lose the debate (which happens sometimes), your lady will still respect you for standing your ground.

If you observe women interacting with one another, you'll quickly notice that they don't hesitate to speak up when someone has done them wrong, or when someone violates the unspoken rules that the group has laid down. Women tend not to give other women a pass on rude or disrespectful behavior... and neither can you.

2) Be prepared to listen to her issues, and recognize that you don't have to take them seriously all the time.

Sometimes, women say things just to say it, or to express their emotional state. Just because a woman says something, doesn't mean that her man has to move Heaven and Earth to correct the situation. Sometimes, men have to tolerate their woman's insane babbling just like one would humor their 98 year old grandmother. Just nod your head, smile, say "un-huh," and resume your online Halo deathmatch. All is right in the world.

3) Lay down the law, and be prepared to enforce it.

This policy, Dear Reader, is why negotiation during the early stages of any relationship is absolutely critical. You MUST know what rules your potential mate is living by. You must know what programming drives her behavior. If your requirements are diametrically opposed to what your woman is looking for, then you are doomed to difficulty before your marriage even begins.

One must negotiate, in advance, what the rules are going to be, and, perhaps more importantly, what is going to happen if these rules are violated.

If you tell your future wife, in advance, that you are going to be the leader of the family, and if, after you get married, she attempts to usurp your headship position, what is the penalty? Are you going to move out for a while? Get a divorce? What are you going to do?

The enforcement side of things is the most individual and difficult aspect of any relationship, and is something that both sides need to discuss and agree to in advance. Unilateral creation and enforcement of "rules" almost always leads to epic relationship failure, and the failure to establish rules and penalties for their violation at the beginning of one's partnership leads to massive amounts of misunderstandings, frustration, and total breakdown in the long run.

Something else to remember... failure to uphold the rules previously agreed to by both parties is a glaring sign of weakness. And, as I said before... the typical woman hates a weak kneed man. Too many public displays of weakness, and your marriage or relationship will not be long for this world.




Conclusion... Sort Of.




Please understand, Dear Readers, that there are many more valid rules of the road than the three guidelines stated here. There are many diverse approaches to this sensitive subject. The good folks at Taken in Hand have examined this issue in depth, and I would urge you to check out what they have to say.

And, as I move towards getting out of the recommendation business, I would encourage you to do your own independent research, and formulate your own best practices that help you and others to create and maintain successful and satisfying relationships.

As an aside, I have been on a personal truthseeking quest for over three years now. Based on the massive quantities of information I have come across in my travels, I've come to the conclusion that the world is too big, and the truth is too varied for me to form a singular thesis that says, THIS ALONE IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH TO ALL THINGS.

There are, of course, such things as right actions, and wrong actions. Correct action bring success, while incorrect actions bring failure. However, in the scheme of things, there are many potential right answers, and these answers will vary based on the situation, people, and environment involved. The trick is to set one's course in the right direction, and be flexible enough to make adjustments along the way. The ideal is to focus on what works, and discard approaches and ideas that don't work and have been proven beyond doubt to be epic failures.

Actions taken must be appropriate for the given situation at hand.

This same principle is true regarding any of the issues that we discuss on this blog, and I believe this flexible approach is the one that will help us defeat Political Feminism, and restore the rights of Man.

My attitude towards blogging, and the Men's Rights Movement has shifted dramatically from when I first came into this truth. At first, I thought that I needed to beat it into people's heads what must be done, and that, based on my "superior" understanding, that all men and women needed to act in one certain way. Then and only then would Peace, Prosperity, and Enlightenment come to the land.

Nowadays... all I can do is laugh at myself.

Here's the thing. There are real issues that men have to face. And certain actions (such as getting married in the West) will lead to really negative outcomes (involuntary divorce, financial enslavement, loss of liberty, etc). Because of this, it is necessary for men to sidestep these potential issues. No marriage and children (and increasingly, no contact) with Western women, no problem.

But...

Not every man wishes to forsake marriage and family life. Not everyone is willing to marry a foreign woman, or relocate to a foreign land. What about these men, who, like me, are brave enough (or foolish enough) to take the risk of raising a family in the West?

Not only do I write for hardcore MRAs, or against Political Feminist wenches, but I also write for the man who simply wants to know what Political Feminism is, and what are the consequences of our feminist public policy.

Because I have these diverse readers, I will simply say that I am changing my role from wanna-be instructor, to intrepid investigative reporter. I am not going to tell you what you should ultimately do, or how you should do it.

My new role, as I see it, is to simply gather and report relevant information. I will make recommendations based on my knowledge and experience, but ultimately, the path you take is up to you. Just be sure to fully understand the legal and spiritual pros and cons that come with any decision you make.

Finally, getting back on topic...

When it comes to the Lost Art of Discipline, each individual man and woman must decide how they are going to arrange themselves to meet future challenges, and to seize future opportunities. How you enact and enforce said Discipline within your relationship is up to you. Just recognize, Dear Reader, that Discipline is a vital ingredient that must be present if a long term relationship is to survive... and to thrive.

Peace and Hair Grease,

Kirigakure.

Grass Eating Men, Eye of the Tiger, and the Return of the Patriarchy.

Greetings friends and colleagues,

Hopefully you are in fine spirits this day.

We have a lot of ground to cover in this post. Before I do so, however, I need to let sensitive folks know that I am going to most likely offend or upset with this missive. I am going to take it upon myself to say what quite a few peoples are thinking but would never admit in polite society.

And so, without further ado, lets get to work.




Rise of the Grass Eaters.




The nation of Nippon (日本）, otherwise known as the J-Land, is my second home. My name appears in the Kyoto registry, and can be found if one should visit the Kyoto local government office.

I spend a lot of time in Tokyo and the Kansai region, and I have many valuable and beloved friends and family living on the Island nation.

So it would make sense that I keep a close eye on the latest developments that transpire in the Land of the Rising Sun. And it seems that Soushoku Danshi （草食男子）, or Grass Eating Men, is the talk of the town. In addition to a slew of English and Japanese language articles covering the phenomena, my buddies and I have had many manly discussions about who is or isn't a Grass Eater over bottles of beer and sake.'


According to Slate.com:

The Herbivore's Dilemma

Japan panics about the rise of "grass-eating men," who shun sex, don't spend money, and like taking walks.
By Alexandra Harney

Ryoma Igarashi likes going for long drives through the mountains, taking photographs of Buddhist temples and exploring old neighborhoods. He's just taken up gardening, growing radishes in a planter in his apartment. Until recently, Igarashi, a 27-year-old Japanese television presenter, would have been considered effeminate, even gay. Japanese men have long been expected to live like characters on Mad Men, chasing secretaries, drinking with the boys, and splurging on watches, golf, and new cars.

Today, Igarashi has a new identity (and plenty of company among young Japanese men) as one of the soushoku danshi—literally translated, "grass-eating boys." Named for their lack of interest in sex and their preference for quieter, less competitive lives, Japan's "herbivores" are provoking a national debate about how the country's economic stagnation since the early 1990s has altered men's behavior.

