After The Pussification

For those who’ve been living on another planet for the past two decades, I once wrote a screed called The Pussification Of The Western Male, which took about an hour to write and was a stream-of-consciousness rant against the demeaning of men in Western society. The piece  garnered an immediate and voluminous online response (thank you, Insty), caused my host’s (website and email) servers to crash and necessitated finding a new host because they kicked me off. The responses I got in the mail — I didn’t allow comments at that stage — were interesting. A large number, of course, were vituperative squeals from feministicals and their girlymen cohorts, and included death threats and threats of violence against me and my family. (Most of those disappeared when I responded to them by email with my home address, and an invitation to take their best shot — and to bring a gun, because I surely would.) All sorts of liberal websites climbed on, garnering me awards such as “Worst Blogger On The Internet” (although, upon recollection, that award may have been for Let Africa Sink, another crowd-pleaser).

Almost all the hysteria was pure projection, for example: “He wants men to go back to being cavemen!” when even a cursory reading of the essay would have noted that I wanted precisely the opposite.

Another example: “OMG! He wants to take the vote away from womyns!” when all I actually wrote was that giving the vote to women may not necessarily have been a Good Idea because since that time, government has become increasingly nanny-ish and intrusive (which is true in almost every country in the world, and not just in the United States). I even offered a reward of $10,000 to anyone who could find — anywhere in my writings, not just in Pussification — an instance where I’d actually advocated disenfranchising women. Crickets.

What was also interesting was that I got several thousands of emails  from men who agreed with me — and well over five hundred from women who likewise felt the same and were either married to Real Men themselves, or who wanted real men to come back.

What I didn’t write in the essay, and should have, was to predict that if men continued to be marginalized, they would eventually quit the game altogether — because men, accustomed to playing competitively, have a keen sense when the rules of the game are tilted against them and just quit as a result. In modern-day parlance, this would be the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement. Here’s an old joke about just that:

Once upon a time, a guy asked a girl “Will you marry me?” The girl said, “NO!” And the guy rode motorcycles and went fishing and hunting and played golf a lot and drank beer and Scotch and had tons of money in the bank and slept with lots of different women and left the toilet seat up and farted whenever he wanted and lived happily ever after.

The End.

I also didn’t predict — because, as I said, I wrote the piece in an hour and didn’t think through the process — that men would start using the outcome of feminism to their own advantage: that if women were entitled to be like men and have casual sex like men, then men could take advantage of that mindset and design a process to make the whole thing a lot easier (because men build systems; it’s what we do). Thus the Pick-Up Artist (PUA) movement, which basically teaches Beta men how to simulate being Alpha and score with women. (Alpha men already know how to seduce women, and don’t need to have it systemized and codified.) Here’s an example of how a PUA turns a situation around:

She: “You’re not my type.”
He: “You’re not my type either. But you’ll have to do until someone thinner comes along.”

It’s a masterpiece: using a prime part of female negative self-image (all women think they’re overweight, regardless of actual tonnage) to throw her off-balance and make her vulnerable to his next approach. Another classic, this time in a debate or argument:

She: A man shouldn’t date a woman for over a year without making some kind of commitment.
He: I guess I missed the memo that gave you the power to decide how I should act.

At some point, of course, men were bound to rebel against this crappy status quo; my little rant was just a precursor to the reaction. (Note that I’m not claiming any kind of authorship of, or responsibility for that rebellion — I’m not that big-headed. But I think that my rage was indicative of what was to follow.) And if those feminists and liberal girlymen had listened to what I was actually saying and not projected all their silliness onto my words, they would not have been at all surprised by situations like GamerGate, Sad Puppies, the alt-Right (an interesting take on the last can be found here), and the like. 

There was also bound to be a reaction against political correctness as well as to the pussification of men — the two are linked, albeit tenuously at times. It seems clear, however, that the liberal establishment (which included feminists and academia) were blinded by their own arrogance and feelings of moral superiority. Well, guess what? Not everyone was going to submit to their little control-freak games, and now we have an interesting cultural polarization which rivals the political polarization. It’s the same phenomenon: don’t minimize me and set me apart, then complain when I create my own rules for my own game. When the rules are tilted and people feel slighted, they are inevitably going to withdraw from the process, whether it’s Brexit, MGTOW or electing Donald Trump as President.


