It’s that time again. That time where I take a deep dive into the internet’s underbelly, to take yet another look at the murky world of MRAs/MGTOWs. Yay.
Hmm, I have to conclude you’re a glutton for punishment.
Yes, yes I am. It’s why I support Liverpool FC. Moving on…
This article concerns the rise of feminism in Thailand, and how this apparently bad. Their comments will be in pink, anything he quotes will be in blue:
No sooner than masculinity and sexuality have been destroyed by feminism and liberalism in America do the elites who run the The Anglo-American Matrix, purveyors of New World Order propaganda, who are hell-bent on consolidating its power worldwide, set their evil eyes on the sexually un-repressed Land of a Million Smiles.
An Establishment media hit piece on Thai men just came out shaming them for everything from having multiple sex partners, to expecting sex from their wives, to drinking, and expecting their wives to look after the family.
Think its harmless? This type of culturally imperialistic propaganda was astronomically successful at destroying the Western male beginning in the 1960s. And now it’s spreading around the world. Look out, gender equality (a Matrix code phrase which really means female superiority) is set to infect the rest of the world’s traditional cultures if the Elite have their way.
I wasn’t aware that masculinity has been destroyed, unless your concept of masculinity is very fragile and involves demeaning women (and even that warped interpretation of masculinity isn’t dead, though it should be). And how exactly has sexuality been destroyed? What does that sentence even mean?!
Let’s dissect the Establishment media article promoting the same brand of feminist insanity that has turned the West into a demographically moribund basket case of sexual shaming and repression.
The Bangkok Times recently published this feminist propaganda piece, which oddly reads as if it could have been published in the Establishment’s own New York Times.
A survey has found that over 70% of Thai men have secret sexual relationships with women while almost half of them commit violence against their partners.
Tying secret sexual relationships in with “domestic violence” (women can beat the shit out of men, but men can’t smack a bitch) is a psychological tactic designed to paint normal male sexual behavior in a bad light.
Emphasis mine. Actually, the Bangkok Times isn’t tying anything to anything, it makes a statement, one it can hopefully back up, that describes two different means through which men in Thailand are hurting women. Later in his rant, they will parade their double-standard quite happily, but for now, let’s focus on the most disturbing part of his final paragraph…
It isn’t acceptable for anyone to beat the ‘shit’ out of anyone. Note that he doesn’t actually criticise the statistics here – if the survey’s results are accurate, nearly 50% of Thai men have carried some form of attack on their partners – and he dismisses this. This particular point will come up again during the article, and he remains silent on the issue.
The survey was carried out by the Women and Men Progressive Movement Foundation and the Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth) among 1,617 men aged between 20-35 in Bangkok and selected provinces.
The left is methodical and surgical in their marginalization of normal male behavior and normal heterosexual mores. They do “studies” which only get government funding if the outcome is already known – i.e. if the outcome of such studies paints men in a bad light. In this case, it’s no doubt to measure whether their propaganda techniques have been successful at emasculating a specific population subset.
The results showed that almost 72% admitted to having several secret sexual partners. In addition, 57% were liable to throw objects when angry and 69% went out on drinking sessions, according to a gender equality staff member of the foundation.
Anglo American women now openly brag about desiring and bedding multiple sexual partners, often while their “husbands” or boyfriends play the role of cuckold for them, while men around the world are now shamed for banging multiple chicks. The crucial difference is, for men banging multiple partners has been a genetic necessity since human beings climbed out of the slime due to the innate dishonestly, manipulation, and infidelity of females.
Riiiiight. So it’s perfectly ok for men to sleep around (apparently it’s a biological imperative), but wrong for women to do it?
The thing is, his ‘point’ here completely misses the point. If you’re single, then have as many sexual partners as you want (and this should apply to both men and women). If you are in a committed relationship, is that behaviour fair on your partner? I can’t work out if he’s critical of women sleeping around, of married women sleeping around, or both, but he is awfully quick to condone men sleeping around as somehow necessary, and once again doesn’t utter a word of condemnation about the violence.
Cliff’s Notes: Women love to cuck Beta males. Men evolved to have multiple sexual partners to ensure they made a genetic contribution to the next generation. Women do it because they want the seed of a bad boy and the financial resources of Old Reliable, Mr. Beta male.
What a load of rubbish (much like the whole Alpha/Beta thing). Not to mention hypocrisy. He is rallying in support of ‘Alpha’ behaviour and sleeping around, but this sort of man is hardly the sort of the man who will be able to provide a stable environment to raise children. Meanwhile, he attacks women for seeking out partners who can provide very same! Well guess what, maybe that’s because women are rejecting the idea that a ‘bad boy’ who sleeps around and doesn’t give a damn about them is a demonstration of masculinity. Maybe women want commitment and a stable, secure environment to raise children in (assuming they want children at all). Maybe what women want is for the double-standard in regards to sleeping around to be dropped.