Newspapers, magazines, and television shows are newly fixated on the herbivores. "Have men gotten weaker?" was one theme of a recent TV talk show...

... In this age of bromance and metrosexuals, why all the fuss? The short answer is that grass-eating men are alarming because they are the nexus between two of the biggest challenges facing Japanese society: the declining birth rate and anemic consumption. Herbivores represent an unspoken rebellion against many of the masculine, materialist values associated with Japan's 1980s bubble economy. Media Shakers, a consulting company that is a subsidiary of Dentsu, the country's largest advertising agency, estimates that 60 percent of men in their early 20s and at least 42 percent of men aged 23 to 34 consider themselves grass-eating men. Partner Agent, a Japanese dating agency, found in a survey that 61 percent of unmarried men in their 30s identified themselves as herbivores. Of the 1,000 single men in their 20s and 30s polled by Lifenet, a Japanese life-insurance company, 75 percent described themselves as grass-eating men.

Japanese companies are worried that herbivorous boys aren't the status-conscious consumers their parents once were. They love to putter around the house. According to Media Shakers' research, they are more likely to want to spend time by themselves or with close friends, more likely to shop for things to decorate their homes, and more likely to buy little luxuries than big-ticket items. They prefer vacationing in Japan to venturing abroad. They're often close to their mothers and have female friends, but they're in no rush to get married themselves, according to Maki Fukasawa, the Japanese editor and columnist who coined the term in NB Online in 2006.

Grass-eating boys' commitment phobia is not the only thing that's worrying Japanese women. Unlike earlier generations of Japanese men, they prefer not to make the first move, they like to split the bill, and they're not particularly motivated by sex. "I spent the night at one guy's house, and nothing happened—we just went to sleep!" moaned one incredulous woman on a TV program devoted to herbivores. "It's like something's missing with them," said Yoko Yatsu, a 34-year-old housewife, in an interview. "If they were more normal, they'd be more interested in women. They'd at least want to talk to women."

Shigeru Sakai of Media Shakers suggests that grass-eating men don't pursue women because they are bad at expressing themselves. He attributes their poor communication skills to the fact that many grew up without siblings in households where both parents worked. "Because they had TVs, stereos and game consoles in their bedrooms, it became more common for them to shut themselves in their rooms when they got home and communicate less with their families, which left them with poor communication skills," he wrote in an e-mail. (Japan has rarely needed its men to have sex as much as it does now. Low birth rates, combined with a lack of immigration, have caused the country's population to shrink every year since 2005...)

Hmm... where to begin?

The article mentions a few of the key drivers that have influenced the Soushoku Danshi movement. Another reason might be that Japan is a brutally competitive and perfectionist society. Most children go to school six days a week. High school kids have to pass courses in advanced calculus and trigonometry, subjects that I didn't tackle until college.

My clique of friends from university (who are American, Japanese, and South Korean) and I have come to the consensus that American students can bullshit their way through high school, but really have to buckle down in college.

But in Asia, it's the exact opposite. Students in Asia have to study like crazy from elementary to high school and can only relax once they pass extremely difficult college entrance exams.

Even if one does manage to enter an elite university, he only has a short time period to relax. Because after he graduates, the pressure to enter the Salaryman lifestyle, which, as the article alludes to, could and often does lead to incredibly long workdays (my old roommate told me stories of working 14 hours in one day!), six days a week, forced participation in neverending after hours karaoke parties and socalizing, and so much alcohol consumption... it should be against the law!








Oh, and before I forget... there's also the occasional group trip to the neighborhood Soapland...








Just remember that DECADES of long, tedious, and back breaking work lie ahead for our young Grass Eating Man. That's a lot of pressure for a young buck to live with... and, while some people thrive in such settings, not every Japanese guy wants to lead such a life. If they have anything to say about it, they would naturally look to get off the treadmill at the earliest possible opportunity.

Like most men worldwide, Japanese men want the freedom and the flexibility to pursue their own happiness instead of working to make some else rich, or putting up with a ball-busting Oniyome　(鬼嫁）demon wife when he gets home.

Nope... better for men in every country to Go Their Own Way.

Back to the Slate article:

... Japanese women are not taking the herbivores' indifference lightly. In response to the herbivorous boys' tepidity, "carnivorous girls" are taking matters into their own hands, pursuing men more aggressively. Also known as "hunters," these women could be seen as Japan's version of America's cougars.

While many Japanese women might disagree, Fukasawa sees grass-eating boys as a positive development for Japanese society. She notes that before World War II, herbivores were more common: Novelists such as Osamu Dazai and Soseki Natsume would have been considered grass-eating boys. But in the postwar economic boom, men became increasingly macho, increasingly hungry for products to mark their personal economic progress. Young Japanese men today are choosing to have less to prove.

I couldn't agree more. The way things are done in the J-Land serves only to rob many men of their time, their creativity, and their freedom. And, as more Japanese women (still a million times more feminine than 80% of their Western sisters) become more "manly", selfish, and demanding, many of our Grass Eaters are making a conscious decision to pursue their own goals and chase their own dreams. Marriage, on the other hand, comes dead last in their list of priorities.

And if left wing Minshunto makes good and encodes more Political Feminist public policy into Japanese law, then the MGTOW philosophy will only become more popular in the years to come.

If Japan (and other low birthrate nations, such as South Korea) decide to aggressively pursue feminist policies (which is doubtful, but anything can happen), then it will only insure its eventual depopulation because traditional patriarchal civilization is the only way a nation in such dire demographic straits can make a successful comeback.




Fatherhood and the Future of Civilization




From the Christian Post:

Will the world soon experience a return of patriarchy? That is the question raised by Phillip Longman in the March/April 2006 issue of Foreign Policy.
Close

The magazine's cover features a rather stunning headline: "Why Men Rule – and Conservatives Will Inherit the Earth." That headline would be surprising in almost any contemporary periodical, but it is especially significant that this article should appear in the pages of Foreign Policy, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The publication of this article set a good many heads to spinning.

Phillip Longman is Bernard L Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation. He is a well-respected author and researcher, whose books have included The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do about It (2004). In his previous works, Longman has projected how falling birthrates throughout advanced societies will lead to financial, political, social, and demographic decline.

In this article, he pressed his argument to the next stage – announcing the return of patriarchy – the concept of male leadership – as essential to a recovery of higher birthrates and reproduction.

"With the number of human beings having increased more than sixfold in the past 200 years, the modern mind simply assumes that men and women, no matter how estranged, will always breed enough children to grow the population – at least until plague or starvation sets in," Longman explains.

"Yet, for more than a generation now, well-fed, healthy, peaceful populations around the world have been producing too few children to avoid population decline. That is true even though dramatic improvements in infant and child mortality mean that far fewer children are needed today (only about 2.1 per woman in modern societies) to avoid population loss. Birthrates are falling far below replacement levels in one country after the next – from China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to Canada, the Caribbean, all of Europe, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East."

