The Criminalization of Masculinity, Part 2 of 2

Go to Part 1.

Prof. Baskerville’s website; contains links to podcasts, reviews and his other work.

Domestic Violence

It is well established that men and women commit violent acts in the home in roughly equal numbers, and that an intact family is the safest environment for both women and children. Such facts have not prevented feminists from whipping up public hysteria over “domestic violence,” for which men are presumed to be exclusively responsible. Indeed, terms like “violence against women” and “male violence” are beginning to appear even in government documents. Here again we see the quasi-Marxist assignment of criminal guilt to categories of people rather than the individuals who commit particular illegal acts.

Such violence need not be violent: criticizing, name calling and denying money are now officially listed as forms of domestic violence. The only possible purpose of such verbal inflation, as Baskerville points out, is to target men who have not committed any violent assault. This is one reason statistics on domestic violence cannot be trusted. There is another: they are based not on convictions or even formal charges, but on “reports.” Because domestic violence is now a multi-billion dollar a year industry, interest groups and government agencies have strong incentives to manufacture false accusations and exaggerate incidents.

In practice, accusations of domestic violence are usually made to secure advantages in divorce and custody disputes. Feminist literature complains not that violent husbands are avoiding conviction, but that accused fathers sometimes retain access to their children. After all, when husbands are convicted of criminally assaulting their wives, they get locked up and no question of custody arises. It becomes an issue in divorce cases only because accusations do not have to be proven.

Bar associations and even courts themselves sponsor public seminars on how to fabricate abuse accusations.  “With child abuse and spouse abuse you don’t have to prove anything,” the leader of one seminar quoted in the Chicago Tribune tells divorcing women. “You just have to accuse.” Another astonished witness reports:

A number of women attending the seminars smugly—indeed boastfully—announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked! The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.

“Women lie every day,” writes one female Canadian judge. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. It didn’t happen’—and they’re not charged.”

Divorcing wives can also get restraining orders issued against their husbands simply by claiming to be afraid. The order will usually give her the home, the children, child support and maintenance.

Another possibility is to go to a battered women’s shelter. These institutions are not what their name suggests. There are said to be over 2000 such shelters in the United States, and there simply aren’t enough battered women to keep all of them in business. Rather, they are “one-stop divorce shops” that exist mostly to separate children from their fathers.

Extended investigations [of shelters] by Canada’s National Post and others revealed a violently anti-male agenda, corruption, drug and alcohol use, child abuse, and even, ironically, violence against women. American journalist Cary Roberts found “prison-camp like working conditions, misappropriated shelter assets, falsified documents, illicit drug activities, horrific child abuse, illegal cover-ups, complacent oversight agencies, and more.”

Popular hysteria about “violence against women” has also resulted in legal reforms meant to maximize convictions:

With most crimes, police generally do not arrest suspects without a warrant unless they personally witness it. Yet the mob justice surrounding domestic violence has brought the innovation of mandatory arrest, even when it is not clear that any deed has been committed at all. “No drop” prosecution is another innovation requiring prosecutors to prosecute cases they would otherwise abandon for lack of evidence or because they judge that no crime has occurred at all.

Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the British Labour Party, has proposed allowing women to kill their “intimate partners” with impunity as long as they “claim past, or fear of future, abuse.”

Other New Crimes

Sexual harassment, a redefined rape, and domestic violence that need not be violent are the principal ideological weapons in the feminist arsenal, but there are several others as well.

Stalking is a crime invented in California in 1990. Within three years, every state in the union had passed anti-stalking laws. Many other countries have now joined in: a case of legislation by bandwagon. The original idea was that criminals often “stalk” their victims before assaulting them, so outlawing “stalking” would help prevent actual assaults. As one former Associate Attorney General has written: “We should not have to wait until an overt act of violence occurs to take action.”

But as with harassment, no one is able to define precisely what is meant by stalking. In effect, the new laws mean that people can be prosecuted not for acts they have actually committed, but for acts they may possibly intend to commit in the future. As Baskerville notes, this “directly violates the fundamental common law principle that a man can only be punished for a crime that he has actually committed.” Indeed, since anyone might commit a crime at some future time, “we could just arrest the entire population.”