(For those who are curious to see what all the fuss was about, I’ve re-published Pussification under the fold. Bear in mind that this was published in 2003 so many of the references are pretty dated by now, but the main thrust of the argument is still relevant today. And by the way: I’d also like to thank all those assholes out there who published the piece in its entirety without my consent and despite my complaints / requests to desist, and who even bowdlerized the fucking thing so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of their few readers. Did I already mention they were assholes?)

 

The Pussification Of The Western Male

We have become a nation of women.

It wasn’t always this way, of course. There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn’t sign the document.

There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like “You all can go to hell. I’m going to Texas.” (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.)

There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out.

There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President’s daughter’s singing.

We’re not like that anymore.

Now, little boys in grade school are suspended for playing cowboys and Indians, cops and crooks, and all the other familiar variations of “good guy vs. bad guy” that helped them learn, at an early age, what it was like to have decent men hunt you down, because you were a lawbreaker.

Now, men are taught that violence is bad — that when a thief breaks into your house, or threatens you in the street, that the proper way to deal with this is to “give him what he wants”, instead of taking a horsewhip to the rascal or shooting him dead where he stands.

Now, men’s fashion includes not a man dressed in a double-breasted suit, but a tight sweater worn by a man with breasts.

Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into gun barrels, as though men have somehow forgotten that guns are dangerous things.

Now, men are given Ritalin as little boys, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed.

And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like “swaggering”, “macho” and the favorite epithet of Euro girly-men, “cowboy”. Of course he was bound to get that reaction — and most especially from the Press in Europe, because the process of male pussification Over There is almost complete.

How did we get to this?

In the first instance, what we have to understand is that America is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one figure: Mother. It wasn’t always so: there was a time when it was Father who ruled the home, worked at his job, and voted.

But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media — and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more “protective” (i.e. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase “s”) social security.

I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don’t care a fig.

What I care about is the fact that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate men, to reduce them to figures of fun, and to render them impotent, figuratively speaking.

I?m going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture.

In the 1950s, the TV Dad was seen as the lovable goofball — perhaps the beginning of the trend — BUT he was still the one who brought home the bacon, and was the main source of discipline (think of the line: “Wait until your father gets home!”).

From that, we went to this: the Cheerios TV ad.

Now, for those who haven’t seen this piece of shit, I’m going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the campaign to pussify men. The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:

Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios?
Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that’s good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that.
LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy?
Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother.
Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to Mommy’s little dig: “Yes, Sally, that’s true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.”

That’s what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that.

But that’s not what men do, of course. What this guy is going to do is smile ruefully, finish his cereal, and then go and fuck his secretary, who doesn’t try to cut his balls off on a daily basis. Then, when the affair is discovered, people are going to rally around the castrating bitch called his wife, and call him all sorts of names. He’ll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Mom.

You know what? Some women deserve to be single moms.

When I first started this website, I think my primary aim was to blow off steam at the stupidity of our society.

Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I have no difficulty in calling Bill Clinton, for example, a fucking liar and hypocrite.

But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools — all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure.

And it doesn’t take much to see when all the things I love are being threatened: for instance, when Tim Allen’s excellent comedy routine on being a man is reduced to a fucking sitcom called Home Improvement. The show should have been called Man Improvement, because that’s what every single plotline entailed: turning a man into a “better” person, instead of just leaving him alone to work on restoring the vintage sports car in his garage. I stopped watching the show after about four episodes.

(The Man Show was better, at least for the first season — men leering at chicks, men fucking around with ridiculous games like “pin the bra on the boobies”, men having beer-drinking competitions, and women bouncing on trampolines. Excellent stuff, only not strong enough. I don’t watch it anymore, either, because it’s plain that the idea has been subverted by girly-men, and turned into a parody of itself.)

Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad about what we have become: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Playing on the homo Bravo Channel, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm (and so far, the only counter has been the wonderful South Park episode which took it apart for the bullshit it is).

I’m sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of homosexuals trying to “improve” ordinary men into something “better” (i.e. more acceptable to women): changing the guy’s clothes, his home decor, his music — for fuck’s sake, what kind of girly-man would allow these simpering butt-bandits to change his life around?

Yes, the men are, by and large, slobs. Big fucking deal. Last time I looked, that’s normal. Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That’s the natural order of things.

You know the definition of homosexual men we used in Chicago? “Men with small dogs who own very tidy apartments.”

Real men, on the other hand, have big fucking mean-ass dogs: Rhodesian ridgebacks, bull terriers and Rottweilers, or else working dogs like pointers or retrievers which go hunting with them and slobber all over the furniture.

Women own lapdogs.

Which is why women are trying to get dog-fighting and cock-fighting banned — they’d ban boxing too, if they could — because it’s “mean and cruel”. No shit, Shirley. Hell, I hate the idea of fighting dogs too, but I don’t have a problem with men who do. Dogs and cocks fight. So do men. No wonder we have an affinity for it.

My website has become fairly popular with men, and in the beginning, this really surprised me, because I didn’t think I was doing anything special.

That?s not what I think now. I must have had well over five thousand men write to me to say stuff like “Yes! I agree! I was so angry when I read about [insert atrocity of choice], but I thought I was the only one.”

No, you?re not alone, my friends, and nor am I.

Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really fucking sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.

When Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in that tournament on the men’s PGA tour, all the men should have refused to play — Vijay Singh was the only one with balls to stand up for a principle, and he was absolutely excoriated for being a “chauvinist”. Bullshit. He wasn’t a chauvinist, he was being a man. All the rest of the players — Woods, Mickelson, the lot — are girls by comparison. And, needless to say, Vijay isn’t an American, nor a European, which is probably why he still has a pair hanging between his legs, and they’re not hanging on the wall as his wife’s trophy.

Fuck this, I’m sick of it.

I don’t see why I should put up with this bullshit any longer — hell, I don’t see why any man should put up with this bullshit any longer.

I don’t see why men should have become feminized, except that we allowed it to happen — and you know why we let it happen? Because it’s damned easier to do so. Unfortunately, we’ve allowed it to go too far, and our maleness has become too pussified for words.

At this point, I could have gone two ways: the first would be to say, “…and I don’t know if we’ll get it back. The process has become too entrenched, the cultural zeitgeist of men as girls has become part of the social fabric, and there’s not much we can do about it.”

But I’m not going to do that. To quote John Belushi (who was, incidentally, a real man and not a fucking woman): “Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

Well, I’m not going to quit. Fuck that. One of the characteristics of the non-pussified man (and this should strike fear into the hearts of women and girly-men everywhere) is that he never quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Omaha Beach, guys.

I want a real man as President — not Al Gore, who had to hire a consultant to show him how to be an Alpha male, and french-kiss his wife on live TV to “prove” to the world that he was a man, when we all knew that real men don’t have to do that pathetic crap.

And I want the Real Man President to surround himself with other Real Men, like Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, and yes, Condi Rice (who is more of a Real Man than those asswipes Colin Powell and Norman Mineta).

I want our government to be more like Dad — kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions.

I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and “Mommy Knows Best What’s Good For You” regulations.

I want our culture to become more male — and not the satirical kind of male, like The Man Show, or the cartoonish figures of Stallone, Van Damme or Schwarzenegger. (Note to the Hollywood execs: We absolutely fucking loathe chick movies about feelings and relationships and all that feminine jive. We want more John Waynes, Robert Mitchums, Bruce Willises, and Clint Eastwoods. Never mind that it’s simplistic — we like simple, we are simple, we are men — our lives are uncomplicated, and we like it that way. We Were Soldiers was a great movie, and you know why? Because you could have cut out all the female parts and it still would have been a great movie, because it was about Real Men. Try cutting out all the female parts in a Woody Allen movie; you’d end up with the opening and closing credits.)