Throughout human history, a persistent fall in birthrates has served as a harbinger of cultural decline and a warning of cultural collapse. The reasons for this are many, but center in the fact that the cause of falling birthrates is often a loss of social cohesion and confidence and the effect of falling reproduction rates is a decline in economic prosperity and erosion of the social structure.

Put simply, a significant fall in birthrates means that, in the next generation, there will be fewer workers, parents, consumers, and contributors to the common welfare. As societies age, a greater percentage of the population tends toward the older end of the age spectrum – representing greater dependency and less economic contribution...

... Longman argues that the return of patriarchy is almost assured, given the social crisis that will be produced by a catastrophic fall in birthrates.

"Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule," Longman explains. "Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles."

Longman understands the simple fact that a great deal of cultural capital is required in order to encourage young men to marry and men of all ages to fulfill responsibilities as husbands and fathers. The normative picture of the "good life" for men, at least as presented in the dominant media culture, does not include the comprehensive responsibilities of fatherhood. When men are not stigmatized for failure to be faithful as husbands and fathers, young men will take marriage and parenthood with little significance, as many will avoid marriage and fatherhood altogether...

Now at this stage, Dear Reader, I will have to disagree with Mr. Longman on a very important point.

The biggest fallacy that I see when I read about marriage and family issues is that men are behaving "irresponsibly", or that men are being allowed to "abandon" their marital and familial responsibilities.

NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

Churches don't get it... this is why more men are leaving churches.

Institutions don't get it... this is why more men are turning their backs on institutions.

Governments don't get it... this is why more men are losing confidence in government.


MEN HAVE NOT ABANDONED ANYTHING. SOCIETY AT LARGE HAS ABANDONED MEN!

In the American case... Congress, the Supreme Court [a][b], and the Executive Branch have set up laws, regulations, and legal precedents that create a complex web of feminist public policy that has neutered marriage, family, and male headship into oblivion.

Men in this country do not have any legal rights when it comes to their marriages and their families. They only have obligations and liabilities.

Once again, it doesn't take rocket science to understand that when one faces physical imprisonment or financial slavery if one marries or has a family, then the logical choice for men is to minimize their exposure by any means necessary. And at any time, a "Patriarchal" man who attempts to live the life that many Conservative types expect him to live can be PUT OUT OF HIS HOME AND REMOVED FROM HIS FAMILY ANY TIME HIS WIFE DESIRES, FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ENCOURAGED HIM TO "DO THE RIGHT THING" WILL BLAME HIM FOR "ABANDONING HIS FAMILY".

Individuals are compelled, on pain of financial and physical ruination, to guide their conduct according to the letter of the law. And Law, in partnership with Custom, has combined to eliminate Patriarchy in the good ol' USA. And the total lack of understanding of this crucial point on the part of churches, institutions, and academia is profoundly disturbing. It's no wonder than men are leaving these institutions, and going their own way in ever increasing numbers!

When the laws and the customs change to protect, honor, and respect men and male headship, then you will have it in abundance. Keep our current Matriarchal system in place, and male headship will flee for greener pastures.

Back to the Christian Post:

To some extent, the statistics tell the story. Almost twenty percent of women born in the late 1950s are nearing the end of their reproductive lives without ever having had children. Longman's assessment is blunt: "The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will have no genetic legacy."

Beyond this, the falling birthrate contributes to many other social ills. "Falling fertility is also responsible for many financial and economic problems that dominate today's headlines," Longman asserts. "The long-term financing of social security schemes, private pension plans, and health-care systems has little to do with people living longer. . . . Instead, the falling ratio of workers to retirees is overwhelmingly caused by workers who were never born."

The effects within the society are psychological as well as demographic, political, and financial. As Longman understands, declining birthrates can also affect what he calls "national temperament." He attributes the fact that the American voting population has become more conservative in recent years to anxiety over falling birthrates. Beyond this, we must now add the fact that millions of voters, who would have been raised by more liberal parents, were simply never born...

... A truly Christian response to this argument must go further than cultural concerns alone can sustain. In the biblical vision, patriarchs establish a trans-generational vision for their families, looking to generations beyond with the promise that the father will give himself to the task of fatherhood and leadership in order to perpetuate the promise and establish the line.

Beyond this, Christians should understand that the Bible reveals a form of patriarchy as the norm – with men called to lead within the marital union and the family, as well as the church.

... His verdict is clear – societies that follow a patriarchal pattern tend to reproduce at a higher rate and advance, while those who devalue the role and responsibilities of men as fathers find themselves in decline.

Most of us know by now that the way of political feminism is the way of death, and that more feminism leads to lower birthrates, and more men breaking away to seek their own rewards as their traditional rights are stripped away in order to meet political feminist objectives.

However, I would also like to point out that, in America at least, the Christian Church, as a whole, has done a miserable job in protecting the rights of men that were entrusted to it long ages ago.

I don't see correct and hard hitting sermons, publications, and speeches against the totality of feminism and feminist public policy being produced by the Churches, except to oppose limited issues such as abortion. I don't see religious organizations suing to have political feminist public policy overturned. I don't see the Religious Right, or any other spiritual organization, lobbying members of Congress to have Patriarchy and Male Headship restored to this country.

As a matter of fact, I hardly hear any religious group, with the exception of Islamic organizations and underground Christian groups, challenging the full breadth of political feminist ideology.

The sad truth is that most mainstream religious groups sold out to political feminism a long time ago, and are afraid to examine the totality of this hate movement in a bold, public, and political fashion. Worst of all, they fail to uphold their own body of sacred scripture and knowledge as they bow down to feminist soul-controllers when it comes to the rights of men, marriage, and family life.










One of my biggest beefs with most religious groups today (and one of the main reasons why I became a Truthseeker some three odd years ago) is that they don't practice or support the ideals that they preach.

With that said, let's transition to our last topic of the day...




The defense of Tiger Woods from a Men's Rights Perspective.



Tiger Woods, one of the most exceptional golfers to ever live, posted the following on his website:

Tiger Woods taking hiatus from golf
By Tiger Woods


I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children. I want to say again to everyone that I am profoundly sorry and that I ask forgiveness. It may not be possible to repair the damage I've done, but I want to do my best to try.

I would like to ask everyone, including my fans, the good people at my foundation, business partners, the PGA Tour, and my fellow competitors, for their understanding. What's most important now is that my family has the time, privacy, and safe haven we will need for personal healing.

After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person.

Again, I ask for privacy for my family and I am especially grateful for all those who have offered compassion and concern during this difficult period.

At this juncture, I am going to do something that many on the internet and blogosphere have not done, and that is to defend the Tiger.

In many ways, I can relate to Mr. Woods. He and I are of the same generation, we are both multi-racial individuals trying to excel in our chosen paths, and we are both married guys trying to make it in a society that discourages marriage on a multitude of levels.

Unlike me, the Tiger has a few billion more dollars in the bank than I do, and that can certainly lead to temptation...

But let me flesh out my argument.