In practice, the chief application of this juridical abortion has been in divorce cases: involuntarily divorced fathers trying to see their own children are accused of “stalking” them. Letter writing and phone calls are some of the acts which can be prosecuted by means of anti-stalking laws.

Laws against child abuse and neglect have also been made into feminist weapons in the struggle against fathers and families. Baskerville provides some historical background:

The professionalization of social work in the early twentieth century—at the instigation of feminists like Jane Addams—created a plainclothes gendarmerie with a vested interest in other people’s children. As governments wrested charitable work from churches and other private foundations, social workers became government officials with “extraordinary police powers,” though without the restraints we normally impose on police to protect the rights of the accused.

The Mondale Act, passed by Congress in 1974, mandated the establishment of Child Protective Services agencies by the states and created financial incentives for finding (or inventing) child abuse. Similar legislation quickly followed in other countries. By the 1980s, government agencies were whipping up sensational accusations of child abuse.

Eventually, the truth came out: social workers had badgered very young children to come up with lurid stories of abuse, disregarding their denials. All such stories turned out to be fabrications, but the episode left a trail of “torn-apart families, hideous injustices, psychologically damaged children, incarcerated parents, and ruined lives.” Thanks to governmental immunity laws, no one can be held liable for such outrages, even if they can be proven to have fabricated accusations maliciously. “Child protection officials,” reports Baskerville, “are recruited largely from the ranks of divorced women and from graduates of social work and ‘women’s studies’ programs, where they are trained in feminist ideology that is hostile to parents and especially to fathers.” Seized children may be deliberately taught to hate their fathers, or persuaded he has abused them.

To this day, according to one expert:

False charges can happen to any parent merely by a stranger picking up the telephone and anonymously calling a well-publicized hotline number to say, without any evidence, that a parent maltreated his or her child. This involves a massive number of children and families each year. It is almost impossible to fully insulate one’s family from the threat of a system that on very little pretense can simply reach into the home and take away one’s offspring.

As with the other new ideological crimes, there is no presumption of innocence and no clear definition of the crime: it is up to social workers to determine what counts as abuse. Baskerville comments dryly: “Free societies do not normally permit civil servants to adjudicate crime ad hoc.”

The irony, as the author points out, is that the best way to increase the chances of a child being abused is to separate it from its father. Sexual abuse in particular is extremely rare on the part of biological fathers. (This is hidden in the official statistics by counting stepfathers and boyfriends as “fathers.”) In the name of protecting children, feminists are removing their natural protectors.

A fairly recent trend is the federal campaign against bullying, enthusiastically promoted by the Obama administration. Something everyone previously thought was childish misbehavior is now officially a federal civil rights violation. Like the other quasi-crimes we have been discussing, it has no exact definition, but is said to include “teasing, name-calling, spreading rumors, threatening, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.” A number of anti-bullying intervention programs have been established, but researchers have found none that are effective. In fact, “the average teacher actually reported more bullying after intervention than before.”

At first glance, the anti-bullying crusade may appear unrelated to feminism. But, as Baskerville points out, it has traditionally been fathers who intervened against bullies, taught their children how to protect themselves, and disciplined them if they bullied others. Not coincidentally, single mothers are the most enthusiastic proponents of anti-bullying legislation: “With the systematic banishment of fathers by feminist-controlled divorce courts, single mothers can only cope by criminalizing one another’s children.”

I shall conclude this list of newly invented crimes against the matriarchy with a small but telling recent example.

Realization of the value of breastfeeding, along with more women in the workplace, has led to attempts to develop more tolerant attitudes toward public nursing. [But] the new measures do not merely “permit” it (something that could be effected simply by removing prohibitions); they inflict penalties on anyone who objects. In some jurisdictions it is now a crime to “interfere” (whatever that means) with a woman breastfeeding.

This new legislation is a symptom of “something unhealthy about our political culture: an inability to distinguish between permitting a practice” and forbidding its disapproval. Yet moral disapproval is the only alternative to legal punishment; without it, there is “no middle ground left between criminalizing one side or the other.” The penal apparatus then becomes a political prize that must be used against our opponents if only to keep it from being used against us. Obviously, this dangerous mindset contributes to America’s present extreme political polarization.