I want our literature to become more male, less female. Men shouldn’t buy “self-help” books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don’t improve ourselves, we improve our stuff.

And finally, I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of the late Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: “To ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.”

In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.

Because that’s all that being a Real Man involves. You don’t have to become a fucking cartoon male, either: I’m not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussies — they wouldn’t last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know).

Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why date rape is supposedly such a problem on college campuses*? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?

It’s a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.

Because only the strong men propagate.

And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.

And he won’t. Because Rummy’s been married to the same woman for fifty years, and he wouldn’t toss that away for a quickie. He’s a Real Man. No wonder the Euros hate and fear him.

We?d better get more like him, we’d better become more like him, because if we don’t, men will become a footnote to history.

 – 0 –

*since debunked as bullshit, based on crap statistics

39 comments

  1. This was the first thing of yours I ever read, I’d be willing to bet a lot of your readers could say the same.

    There’s definitely a reaction among men, from the number who are refusing to get married because divorce is so expensive, to the rise of the man-cave, to web sites like The Art of Manliness.

    There’s a fundamental difference in the ways men and women socialize, women get together to BE together, men get together to DO things together. So while my wife may spend an afternoon with her friend, just sitting and chit-chatting, I might spend an afternoon with a friend fishing, and hardly say a word beyond “toss me a beer”.

    I love what humorist Dave Barry said about men and women:

    “Guys are simple… women are not simple and they always assume that men must be just as complicated as they are, only way more mysterious. The whole point is guys are not thinking much. They are just what they appear to be. Tragically.”

    1. Dave Berry humor aside. I disagree, on average men have simple needs and women have complex needs. The level of complexity of the people themselves are very much different from that of their needs. I actually think on average the more complex one’s needs, the less likely one is to be all that complex apart from those needs (with a large mean shift between the male and female there in).

      1. My feeling is that most women cannot differentiate between needs and “wants”. Many of them don’t think there is a difference.

        1. Right now neither can most men. It’s the wages of the most freakishly abundant society ever.
          That said, some of this seems to apply MOSTLY to American women. (I might lobby my boys with “marry foreign.”)

          1. I should probably clarify. What you posted applies mostly to unmarried men. Notice I said “mostly”. Unmarried men don’t care about the difference between their needs and wants since their money is “theirs” to do as they please. Married men become utter realists about the difference between wants and needs because the burden is mostly on them to fund these items. Add to this that in a marriage, a woman all of sudden has access to another source of income. The female equation is, “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is mine, too.” Let’s ignore the fundamental female obsession with beauty, something that wastes thousands of dollars per year. Cosmetic companies can charge whatever they want for the promise that a product will improve a woman’s appearance. The joke is that young women don’t need much help. For older women, it is just a placebo. But, I digress. Take for example, oh, say, new bedsheets. You have four beds in the house. Somewhere inside the woman, a clock goes off and she “needs” to replace all the bedsheets. She goes to 10 different stores, goes online, compares thread count, type of fabric, and eventually decides on an 800 count Sateen cotton from Boil and Branch. Gets a sale price of $150 per set, so cost to you is close to $700 after tax and shipping. But, what was wrong with the old sheets? Sure, they may have been slightly faded after years of washing, but they had no holes. But, I saved you $300 because I got them on sale. Female logic. No, you cost me $700 dollars because you had a want, not a need. Male logic. This excludes the possibility that the wife will want to update the color scheme in the rooms, new accessories, etc. And so it goes until death do us part.