Marriage in America is really hard to do. The culture is against you. The laws are stacked against you. There is no real understanding, or acknowledgment, about what makes men tick. Marriage in this country, in other words, is a hazardous proposition that is best avoided at the present time, except by the ignorant or the insane (like me).

Now did Tiger mess up? Sure he did.

I don't think he handled his business in a skillful way, nor do I think he planned on being exposed like he has. He probably thought shit was all good until that fateful day when he wrecked his SUV into a tree.

One would think that he would have played it smarter... confined his peccadilloes to a very small number of highly trusted confidants, and would have known better than to have someone potentially take naked pictures of him!

Also, it seems that he failed to consider the impact of his actions upon his wife, children, and fanbase. As the head of his household, this is a weighty obligation indeed, and I have to call him out for that.

But in any event, it is what it is. He was doing too much, and it finally caught up with him.

But there is much more to this story than meets the eye. My argument is that there are structural inconsistencies in our society that lead people to do crazy things like the Tiger.

I have to agree somewhat with Hugh Heffner's take on Tigergate:

Hugh Hefner wasn't surprised one bit when he heard about allegations of Tiger Woods cheating on his wife.

"I think the only surprise in it, quite frankly, is that anybody would be surprised," the Playboy mogul tells me exclusively. "If you're a good-looking guy and young and healthy, the notion that there would be something else going on, well, marriage is just a convenience.

"It's very nice for raising kids," he adds, "but the notion that monogamy lasts forever is a wish!..."

I'll have to take some issue with Heff's comments by saying that for some people, monogamous marriage is right and proper. And I would much prefer a monogamous marriage culture to no marriage culture at all.

After all, our current Matriarchal utopia, and the damage it is doing to our babies is enough evidence that marriage is an honorable institution in and of itself that is worth preserving.

However, in my opinion, it is our modern lack of flexibility, as well as a profound ignorance of what makes men tick, that is the real problem.

For example, check out the following article from the Huffington Post:

Jay Michaelson

It's Not Just Tiger: Monogamous Marriage Is An Anomaly

Let the clucking begin. As the tabloids pile on the revelations about our falling star, Tiger Woods, pundits have begun the predictable and proverbial shaking of heads, clucking of tongues, and various forms of bemoaning. Are none of our heroes pure anymore? Or, conversely, is our celebrity culture so ravenous for scandal that there is no privacy left?

Et cetera, et cetera.

But what's the takeaway from all this? We've been through so many celebrity-affair scandals (does anyone remember Eliot Spitzer?) -- haven't we learned anything?

(And, Dear Readers, don't forget David Letterman's indecent confessions)

... How about this one: that the modern institution of marriage, so ardently fought-over by activists across the country, is a historical anomaly that has never been taken seriously in the past, and is unlikely to work in the future. It's a flawed model, and it's not worth defending - because it never really existed, apart from an ideal.

Truly traditional marriage, after all, is polygamy. This is what the Bible instructs, and it's been the dominant familial arrangement in the Western world for longer than any other form, including nuclear-family monogamy. Kings had their concubines, noblemen had their mistresses and kept women, and the rest of us - well, we had the world's oldest profession. None of these were exactly God's word, but they were understood to be part of life.

Indeed, maybe we forget how widespread prostitution really was for most of our history, and how even today, sex is Internet's #1 business and how an estimated 700,000 American men pay women for sex every year. This is not an innovation of our degraded age. It was understood - in the Bible, in the Talmud, in Protestant Europe, in colonial America - that married men would visit prostitutes. And while this may have been a sin, it was everyone's sin - and not a particularly serious one.

What changed all this was, ironically, feminism. The first feminists weren't bra-burning radicals: they were pious scolds, who in late 19th century America mobilized for purifying American manhood. They cleaned out the brothels and closed the pubs - feminists were the first prohibitionists. What had for hundreds of years been the common practice of men of all social classes became a great vice to be eradicated...

... Twentieth century feminism added another layer of condemnation: after all, why should men be allowed to philander while women were expected to remain faithful and stand by their (abusive, cheating) men no matter what? Why are promiscuous men heroes, and promiscuous women sluts? Women aren't slaves, feminism taught us, and men need to respect them as equal partners in marriage. Infidelity had been a religious sin - now it was a secular one as well.

So here we are, 2010 upon us, and still trying to live up to a hopeless monogamous ideal that had never been so strictly upheld before - and is not helping anybody...

There is a lot of painful truth here. Long time readers know that I am for a "polygamous option", where a man could take a set number of women as wives.

I am also for the legalization of prostitution, something I speak about here.

The cold truth is that "Conservatives" have it ass backwards most of the time when they "defend marriage." What they are really doing is defending a chivalrous and zombified institution formerly known as marriage. They intend for men to shoulder crap-tons of responsibility, while at the same time, denying men any reasonable and sustainable way of dealing with their sexual drives, which are much more voracious than those of women, not to mention championing the outdated Victorian idea of putting women up on ivory pedestals just because they have a vagina.

Now here is where I begin to defend Tiger.

We really don't know what exactly was going on in the Woods household. But, it is very possible that sexual relations between himself and his wife dried up or was insufficient to meet the needs of a world class athlete. In the lives of ordinary married men, this happens quite a bit.

It's kinda hard to have those all day Kamasutra sex sessions when a young child is present in the home. It's a little difficult to have your honey walking around in suggestive lingerie when she is trying to do the laundry. Perhaps your wife has a major presentation due next week, and she comes home from work late at night exhausted. And understandably, your all night sexfest = FUBAR.

Shit happens.

So... if your only legal wife decides (remember gents: her body, her choice!) to stop giving up the Nappy Dugout, what do you do?

You are not a woman. You are a man who needs sexual stimulation. This isn't optional... this is a hardwired need.

Well... you could become an ascetic monk and use your sexual energy to open your Kundalini energy system through intense meditation or...

Download a crap ton of internet porn and break out the tissues or...

Go cold turkey and suppress your inherent desires or...

Take up a new hobby to burn off the excess energy or...

Do stupid shit like have 10 mistresses so they can tell everyone they know about your personal business, blow big money on strippers, start drinking heavily, or put your profile on Craigslist.

You get the idea. Men denied satisfaction on a consistent and regular basis tend to do crazy things in order to cope.

Traditionally, men have had two outlets for their desires that at the same time preserved a relatively stable marriage culture. These two systems are prostitution and polygamous marriage.

Both of these are illegal today in the vast majority of the United States.

So what's a man to do?

Tiger, Letterman, and Eliot Spitzer have shown us that the rich and powerful grapple with these issues just like the average married man does. And in each case, the final decision was to go out and get them some Strange.

And many marriages are destroyed because our society does not deal with these very real issues in a skillful and realistic manner. Instead, we have a Matriarchal system of double standards, Catch 22's, and Damned-if-you-do, Damned-if-you-don't-isms. If we want to really protect and preserve marriage in the years to come, then we need to rethink what marriage is about, and actually understand that men have needs too, just as women do. We've taken into account what women want, but we have yet to acknowledge what men want.