Feminists have begun agitating against male behavioral tendencies they call manslamming, mansplaining, and manspreading—with more, no doubt, to come. As the author says, “once the principle has been established that only men can be guilty of certain crimes, few limits remain against criminalizing the peculiarities specific to them.”

Conclusion

The reader may be familiar with the old feminist chestnut “rape is about power, not sex,” which goes back to the 1970s. In truth, for feminists, even sex itself is “about power, not sex.” Catherine MacKinnon, e.g., defines sex—not construes or interprets it, but defines it—as a construct of male power. On this view, the shy teenage boy screwing up his courage to speak to the girl he has his first crush on is in reality imposing a kind of force on her, virtually attempting to rape her.

How could anyone be drawn to such a perverse way of looking at human relationships? Baskerville finds a clue in the attraction of women to powerful men. This is one reason, after all, why men seek power and why the domain of power is traditionally understood as masculine: “Civilized society channels this power differential into social harmony, economic prosperity, and political stability through marriage.”

The author also makes the important point that traditional male authority within the household exists separately from the state and serves as a limitation upon it; feminist power is always allied with the state and serves to augment its power. Triumphant feminism is re-creating the “combination of political corruption, economic stagnation, swollen prison populations, and politicized criminal justice” familiar to us from Soviet communism.

By redefining men’s attraction to women as an exercise of power over them, feminists are most likely projecting their own preoccupation with power upon their enemies, heterosexual men. In Baskerville’s words, the newly ideological offenses serve to

criminalize those whose positions and power [feminists] crave for themselves and to whom they appear to be imputing their own sexual-political fantasies. Romantic and family intimacy are not merely collateral damage but the targeted enemy.

By undermining male authority, feminism is deliberately sabotaging heterosexual attraction—and, of course, sabotaging the continuation of our race.

For the new rules invented by feminism are likely to prove ineffective against those whose reproductive behavior is most governed by natural instinct. The new ideological regime is mainly altering the behavior of those most accustomed to self-control and rule-following. For this reason, I believe feminism constitutes a threat to Western civilization equal in importance to the ethnic competition more usually discussed on this site. In the end, we will be forced to choose between continuing to indulge feminism and securing our own survival.

25 replies
  1. Elizabeth1620
    Elizabeth1620 says:

    I believe feminism was planned right from the beginning as a demographic attack. It was never about actualization of women, but solely the destruction of Western Civilzation. The ‘empowerment’ of women was just the window dressing, a way to cloak the real objective.

    Reply
    • J. Eric Smith
      J. Eric Smith says:

      Elizabeth,
      I agree. The proof is in the jewish controlled media. Black men are consistently portrayed as virile, confident and dedirable and frequently paired with white women. White men are unattractive , overweight, stupid and are the object of comedic derision. Nothing against black people, they’re just pawns here. But I DO believe the elimination of our separate races and culture would be a terrible loss to humanity and weaken our richness and chance for survival.

      So women are encouraged to mate with black men (who mistreat women too) but white men are seen as losers or victimizers and increasingly effeminate. Sex among the white goy is the target here.

      Reply
    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      @Eliz. I am not so sure. The destruction of western civilization is basically a byproduct of its own activities – technological development and its resulting weaknesses in the white population. Now who did all or most of the research that produced all that ease-making high tech applied science?

      Those who hate us moved in for the kill when they saw our hubris and weakness. Hyenas, vultures and parasites in the natural world don’t home in on the tough specimens.

      However, you know what they say – every problem contains its own solution: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times. Good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.” This basic yin ‘n’ yang, swing of the pendulum appears to be a lesson that white people have a hard time learning. If at all, maybe.

      Reply
    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      Elizabeth1620,

      ‘empowerment’ of women’

      They wanted not empowerment, but control of European American women. The 68ers used the color television, the law and abortion (60 million) achieve their ends. What to do, remove from power the left’s weak link – “their males.”