Some of the talking points we are going over should sound frighteningly familiar to you. Feminists may slightly alter their tactics when targeting a population, but the boilerplate language stays pretty much the same, even when reported in foreign newspapers.
A great number of the men believed that birth control is the sole responsibility of the woman.
So, enlighten us, feminists. My body, My Choice only applies to killing an unborn fetus, it doesn’t apply to preventing that pregnancy in the first place? And believe us when we say My body, My Choice will soon apply to the male utility value you now take for granted.
Hang on – the point the article makes is that women are to be considered solely responsible for birth control – apparently this is not an issue to the men that want to spread their seed freely and without impediment, despite the situation it might land the woman in. ‘Fire and forget’ is an expression which comes to mind, and damn the consequences. His rant about body and choice misses the point completely – why should men have no responsibility when it comes to birth control? It’s men in America who seem to believe they can set the rules on abortion – one might argue they’re taking that responsibility – yet they aren’t responsible for whether they slip on a condom? Riiiiight.
Oh, that sentence in bold? I’ll be returning to that later.
One-third of those polled accepted that married women were “owned” by their husbands and they must be responsible for household chores and looking after the family.
See how feminist boilerplate twists and distorts traditional sex roles that have worked for eons? Feminists want male resources and utility value to be owned by the collective but don’t want women to have any responsibilities to men or family.
I refer back to that bolded text, and I feel the need to yet again point the base hypocrisy here. He has no objection to women being regarded as property, and zero objection to women being reduced to utilities (clean the house, look after the kids, don’t have any other ambitions). He’s flat out stated men should be free to sleep around, as a matter of biology – well, how can a man look after his family in those circumstances?
He ought to figure what exactly it is that he wants to argue for – a strong ‘Alpha’ male who can be the head of the family and look after it and support it – or a strong ‘Alpha’ male who sleeps around because biology tells him to, and hang the consequences.
It also emerged that 45% owned up to physically hurting their partners when they were drunk and around 42% said that they pressured them to have sex with them.
Again, we see Establishment media attempting to tie together two disparate themes. One has nothing to do with the other, and yet physical violence is tied to men wanting sex from their partners. When the media does this, they’re manipulating the audience. Also, notice the language setting up the narrative that women control sex and men are just dogs who have to be thrown a bone once in a while. This is the same garbage that destroyed the flower of youth and sexuality in the West.
Once again there is zero condemnation of hurting women. There is also zero respect for a woman’s right to determine how she uses her body. The existing narrative (the one the article is critical of) is that men are free to regard women as objects to use and enjoy, not the other way around, despite his argument. Should either men or women ‘control’ sex? What does that even mean? If it means people make their own choices about who, when and how, then that is what’s best for everyone.
The survey results were issued on Monday to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This year’s “what men can do to stop violence” theme is set to raise public awareness to address the problem.
How about a “what women can do to stop financial exploitation of men” theme to address that problem? A “what women can do to stop being degenerate whores” theme is way overdue to come along in Anglo America, as well.
Once again he has the opportunity to voice support for movements to reduce violence against women, and he doesn’t. Instead, he tries to shift the focus to the behaviour of women, and doesn’t back that up either.
This is not the first time Thai men have been shown in a bad light. A survey by Durex in 2012 found Thai men to be the most unfaithful lovers in the world with 54% admitting to having affairs, followed by South Korea at 34% and Malaysia 33%.
Translation: Thai men have been repeatedly targeted for assimilation into the feminist collective. This a a collective that claims to worship at the altar of diversity while it destroys true cultural diversity. It assails men for being unfaithful while promoting female infidelity.
It’s as if a matriarchy that will turn human beings into the equivalent of a swarm of bees, with one queen and countless Betas toiling for her attention is the end goal of the propagandists who push this insanity.
Actual translation – women don’t want to be treated as second-class citizens and they have the right to want to move away from practices that do that. They have the right to not be harassed into sex. They have the right to not be beaten by their husbands. They have the right to want their partners to be faithful (after all, He cries so much about women being unfaithful, perhaps he should understand how it feels when the roles are reversed).
Feminists want men the world over to behave like the effeminate Western males they hate so much, rather than being accepting of the fact that traditional cultures with traditional sex roles have as much a right to exist as they do. They’re cultural imperialists who are everything they claim to hate, and are the very antithesis of diversity.
Hopefully, feminism killing the vitality of the West will cause the rest of the world to take note and learn a lesson before it’s too late and we all become One with the feminist Borg.
What is a traditional sex role? One where women are expected to be subordinate to male desires and never speak up? One where as part of that expectation men are free to beat their wives and sleep around? Traditional culture can co-exist with equality, but sadly this idea seems to be beyond his grasp.