This is not a sustainable situation, and we need to get it right for ourselves, for our children, for our nation, and our world.

Bottom line: While I am disappointed that Mr. Woods handled his business in such a sloppy manner, I can understand where he's coming from. He came clean, him and his woman are going to hopefully work it out, and they'll move on with life. But, in my opinion, this case demonstrates the need for men to consider our own interests for a change, and allow men who do need more than one woman to take care of their needs in the least socially disruptive manner possible.




Conclusion.




It remains to be seen if Tiger can resurrect his career, his image, and his marriage. But I can't help but think: what if his wife had some knowledge of his doings... and what if she was down with that? Does she truly understand her man more than the army of media types telling all of their personal business 24-7? If so, then she is ahead of the curve.

I said it once, and I'll say it again... our legal, religious, and social systems need to be changed so that the rights, desires, and wishes of men are respected, so long as these rights and desires do not violate the rights of others. Unless this happens, society, economy, liberty and spirituality will all continue to degrade and implode.

We all love to look out for the children, and we bend over backwards to enforce feminist public policy... but what about the men? When do we get what the fuck we want?

From Grass Eating men, sagging birthrates, to the latest celebrity sex scandal, it is becoming apparent that Men have judged our current social constructs, and found them wanting. Man is the spark, the thumos, the creative and driving force on this planet. But in many places, Man is in chains. He is being artificially constrained. And he is making decisions, some wise, others damn foolish, in an attempt to find his equilibrium.

No matter where we look, be it government, finance, marriage or career life, the bulk of men are not being served. Their needs are not being met, and their happiness is not being considered. And in response, we are seeing once vibrant institutions imploding as vast numbers of men decide to seek their own path.

If the way of political feminism is death, then the way of enlightened manliness will bring life.

Until these sorely needed changes are made, then it is better for Men to Go Their Own Way. Unfortunately, the social order will suffer in direct proportion.

Balance and a happy mean is needed.

Gyo.

Forecasting the End of Feminism

What's good?

Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving holiday!

Most readers know that I am optimistic about the future of Men's rights, and I believe that Political Feminism will be put out of its misery in the near future.

So let's talk about why I think the femmes are doomed.

Let's go!!



Radar: First they ignore you.



Not too long ago, a valued reader asked me why I was so optimistic about the future of Men's Rights. How could I be so confident, he wondered, that the power of political feminism is beginning to wane?

Firstly, I want to make it clear that political feminists still have a lot of clout, and that terrible injustices are happening to men and boys day in and day out. That is the reality. And we shouldn't forget that change happens very slowly; political feminism will do everything it can to prolong its unnatural life. Political feminism, in other words, is still armed and extremely dangerous.

In making statements about the future of feminism, I evaluate the ideology in the same way I evaluate the future prospects of an investment. I am looking for trends; small and subtle happenings that could lead to huge manifestations at some point in the future.

I forecast the ebb and flow of political feminist dominance using a variety of tools. One method I use, because I believe that feminism is an expression of psychic forces and human will, is the law of In and Yo (more commonly known as Yin and Yang).







As I mentioned in a previous post, I belong to a certain school of knowledge that prepares one for a wide range of combat and survival scenarios. When one is engaged in a military operation, forecasting the winds of fortune becomes a valuable skill.

One method to try to determine the outcome of an engagement in advance is the art of forecasting using In and Yo.

The law of In and Yo is fairly simple. The universe is cyclical in nature. All things ebb and flow. There is a waxing and a waning cycle that applies to all things.

The stock market rises and falls. Nations rise and fall. The moon waxes and wanes. People are born and then they die.

Nothing rests indefinitely, and everything is in constant motion.

Nothing in the natural world lasts forever, and, by extension, no ideology lasts forever either.

This is a simplified explanation of the law of In and Yo. With this knowledge, one can look for signs and cues and determine where we are at in any particular cycle, and one can also look for clues for expansion or contraction.

If one determines that feminism is in its ascending phase, then it is wise to get out of the way unless one wants to be crushed underfoot.

If one determines that feminism is entering into its descending phase, then one can help the process along by intense criticism and activism. In other words, we as Men's Rights Activists can help hasten its fall as the inescapable force of gravity takes hold of our favorite hate movement.

I believe there is enough evidence out there to suggest that political feminism is in decline.

One must also remember the 80/20 rule: 80 percent of outputs are caused by 20 percent of inputs. As Mr. Koch explains here, small, seemingly random events, such as, for example, a man in the UK writing a blog post critical of political feminism, could cause massive waves. Add a court decision here, a breakthrough study there, an economic crisis on top of that, and all of a sudden, the ship of political feminism could face the perfect storm that could potentially tear the vessel apart and run it aground.

There are Universal Laws that can be observed and applied to real life events and situations. If one is looking for clues as to the future trends affecting an event, a nation, or an ideology, one can determine whether or not it is waxing or waning. One can also determine if it is wise to confront the ideology directly, or attack it subtly. Sometimes it is better to keep oneself out of harms way, and other times, bold and direct opposition is the best course of action.

It should also be pointed out that movements and ideologies that violate Universal Laws will not long survive, as they go against the Universal grain. It takes massive amounts of energy and capital to overcome resistance and advance the unnatural social organization that political feminist public policy demands, and I believe it is beginning to run out of steam as various forms of drag begin to take hold. As more men (and women) free themselves from the Fematrix, the political, economic, and social will to continue on with our Matriarchal public policy will dissolve along with it.

And, as a wee bit of evidence to support my ramblings, allow me to share this recent Radar alert:

"First they ignore you, ..."

Two weeks ago, Slate.com's short-lived1 publication "Double X" published an article by Kathryn Joyce entitled "'Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective."2

This was not Slate.com's finest hour. One thing this article could never be accused of is objective reporting.

On Nov. 5th, the very same day the Double X article appeared, Salon.com's Broadsheet published an article by Judy Berman entitled "'Men's rights' groups go mainstream"3 that adds no new information, and simply seems to be an effort to repeat the Double X article to Salon's readers...

... Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." The joint Slate/Salon attack pieces are a good indication that we're well past stage 1.

Congratulation to all RADAR supporters and allies for getting us this far. Let's keep it up!

Respect to RADAR, Glen Sacks, and countless other MRAs who are on the front lines in the battle against Political Feminism.

Let's take a moment to look at the Double X article:

"Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

They’re changing custody rights and domestic violence laws.

By: Kathryn Joyce

At the end of October, National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, members of the men’s movement group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting [2]) gathered on the steps of Congress to lobby against what they say are the suppressed truths about domestic violence: that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women’s shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives.

“It’s now reached the point,” reads a statement from RADAR, “that domestic violence laws represent the largest roll-back in Americans’ civil rights since the Jim Crow era!”

RADAR’s rhetoric may seem overblown, but lately the group and its many partners have been racking up very real accomplishments. In 2008, the organization claimed to have blocked passage of four federal domestic-violence bills, among them an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to international scope and a grant to support lawyers in pro bono domestic-violence work. Members of this coalition have gotten themselves onto drafting committees for VAWA’s 2011 reauthorization. Local groups in West Virginia and California have also had important successes, criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases, and winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory.