      Reply
    • Le Hunt
      Le Hunt says:

      Of course it was, it’s part of the jewish attempt to destroy White civilization. And you needn’t take my word for it, here are quotes of the actual perpetrators:
      Jewish Scholar Oscar Levy says; ‘There is scarcely an event in modern Europe that cannot be traced back to the Jews. We Jews are today nothing else but the World’s seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners.’
      “Jewish history has been tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. Our major vice of old as of today is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labor and good fortune of the rest of the world.” Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live, page 18.
      We are intruders. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war [WWI] but of nearly all your wars and revolutions in your history.
      We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.” by the Jew, Marcus Eli Ravage, Century Magazine, Vol. 115, No.3, Jan. 1928, pp.347,348.

      Reply
  2. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    Breastfeeding is an interesting example. I can’t think of anyone I know who would be opposed to breastfeeding in public, per se. Some, including me, are “opposed” to the few women who flaunt it to make a sideshow out of it. These few, to whom being discrete is an alien concept, seem to use the child and the event as a political statement. In my mind, it is a form of child abuse.

    Reply
  3. neil c
    neil c says:

    I could not believe when I found an old booklet about Suffrage, I had always assumed that it was about oppressed women getting the vote. I found out that some men had only got the vote in 1918 and then women later in 1948(So it seems both sexes were oppressed). The whole suffrage movement seems to have been hijacked by feminists.
    I know it is my ignorance for not knowing, but it still shows the power of propaganda.

    Reply
  4. L. Smith
    L. Smith says:

    I agree with Elizabeth1620. The PTB never gave a rat’s ass about any segment of the population, men or women. The super “aggrandizing” of women was simply a well thought out stealth program to marginalize men and take their power away through legal and cultural means. So now many women no longer find men attractive if they display any degree of strength, leadership, purpose, etc. All the qualities for which society desperately needs men. That equals fewer heterosexual relationships and fewer offspring being born. Something that is not discussed often enough is the effect of cell phones and 5G technology on men’s reproductive ability, meaning the viability of sperm. So now men are squeezed into a spot of being detestable, stigmatized and sterile! Next question (from the POV of a militant feminist): What do we need men for? The obvious answer is that “we” don’t need them at all. And that’s what the PTB is aiming for. And in case the fems are rejoicing in this prospect, they need to realize that they are next on the firing line. It is a question of depopulation of the entire human race. So far it’s been a soft kill strategy. When we are sufficiently weakened, that strategy may change … The hand may come out of the velvet glove. The PTB doesn’t like any of us. So! One almost down (men) and one to go (women). And I would like to remind any LGBQTXYZ’ers who are currently basking in their privileged position exactly how it was that homosexuals came to be called “faggots” during the witch burning frenzy of medieval Europe. You gotta give it to the PTB. Those MF’ers, pardon my language, are fiendishly smart. “Fiend” being the operative word.

    Reply
  5. Simon Elliot
    Simon Elliot says:

    “I hate women, but I want to use them for sex in the same way that I don’t want them to use me for money, marriage and children.” That’s the hypocrisy of the incels, MGTOWs, and men’s rights activists in a nutshell. Devlin peddles this “all bitches are hypergamous whores” rhetoric, and look at how many desperate men gobble it up! Their comments betray their true motivations, their belief that they have a divine entitlement to plough a field of young pussy and sow their seed. They genuinely believe that men should refuse to contribute to society unless each man is guaranteed a virgin maiden who’ll sire his legacy. Hell, these men are even more loathsome and narcissistic than the “thots” they so despise. The days of grim Victorian-style patriarchy are over, but that doesn’t make the men of today victims.

    Reply
    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      @Simon. Years ago I read an article by Mr. Devlin in The Occidental Quarterly (Summer 2006 – I’ve got the book right here on my shelf) which rubbed me the wrong way. Not because some men don’t have a right to be pissed off, but because the men’s rights business is for the most part the masculine version of poisonous feminism, with its excessive self-pity. Lurch of the pendulum, once again. His article in T.OQ. did make some good points, mind you.