        2. Replying here, because I can’t reply to the second.
          Look, I know you won’t believe me, but you’re talking about mostly 21st century American-raised females.
          Yes, I’ll go through online shopping and evaluate threads, but usually when the frigging sheet tears (which happens. Because I forget to replace them.) And yes, it takes me forever because I usually buy as cheaply as possible.
          I was also raised to believe I had to be “worth it” which means the years we were raising kids and I was making no money I felt I could buy NOTHING. I still hesitate before making a purchase. Last week my husband pointed out my shoe had a hole, and would I PLEASE buy new ones? I told him I was waiting for a sale because the tennis shoes (which I’m reduced to wearing, mostly, for joint reasons) I can use are prohibitively expensive. He frog marched me to the computer, to get shoes.
          This is about normal.
          But men and women can both spend unconscionably. We have friends where the woman is NOT a clothes hog, but the man buys EVERY FILM. EVERY DVD or whatever has to be acquired. Because it’s new. And it came out.
          My own particular demon is history books. Fortunately I have learned to moderate the “I can’t read them all, so why buy them.”
          The point is most American women are not raised to contribute. I get that. They’re raised with “entitled to this or that.” So are boys now. I’m not seeing much difference from where I sit.

          1. Sarah, It must be a generational thing. My wife and I are older, and we both are somewhat frugal. Neither one of us like to spend money on ourselves. I have to force her to buy things for herself that she needs, and she does the same with me. Now, as we have gotten older and our financial position is more secure, we have still not gotten over the habit. I have a box that I save money in for when I want to spend on something outside of the budget, and she has an account in the bank where she does the same. Young people today, I think are not seeing things the same, because of the ready availability of credit. I don’t know, I am sure it is more complex than that. But there does not seem to be much difference between the genders now.

  2. Thanks for publishing this again, Kim. I always regretted saving a copy. The only point of disagreement I have with it is on the topic of dogfighting, but of course then again it was written before the Michael Vick thing came out.

    Just for this, I’m hitting your GoFundMe again.

  3. I love this.

    If you do not doubt that men or a man led family are currently being eviscerated by our society all you need to do is watch some TV. any sitcom or drama the leading man is usually a befuddle idiot. As to families, Disney has sold rafts of storied that only have two kids and some demon they are fighting. No parents in sight or discussed.

    I don’t know about you guys but I am about to let my son go solo on a church support humanitarian mission trip to Puerto Rico. He is 15 and currently holds the rank of 1st degree black belt and life scout. I think he can probably handle himself with out a problem. This will be a sort of solo test to check that out, as he will be with a group. I would not have allowed this 2 -3 years ago, however.

    Yes, it is hard to find good men anymore. I will get a chance later this year to try and rescue my son in law. He is a Bernie supporter so that should give you an idea of the job I have put upon myself.

    This is a spot on article as it was in 2003 when you first broached it. If anything the problem has become more acute.

  4. Most women are natural Marxists because most women are naturally family oriented. Marxism works well for a family: genetics promote altruism. In a family, “From each according to means; to each according to need” works well. But it doesn’t scale much above family worth a damn. So, Marxism is like bubble sort: simple, logical and even elegant at small scale but a horrendous, even deadly nightmare at larger scale.

    This is the basic drawback of XIX.

    1. Most women are conditioned to be compliant with the crowd, both by evolution (PROBABLY) and by training. Most women are also fine within the family. It is telling women they can no longer even have a family that makes the whole thing poisonous.
      Women who have families are not Marxists. They are powerfully proprietary towards their families and “you shall not tell me what to do with mine.” Voting records, and frankly every other record back this. Women who are married and have children are not the left’s minons.
      It is the crazy mix of taking female social instincts and instilling in girls the “shame” of wanting to be married and have kids that turns women into crazy liberals. But be assured, sir, it turns boys into crazy liberals too. Men are competitive and right now the left has the social status. To climb to the top you must signal left LOUDER. And THERE is your problem.
      So what are you doing about it? Other than believing women are “just borned like that?” A lot of us are laboring in the word and culture vines. There is always room for more.

    2. Being female does not mean that we are without reason. Obviously. what works on small scale (e.g. family) does not necessarily apply to Government. Women are not as a class more liberal than men. Only some women are liberal wackos, just like some men — and none of them represent me

  5. I liked the essay, but more than the essay I enjoyed the response. I also liked your response to the threats of mayhem – bring it. I’m armed.

    I hated that damned Cheerios commercial, and the other commercials like it, and the SitComs that portrayed men as being somewhat goofy, lovable incompetents. Anyway… thanks for writing and reprinting this.