Ahh yes. You can feel the fear. The political feminists are worried, and for good reason. Their deceitful, harmful, and hurtful movement is going to be dumped like so much trash, and THEY KNOW IT.

The times, they are a changin'. And, in this next paragraph from Double X, we have a prime example of why feminism is toast... their entire movement is based upon lies, falsehoods, and propaganda:

... In this, critics like Australian sociologist Michael Flood say that men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims. MRA groups downplay national abuse rates, just as abusers downplay their personal battery; they wage campaigns dismissing most allegations as false, as abusers claim partners are lying about being hit; and they depict the violence as mutual—part of an epidemic of wife-on-husband abuse—as individual batterers rationalize their behavior by saying that the violence was reciprocal. Additionally, MRA groups’ predictions of future violence by fed-up men wronged by the family-law system seem an obvious additional correlation, with the threat of violence seemingly intended to intimidate a community, like a fearful spouse, into compliance...

Good ol Michael Flood.

It turns out that I have already debunked his entire line of reasoning, and exposed his thesis as fundamentally flawed [a][b][c][d]. As usual, feminist rhetoric is trumped by correct reasoning and irrefutable evidence.

In any event... political feminism is a dead hag walking. It simply cannot stand up to any objective scrutiny, and its only a matter of time before it collapses upon itself like a ton of bricks. And believe you me... the feminists know this to be true.



Conclusion


The art of forecasting is an inexact science. My timing could be wrong, or something might happen to totally alter my prediction.

However, I see that the trends are lining up to sink the ship of political feminism. And, as they say in the world of finance, "the trend is your friend... until it ends."

So, until further notice, I will continue to assert that the best days of political feminism are behind it. Going forward, they are going to face ever mounting scrutiny and analysis.

Unfortunately for political feminism... an ideology based on deception and lies simply cannot take the heat. And I believe the day is coming when feminist public policy will be overthrown.

I, for one, can't wait for that day.

Gyokko.

This is Your Brain...

Greetings and welcome to another installment of Jeweled Tiger School!!

I am your host, Gyokko the Kidd.

Without further ado, lets get 'er done!




Brainwork.





Here lately, I have emphasized the need to become more critical, more self aware, and more self determined. In other words, it is high time that Men Go Their Own Way, delete feminist and other self-defeating programming from their memory banks and society at large, and actually become the Masters of their own destiny.

As I have laid out in other postings, the process of creation and realization of key goals and objectives is out there. Certain enterprising individuals and groups are actively using these principles to win the game of life, and so must you.

Here's a little something about me:

Some of you might have already figured out that I belong to a certain organization. Every so often, I change the name of this blog to reflect certain branches of knowledge that this group teaches.

But for those who haven't noticed, click here to find out more about the Path that I follow. Please note that the content of this blog in no way represents the organization referenced above. My opinions are strictly my own.

Contained within the schools of knowledge that I have studied for over a decade is a principle known as Sanmitsu [1][2]. This is one of the ways in which certain Japanese warriors in dark costumes took care of business.

Thought energy, word energy, and physical energy (effort) come together in harmony, and the energies are amplified because the three waves of energy do not contradict one another. With self directed focus, commitment, and intention, the non physical is made manifest. This is one of the primary reasons why these certain individuals were widely feared in ancient Japan, and why their fame (and their art) has survived to modern times. Click here for more information.

Forgive me for digressing, but I am sharing all this with you, Dear Reader, for a number of important reasons.

1) By knowing my philosophical background, it will be easier for you to follow my thought process, and where I am coming from. You will also know why I emphasize certain principles more than others.

2) By understanding that the above mentioned principle of Sanmitsu has been tested over a vast time period and under extreme conditions, you can be confident that it is anything but "pie in the sky" wishful thinking. The principle works, and I would like to see enlightened men use it in their own lives, instead of constantly falling victim to it.

How do you think the feminists, socialists, and money men succeeded in undermining Western Civilization? Through Committed Thoughts, Well Chosen Words, and Countless Deeds over the course of centuries.

3) To encourage you to take control of your conscious and subconscious mental processes. As the Christians say, life is constant Spiritual Warfare. Those of us fighting the Fempire are really fighting a battle of the Spirit. We are constantly being programmed by family, friends, institutions, religions, corporations, and governments to feel, think, and behave in a certain way.

It would be one thing if the messages out there were empowering, enlightening, and beneficial for humankind. Unfortunately, the reality is that 80% of the programming available is wrong, flawed, and designed to control and subdue you. The instructions given are usually NOT in your best interests.

Feminism is a prime example of a philosophy built upon lies and deceit. It is an ideology that silences dissent and produces a host of negative outcomes, simply because 80% of the people buy into it. They Think feminism, Speak feminism, and Act according to feminist dogma.

Your duty, as an enlightened person who knows the facts about feminism, is to completely purge it from your mental processes, and to help others purge femi-fascism from their memory banks.

The various levels of mind are key to this whole struggle. Everything in this Universe literally depends on it. We have free will, and we must choose, very carefully, what we ultimately believe in because...

What we believe is what we will ultimately end up with.

See here for more info on the Biology of Belief.





Single Parents and the Brain.

From the Wall Street Journal:


This Is Your Brain Without Dad


... Conventional wisdom holds that two parents are better than one. Scientists are now finding that growing up without a father actually changes the way your brain develops.

German biologist Anna Katharina Braun and others are conducting research on animals that are typically raised by two parents, in the hopes of better understanding the impact on humans of being raised by a single parent. Dr. Braun's work focuses on degus, small rodents related to guinea pigs and chinchillas, because mother and father degus naturally raise their babies together.
[LAB] Matt Collins

When deprived of their father, the degu pups exhibit both short- and long-term changes in nerve-cell growth in different regions of the brain. Dr. Braun, director of the Institute of Biology at Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg, and her colleagues are also looking at how these physical changes affect offspring behavior.

Their preliminary analysis indicates that fatherless degu pups exhibit more aggressive and impulsive behavior than pups raised by two parents...

... Dr. Braun and her colleagues found that in the two-parent families, the degu mothers and fathers cared for their pups in similar ways, including sleeping next to or crouching over them, licking and grooming them, and playing with them. The fathers even exhibited a "nursing-type" position.

When the mother was a single parent, the frequency of her interactions with her pups didn't change much, which means that those pups experienced significantly less touching and interaction than those with two parents.

The researchers then looked at the neurons—cells that send and receive messages between the brain and the body—of some pups at day 21, around the time they were weaned from their mothers, and others at day 90, which is considered adulthood for the species.

Neurons have branches, known as dendrites, that conduct electrical signals received from other nerve cells to the body, or trunk, of the neuron. The leaves of the dendrites are protrusions called dendritic spines that receive messages and serve as the contact between neurons.