      Let’s be careful about any knee jerk calls for a return to traditionalism. Any group which wants to return to traditional relations between men & women or who, indeed, wants to save the white race in the first place, better have the capacity to deliberately re-create the conditions which initially led to their emergence (monstrous cold & suffering). Or wait for it to occur naturally through collapse of modernity. I’m putting my money on the latter.

      Reply
      • Simon Elliot
        Simon Elliot says:

        Devlin and those who endorse his hypergamy thesis exhibit what is, in all honesty, the most odious example of divine entitlement I’ve ever come across.

        Reply
        • Unsolved Pissteries
          Unsolved Pissteries says:

          Nobody thinks they’re entitled to “plough a field of young pussy and sow their seed.” That’s your strawman because you can’t argue against what the man actually says. Which is that the assortative mating of the pre-modern era is what actually works and once you get rid of the sociosexual mores which work it damages a delicate ecosystem where all sorts of things rely on all sorts of other things to work properly and things begin to fall apart.

          They’re pointing out observable phenomenona which you can now empirically verify thanks to all of these “dating services” publishing metrics, but since you’re a hysterical shrieker who’s number is had by merely noticing you’ve come to bleat out a distinct lack of argument while you fling a wagon full of shit and hope some will stick. Sad.

          Reply
          • Simon Elliot
            Simon Elliot says:

            What the man says is that men are owed sex, are owed wives, are owed heirs. Women get bored in marriages? So do men. In fact I’ll bet that men are even more preoccupied with the grass being greener elsewhere, since their sex drives are that much more potent. Monogamy doesn’t come naturally to either sex, but I’d wager that women are more likely to mate for life and exhibit platonic love than men, because their libido, already much lower than men, decreases with age, whereas a man’s doesn’t, as he remains fertile for much longer.

  6. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    It is criminalization of white manhood maybe. When it comes to black manhood, the Jewish-owned media are all for it. In TV shows, pop music, and ads, white women are told that whites are ‘nice’ dorky dweebs while blacks are cool studs.

    White males are becoming ‘Asianized’. Media show yellow women mostly with white men, as if to say yellow men don’t deserve their own women. Now, media keep showing best-looking white women with black men(as the superior stud).

    White males are becoming ‘Asianized’ by losing white women to black men. And having lost confidence with white women, they marry yellow girls and produce kids like Elliot Rodgers.

    Reply
  7. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    There are two ways to see feminism or any other ism.

    From the true believers on the inside and from the controllers/manipulators from the outside.

    Those IN the movement had their own personal, ideological, or ‘mental’ reasons. That was Core Feminism.

    But those OUTSIDE the movement saw their own uses for the movement. It’s like the US uses ideologies, movements, and sects all over the world to serve US interests. The US used radical Islam in the 80s against the USSR. Americans weren’t part of the movement from the inside but they tried to steer it from the outside against the rivals of the US.

    Same with feminism. As it happened, most of the Core Feminists had little impact on society. They were too nutty, divided, silly, and neurotic. Most of their ideas had little appeal to most people, even to most women. And yet, the Powers-that-be in media and other powerful institutions saw usefulness in certain feminist themes. Even Jewish male elites who cared little for feminism found it useful in dividing the white goyim into ‘white men’ vs ‘white women’. This was the most effective weapon against the white race(or any other race). Race is whole when men and women are united and love one another, feel loyal to one another, and create life together. But the elite use of feminism via movies, books, TV, and entertainment created the notion that white women are fellow victims of white males. Thus, the natural allies of white women are not white men but people of color, homos, Jews, and Muslims. THAT is why the ‘feminism vs Islam’ theme has been suppressed. If white women think in terms of ‘white men created the freest societies for us white womenfolk while Muslims and people of color rule societies that are repressive of women’, then white women will appreciate and side with white men. That is why the Islam-is-repressive-to-women had to be suppressed by the Jewish Power. As Jews regard white unity and white identity as the main rival to Jewish Power, their main concern is to have white women see white men as enemies and side with people of color, blacks, and Jews.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwFshwxECq0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e62uLLsvUzI

    In FRIED GREEN TOMATOES and many other movies set in the South, white men are usually wife-beaters. So, white women must side with Negroes, Jews, and homos against the Evil White Male. These movies don’t feature white men as noble defenders of white women from the Negroes as in the heroic and glorious BIRTH OF A NATION. Instead, white men beat up their wives while Negroes are so wonderful. So, white women should side with the Noble Negro.
    Or take FAR FROM HEAVEN where a white woman finds out her white husband sucks dic*s, so she could go off and kiss a Negro on the lips. So, all these narratives say white guys are messed up in some way. They either beat up their wives or want to suck dic*s… while Negroes are so wonderful.