    1. Believe it or not, there was a Cheerios commercial which was even more vomitous than that. A father, a child, and a 4 or 5 months’ pregnant mother were having breakfast. There were some Cheerios on the table, and dad was explaining to the daughter about the family using these bits of cereal: one was Dad, one was Mom, one was Daughter, and another was Brother- or Sister-to-Be. The child then reached into the pile of Cheerios and said (demanded) “and a puppy!”, with a smug look on her face. I hadn’t wanted more badly to punch a child in the face since *I* was a child. I’m sick to death of Hollywood and the Product Whores (I know, I know, advertising is a legitimate function of capitalism, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it) making children the rulers of the roost. A child denied the least of their wishes is a victim of crappy parents at best; at worst, she’s being abused. Bah.

      (Side note: The Mother in this advert was white, the father was black, the child(ren) was (were/will be) what used to be called “mulatto”. And we all know how the Precious Snowflakes reacted to ANY criticism of the ad’s content.)

      1. That’s become common over the past decade. Advertisers are heavily promoting couples made up of white women and black men. You can argue as to why, but it is beyond argument that it is a thing.

  6. I have a teenage son. The attitude of teen boys towards girls is completely different than it was when I was in High School. There is a healthy dose of suspicion and caution when it comes to females (both probably healthy developments).

    There are plenty of boys like mine who are what we would have considered “normal” 30 or 40 years ago. They play sports, lift weights, shoot, hunt, talk tough to each other, etc… My concern isn’t about my boy growing up okay – it’s how society might treat him for being normal.

    1. That’s because they have grown up watching how their divorced dads were treated by Mom and Family Court, while also watching Mom be a total whore.

  7. ‘KIM you magnificent bastard!’

    For some reason I was thinking about your Pussification posting this week and that was how in years long ago I discovered your old website. There was so much truth in your observations and the nutty backlash was an incredible amount of fun to see. I was amazed at the folks, mostly womenfolk who could not just shrug you post off but went nuts because you said a lot of stuff that seemed to make sense.

    I am thankful the womenfolk in my family, wife, two daughters and daughter-in-law like their men being men, lots of guns and shooting and raising sons to become men and daughters to be women. Man we live in interesting times.

  8. I’m sure that even the feminist women don’t really want the girly men they’re creating.
    There’s a great episode of “Parks & Rec” where April and Andy are trying to set up a Womyn’s studies professor with sensitive Chris… and after dinner, she instead goes off with Ron Swanson- the proud meat eating, wood working, government hating libertarian man’s man of the show.

    Meanwhile, Hollywood is hiring Aussie dudes because the crop of American actor-wannabees is too girly looking.

    1. Of course they don’t, Joe! How on earth could a travesty like that ever satisfy a woman? This is why feminists are so miserable. They’re trying to destroy the very thing they need. How messed up is that?

  9. If a man does his best, what else is there? George S. Patton
    do not ever doubt being the Man you should be, regardless of result, some results may vary, consult your doctor if conditions persist

  10. Welcome back Kim. You’ve been missed. And a big Thank You for re-publishing “Pussification”. I look forward to more of the comments – especially the ones from “womyn” and some of their “woyms” (think a thick NewYawk/New Joisy accent).

  11. Dear Kim,
    I congratulate you on being one of the three most evil people in the world. Why three? Because Kate Paulk and I have a similar claim. And the weird thing is I’ve said much what you said here in an early blog post, and while I had to close it to comments, due to crazy people making it their job to comment calling me names, no one reacted as badly as they did to you. I presume because I was not (yet by some years) out of the closet, they assumed the nice Latina immigrant couldn’t mean what she’d SAID.
    I got declared the most evil person in the world for saying that you shouldn’t be allowed to kick someone out of the human race by lefty consensus (or any other way. Evil is still all too human.) I don’t remember why Kate got declared the world’s worst person, but I think it was for telling feminist idiots they’re like the glittery Hoo-Has of romance, only with feminism. (They are also convinced Kate used Glittery Hoo Ha because she’s too delicate to write “vagina” even though Kate is Aussie and … well… speaks like one.)
    Anyway, I didn’t realize that you were part of the worst person in the world club. I shall get Kate to send you the trophy for a third-of-the-year rotation. (Sometimes she uses it to feed her cats, so keep silver polish on hand.) And now that we are a triumvirate, let’s go to Rome and take over!
    PS- you’re not imagining the squirrel on a treadmill tone of this post. This was written under the influence of prednisone. yay.