Dr. Braun's group found that at 21 days, the fatherless animals had less dense dendritic spines compared to animals raised by both parents, though they "caught up" by day 90. However, the length of some types of dendrites was significantly shorter in some parts of the brain, even in adulthood, in fatherless animals.

"It just shows that parents are leaving footprints on the brain of their kids," says Dr. Braun, 54 years old.

The neuronal differences were observed in a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is related to emotional responses and fear, and the orbitofrontal cortex, or OFC, the brain's decision-making center...

... 'A Horse Without a Rider'

The balance between these two brain parts is critical to normal emotional and cognitive functioning, according to Dr. Braun. If the OFC isn't active, the amygdala "goes crazy, like a horse without a rider," she says. In the case of the fatherless pups, there were fewer dendritic spines in the OFC, while the dendrite trees in the amygdala grew more and longer branches.

A preliminary analysis of the degus' behavior showed that fatherless animals seemed to have a lack of impulse control, Dr. Braun says. And, when they played with siblings, they engaged in more play-fighting or aggressive behavior.

In a separate study in Dr. Braun's lab conducted by post-doctoral researcher Joerg Bock, degu pups were removed from their caregivers for one hour a day. Just this small amount of stress leads the pups to exhibit more hyperactive behaviors and less focused attention, compared to those who aren't separated, Dr. Braun says. They also exhibit changes in their brain.

The basic wiring between the brain regions in the degus is the same as in humans, and the nerve cells are identical in their function. "So on that level we can assume that what happens in the animal's brain when it's raised in an impoverished environment ... should be very similar to what happens in our children's brain," Dr. Braun says.

Other researchers, such as Xia Zhang, a senior scientist at the University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, and his colleagues in China, have observed different consequences using voles, mouselike rodents that also naturally co-parent. (Fewer than 10% of species raise their offspring with two parents.)

Voles deprived of their fathers—either from birth or later on in childhood—exhibited more anxious behaviors and were less social, spending less time engaging with stranger voles that were placed in their cage, according to a study by Dr. Zhang and his colleagues that was published in July in the journal Behavioral Processes.

Of course, the frontal cortex—where thinking and decision-making take place—is more complex in humans than it is in other animals. Thus, says Dr. Braun, it is important to be "really careful" about extrapolating the recent findings to human populations.

"The minute you get into stuff with extensive social and environmental components, the social differences between humans and animals are massive," says Simon Chapple, a senior economist in the social policy division of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-country grouping of the world's largest economies...

It amazes me how people can contradict themselves. Earlier in the piece, we have this comment:

"The basic wiring between the brain regions in the degus is the same as in humans, and the nerve cells are identical in their function. "So on that level we can assume that what happens in the animal's brain when it's raised in an impoverished environment ... should be very similar to what happens in our children's brain," Dr. Braun says."

And later, we have peoples who are desperate to negate the damning implications of this research:

"Of course, the frontal cortex—where thinking and decision-making take place—is more complex in humans than it is in other animals. Thus, says Dr. Braun, it is important to be "really careful" about extrapolating the recent findings to human populations.

"The minute you get into stuff with extensive social and environmental components, the social differences between humans and animals are massive," says Simon Chapple, a senior economist in the social policy division of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-country grouping of the world's largest economies."

Yes, caution should be warranted, and more extensive research should be carried out to see how fatherlessness affects brain development in human children.

HOWEVER.

Because research such as this greatly undercuts the legitimacy of Feminist theory and Feminist Public Policy, those who wish to continue said theories and policies are quick to backpedal with the "Humans are different" argument.

Nevermind the fact that if these findings had ZERO implications for humanity, the Journal would have ZERO interest in it and wouldn't even publish the story to begin with.

The "Humans are different" argument makes no sense in this case because we KNOW that the 80% (not an exact percentage, but a shorthand reference to the 80/20 principle) of children brought up in single parent families have all manner of negative outcomes in terms of wealth, health, crime, and relationships, just to name a few [1][2][3], just like the animals in the study.

Consider this article from Time Magazine:

Is There Hope for the American Marriage?


... the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in May that births to unmarried women have reached an astonishing 39.7%. (See pictures of love in the animal kingdom.)

How much does this matter? More than words can say. There is no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage. It hurts children, it reduces mothers' financial security, and it has landed with particular devastation on those who can bear it least: the nation's underclass.

The Marriage Gap

The poor and the middle class are very different in the ways they have forsaken marriage. The poor are doing it by uncoupling parenthood from marriage, and the financially secure are doing it by blasting apart their unions if the principals aren't having fun anymore.

The growing tendency of the poor to have children before marriage — the vast majority of unmarried women having babies are undereducated and have low incomes — is a catastrophic approach to life, as three Presidents in a row have tried to convince them. Bill Clinton's welfare-to-work program encouraged marriage, George W. Bush spent millions to promote marriage, and Barack Obama has spoken powerfully on the need for men to stay with their children: "We need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one." (See snapshots from a very special wedding.)

The reason for these appeals to lasting unions is simple: on every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration — if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.

Few things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home. "As a feminist, I didn't want to believe it," says Maria Kefalas, a sociologist who studies marriage and family issues and co-authored a seminal book on low-income mothers called Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. "Women always tell me, 'I can be a mother and a father to a child,' but it's not true." Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child. "The mom may not need that man," Kefalas says, "but her children still do."

This turns out to be true across the economic spectrum. The groundbreaking research on the effects of divorce on children from middle- and upper-income households comes from a surprising source: a Princeton sociologist and single mother named Sara McLanahan, who decided to study the fates of these children with the tacit assumption that once you control for income, being part of a single-parent household does not adversely affect kids. The results — which she published in the 1994 book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps — were surprising. "Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent," she found, "are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents' race or educational background....

The outcomes for the experimental animals raised without a father were empirically negative. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the outcomes for human children raised without a father are overwhelmingly negative. We know that the animals in question and human beings share similar brain wiring.

Because we know all of this, is it reasonable then to say that we shouldn't use this study as another piece of evidence that, in the case of human children, fathers are needed, on a biological level, for them to achieve maximum levels of health, wealth, social stability, and happiness?

Would it be unreasonable to say that, because human brains and social structures are more complex and evolved, the impact of fatherlessness is more damaging and harmful for human children (and society) than for the lab rats (Degu) profiled in this study?

I want to address one more point in the WSJ article before I move on:

Risk of Delinquency

Still, the prevalence of single-parent households has researchers looking at possible consequences for children. An OECD report found that just 57% of children in the U.S. live with both parents, among the lowest percentages of the world's richest nations.

The report, which sparked some controversy when it was released in September, found that children in single-parent households have an increased risk of delinquency and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, as well as poorer scholastic performance.

The OECD also analyzed data from 122 separate studies and found that there was variability in the negative effects on children of living in a single-parent home; on average, the OECD found, the magnitude of the impact was relatively small. On a standardized intelligence test with a median score of 100 points, for example, a child in a single-parent family would be about 3.5 points worse off than a similar child in a two-parent family, according to Dr. Chapple, who co-wrote the report.