    Many Jewish feminists are not religiously Jewish but still subconsciously tribal, and in their assessment of power, the main threat to Jewish Power is white unity and identity. So, even though they personally dislike the Muslim Way, they suppress their animus and push the Shining Ideal of White Women as comrades of People of Color as all of them are victimized by Evil White Males like Kavanaugh and Haven Monahan. Feminists and Jews put a bounty on Kavanaugh’s head:

    Also, the main threat to the white race in US and Europe is not Islam but blacks. Africans are the ones who are exploding in population. And black men are the most violent and thuggish in America. Generally, a white woman will be better off marrying an Arab Muslim than going with some Negro. But why does the Jewish-run media now feature black male and white female as the mixed-raced-supremacist ideal? Again, it is to break the unity of white men and white women, the main source of white power.

    This is what Jewish feminists on the inside and Jewish Male Power on the outside FEEL in common. Even though many Jewish men secretly loathe feminists(and act like by badboy hornballs like Harvey Weinstein) and even though Jewish feminists know lots of Jewish men are a bunch of ‘misogynistic’ portnoic pervs. what they have in common at the subconscious level if the Tribalism that identifies white unity and identity as the Main Threat. So, wink wink, they work together.

    As for white shikse feminists, they are just mindless NPC’s. Especially Northern European types, having lost their old religion and puritanism, need to find something new to feel morally puritanical about, and so they will latch onto anything that makes them feel sooooo self-righteous. They play on the Handmaid Tale trope, but their mindset is neo-puritanical. They cannot see the world in any way but ‘this way good, that way eeeeeeevil’.

    Reply
  8. TJ
    TJ says:

    The real core of our problem continues to go undiscussed:

    “. . .There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose. . .”
    ~ John Maynard Keynes

    1964- a little of Old America was left- silver was still considered to be money. 1965 to present- nihilistic hell ushered in- nothingness became the new god. . .

    The jewish principle of adulteration- replacing gold/silver with paper nothingness is the same as replacing Whites with blacks. . .

    Reply
  9. Deep North
    Deep North says:

    Women in their 20s and 30s are more interested in higher education, traveling the world and advancing their careers over family life. We have this view that our “aryan princess” are having endless sex and aborting our future children. Yes abortion affects birth rates, but I believe white female careerism is undermining our birth rates and relationships between the sexes.These women are on the road to become 50 year old childless career types.

    Reply
  10. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    s males are the dynamic and potentially dangerous component of all societies it makes sense that they would be particularly targeted by ethnic aggressors. Combine this fact with the fact that nearly all the leading lights of feminism have been Jewish women and you have reached the crux of the matter. By dividing the sexes, undermining the family and immasculating men the aggressor weakens the hosts ability resist aggression.

    Reply
    • Northern Woman
      Northern Woman says:

      Just like the slaves in Rome; most of the males that the Romans enslaved were sent to work in the mines or other dangerous occupations because they feared them.

      Reply
  11. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    This column by Dr Devlin is one of the best I’ve ever read.

    An eye opener, it shows the true colors of feminism from a European perspective.

    I’m so blessed to have discovered the Occidental observer, that has published such bright and incisive writers.

    We must go to great lengths to promote Occidental observer. It is a beacon of light in the suffocating and paralyzing darkness of antiWhite and anti-men (((power))).

    Reply
  12. John
    John says:

    MGTOW, sex separation, ectogenesis (artificial womb technology) are the responses. It is certainly a time to think about creating alternative societies composed entirely of white males (very preferably with high IQs only, for eugenics purposes, and not necessarily homosexual).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.