  12. Kim, glad to see you back tall in the saddle after lo, these 14 years after your seminal post, The Pussification.
    Unfortunately, even today I can regularly point out to my daughter pussificating TV ads that push product by castrating men as a punchline. It seems as though whenever Madison Avenue is bankrupt of ideas for a new ad campaign they can always count on the go-to trope of pussifying males for laughs.
    Wanna destroy Western culture? Pussify men to the point that no woman wants to breed with them and declining birth rates will take care of the rest. It’s no wonder that a feminized culture wants to invite in the barbarians at the gate.
    Men build, women decorate.

  13. Kim, a suggestion: It might be useful for those of us who constantly quote and link your greatest hits if you gathered them into a menu item where we could easily find them here on the site.

    I’ve linked Let Africa Sink dozens of times over the years (and again just now), but the only dependable link heretofore has been at Free Republic. Seems like it could be a good opportunity for you to grab a little more traffic for your new site.

  14. On the show MadMen, the boss is asked the question, “What do women want?” His answer is priceless. “Who cares?” When women demand shit, throw shit fits about everything under the sun, and question everything a man does, mostly they deserve to just be ignored. The best answer is no answer, and just go our own way. Men don’t have time for womens’ bullshit because things have to get done, not talked about. Every time they drive down an Interstate Highway, or across a steel bridge flung across a major river, they should think about that.

  15. If you think about it, the de-masculization of men is only part of the goal. They also are working to the de-feminization of women. For all their talk of “choice”, a woman who wants to have lots of children, and raise them herself will be mocked and denounced by feminist.

    In both cases, the war is not on masculinity or femininity, but instead on adulthood. Keeping boys and girls from becoming adults means that they are more reliant on Big Brother.

  16. You have every right to be single if you want. Marriage and children is not for everyone. All the venting you see here, LindaSoG, is from men who have experienced the whiplash of “feminism” at the hands of women who wield it like a toy, and use the system to use men like paper towels and ATMs’. Not saying there is anything wrong with a woman going her own way, or determining her future, quite the opposite. What we are saying is that there is a natural order to some basic things in man/woman relations, and Marxism with its terrible child, feminism, has turned that natural order into a monster that has robbed men and women of a great deal of happiness, using politics and the court system to pervert and then overthrow a basic building block of civilization. When you get your way at literally, the point of a govt. gun, you shouldn’t be surprised when the person having the gun pointed at them doesn’t want to play the game anymore. Boys resent growing up having the deck stacked against them. Think of the anger that boils within them, when at thirty, they find they are not men. And how many women now rage and despair, finding themselves alone, childless, no husband, and fifty. Feminism was sold as a bill of goods, supposedly to produce justice, equality, and dignity. It has no rewards except bitterness, loneliness, childlessness, and being unloved.

    1. heh.. I think you misunderstood my comment, but then, I guess it wasn’t very clear. Sorry about that.

      I meant the points made in the essay. I would marry a real man. Problem is, as Kim said… too much pussification. It could be where I live, So.Fla is not man friendly. I need to move to the mid-west…. Tennessee perhaps.

  17. The implication of the John Wayne-esque man is that women are safe and can rely on him to provide and protect. In other words “you can trust me with your life because I’m willing to die for you”. Many of the men I know are willing to go into debt for toys they don’t need, to better ignore children they don’t love and wives they don’t want. Women are standing around with kids, ignored and/or despised, trying their best to raise healthy adults.
    I think if men don’t like it (and the majority of women don’t either) they should DO something. Stand up. Show up. Invest in their family. Prove they are trustworthy. Women aren’t going to be convinced by stories of cowboys. We know too many cowards.

Comments are closed.