Dr. Braun's goal for future research is to figure out whether degu pups' brains can be rewired by introducing a substitute caregiver, such as a grandmother, or whether other social and emotional enrichment can help "repair" the fatherless pups, she says. Human children may be sent to day care, for instance, which can help them form stable friendships with their peers and other adults.

The bottom line, says Dr. Braun, is that parents need to fuel their children's brains with talk, touch and sensitive stimulation that involves give and take.

Parents, she says, "are the sculptors of their children's brains."

Note the following passage:

Dr. Braun's goal for future research is to figure out whether degu pups' brains can be rewired by introducing a substitute caregiver, such as a grandmother, or whether other social and emotional enrichment can help "repair" the fatherless pups, she says. Human children may be sent to day care, for instance, which can help them form stable friendships with their peers and other adults.

If, at some point in the future, research is conducted to find a way to help the children of single mothers (like me) and the children of divorce heal the ugly scars that our man hating culture and feminist public policy has imposed upon them, it would be absolute madness to think that someone in a lab could ultimately create a cure-all in a laboratory to help our children while at the same time keeping the aforementioned Misandric culture and feminist public policy that creates 80% of the problems in place!

It would save everyone a lot of time, energy, and resources if we abolished feminism right now. We have more than enough evidence to do so, and we have thousands of years of human social history that shows that stable marriage and family culture leads to long term positive outcomes.

The easiest and best way to prevent the negative outcomes of children raised in single parent homes is to STOP SEPARATING FATHERS FROM THEIR CHILDREN via involuntary divorce, domestic violence laws, and cultural bullying. KILL FEMINISM, AND YOU AUTOMATICALLY KILL THE PROBLEM.

Imagine, for a moment, that a coalition of Big Government types and ideologists who believed that right arms were inherently violent and dangerous passed a law that decreed that innocent children should have their potentially dangerous right arm removed when they reached the tender age of two years old. Imagine how society would be negatively impacted by the legion of children who are missing right arms.

Now finally, imagine the billions of dollars that would be spent in researching, testing, and manufacturing artificial arms to replace the arms that were removed, by force of law and bizarre custom, FOR NO GOOD REASON!

THIS, my friends, is where we are at today. Ideology, bad economic theory, and public policy are coming together to fuck up the lives of millions of innocent children (and fathers). And I am quite sure that some batshit insane feminists would have the audacity to suggest at some point that the solution to the problems that THEY caused initially is to do more "research" in order to repair the damage that was unnecessarily caused in the first place (notice the similarity of this kind of thinking to our totally ass backwards economic policy).

If anything, the ultimate goal of society should be to find out if human children are neurologically impacted (which I'm sure they are) by the removal of their fathers. And, if the research confirms it, add the study to the mountain of reasons why feminist public policy should be completely abolished forever and ever.

Before we move on, this story is interesting to me because it is another piece of evidence that points to an obvious conclusion: Fathers are needed in the lives of their children, and this is a biological and a spiritual need. All the daycare and all the government welfare kool-aid in this world will not change this important fact.





Where mind and matter meet.





And for my next act, I want to merge the importance of critical and careful programming of the conscious and subconscious mind with the implications that this Wall Street Journal story raises.


I would like to briefly quote from Dr. Bruce Lipton's fascinating book, the Biology of Belief:

... Frontier science is confirming what mothers and enlightened fathers have known forever, that parents do matter, despite best selling books that try to convince us otherwise. To quote Dr. Thomas Verny, a pioneer in the field of prenatal and perinatal psychiatry: "Findings in the peer-reviewed literature over the course of decades establish, beyond any doubt, that parents have overwhelming influence on the mental and physical attributes of the children they raise." (Verny and Kelly 1981) (p. 125).

And that influence starts, says Verny, not after children are born, but BEFORE (author's emphasis) children are born (p. 126).

... experimental psychologists and neuroscientists are demolishing the myth that that infants cannot remember--or for that matter learn--and along with it the notion that parents are simply spectators in the unfolding of their children's lives. The fetal and infant nervous system has vast sensory and learning capabilities and a kind of memory that neuroscientists call implicit memory... "the quality of life in the womb, our temporary home before we were born, programs our susceptibility to coronary artery disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity, and a multitude of other conditions in later life," writes Dr. Peter W Nathanielsz in Life in the Womb, Origins of Health and Disease (p. 126)."


... parents can improve the prenatal environment. In doing so they act as genetic engineers for their children... influences continue after the child is born because parents continue to influence their child's environment. In particular, fascinating new research is emphasizing the importance of good parenting in the development in the brain. "For the growing brain of a young child, the social world supplies the most important experiences influencing the expression of genes, which determines how neurons connect to one another in creating the neuronal pathways which give rise to mental activity," writes Dr. Daniel J Siegal in The Developing Mind (p. 127-128).

The Author goes on to explain the brain wave activity in children, the conscious and subconscious mind and how it is programmed, and a ton of other news you can really use.

Sounds a lot like the Wall Street Journal piece... doesn't it?? Young brain development, environmental factors, parental influence trumping supposedly predetermined genetic predestination...

Ladies and gents, I would highly recommend that you pick up this book. Don't walk... RUN and get a copy today. Your mind will never be the same again. Be sure to read it carefully, and reflect on the full implications of the information presented there.

How much damage has our policies of abortion on demand, involuntary divorce, and single mother subsidization really inflicted upon our nation? Can the full criminality of this entire Matriarchal regime be fully calculated?

Read the book, and you be the judge.



Conclusion.



UNDERSTAND.


Feminism is flat out and totally wrong. It is based on lies. It is based on false premises. The errors of feminism are infinite and plainly obvious. There is no excuse for any thinking individual to buy into or support this hate filled ideology.

The feminist lie of "children don't no need fathers" has been debunked all to hell. The truth is out there. There is no need to give feminism any credibility or credence in your conscious or your subconscious mind. De-program thyself! Banish feminist theory from your heart and mind forever.

And don't forget... you have a duty to yourself, your children, and your fellow man (and woman) to slay feminist ideology and public policy wherever you find it.

Your babies are being brainwashed by flawed, false, and outdated feminist theory. Men are going to jail everyday due to flawed and wrongheaded feminist public policy.

IT IS YOUR DUTY to oppose feminism by any means you can, within the boundaries of legality and common sense.

And finally, understand that YOU have tremendous power over yourself and those who are in your care. Know, Understand, and Obey the Universal Law.

You have the authority, the ability, the power, and the responsibility to elevate yourself and those you love to tha next level. You, Dear Reader, can and must work with the Father to make things happen.

Feminists can't hold you down forever. Governments who are out of control will be brought to heel eventually. Economic mismanagement won't last forever.

Understand the power you have to make the best out your personal circumstances. I can point out principles that have worked for me; but at the end of the day, your Thoughts, your Words, and your Deeds are the only ones that matter in your world and those who live in it. Choose correctly, and with great care.

Kind Regards,

Gyokko.