MGTOW misogyny violence against men/women

>Spanking and Civilization


Some dude made this.

Always funny: Pompous misogynist doofuses who can barely string a sentence together pontificating on how “Men made civilization.” That’s the topic of a recent thread on NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum started by the mighty Ragnar — you may remember him as the co-inventor of the whole Men Going Their Own Way thing. In it he asks what he thinks are some profound questions about the past and future of civilization itself. And spanking.

There’s not much doubt that men made civilisation. …

If men really are the ones that took us out of the animal kingdom and the price payd for that is the occasional spanking of women.
Can spanking of women then be regarded as oppression?
If families are the building stones of society and thus different from primate promiscuity.
Can restrictions of female sexuality then be regarded as oppression?

Could it one day be regarded as ethical and higly moral to spank and restrict women, because it is related to a higher principle that is good for Mankind, their women and children?

Well, that sort of restriction was seen as ethical and moral in the past — here’s a good starting point for anyone interested in reading more on the subject — and still is among a significant number of people in the world (though not any I’m going to invite over to play videogames anytime soon). As for the future, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the answer to that final question will be “no.”

20 replies on “>Spanking and Civilization”

>"There's not much doubt that men made civilisation. … " Yeah, that really turned out well. In seriousness, uh, wow. That's an awfully specific act to keep the un-civilization making people kept in line. (I wonder who he thinks continues making civilizations? It couldn't possibly be those ladies, could it?)

>Civilization –> ??? –> spanking or Profit!Are you sure Ragnor isn't one of those gnomes who steals socks? Also, has this gnome ever studied ancient civilizations in any capacity??? Perhaps, if he wasn't just some idiot navel gazing and had actually done some, idk, research, he'd realized that his basic premise/assertion isn't even true…

>"There's not much doubt that men made civilisation. …"Yes, mostly by enslaving other men and women to do all the heavy, dirty, etc., grunt work that "civilised" men did not care much to have to do. Shall we return to enslaving others again, too?

>cue Eoghan, responding to the punchline of a joke (for some odd reason, the joke coming to mind when I read David's "Don't forget human sacrifice!") with his focus on 'blame da wimminz!!' for civilized society's dysfunctions.Yep, men who obviously don't shy away from taking the credit for civilized society's functionality seem to be rather reluctant to take the credit for civilized society's DYSfunctionality. Funny, that.Eoghan, a man who decries feminism as being a "top down hierarchy" appears to be blind to the fact that MAN-made civilized society is, from its very building blocks (the nuclear family) on outwards to civilized society at large, a top down hierarchy, the usage of spanking to discipline women (speaking in general here, not condoning nor condemning spankings that are for sexual pleasures) being only one of many ways that women have been compelled to cede the status of adulthood, the state of adulthood belonging to men alone in this top down hierarchy. Never mind how infantilizing of women one might believe DV and rape laws to be, there's nothing more infantilizing than the hierarchy of MAN-made civilized society that seeks to render women to the position of perpetual children. And then we can blame these 'nothing-more-than-grown-children' for breeding dysfunction and war into society, rather than looking at how dysfunction and war are the cornerstones of MAN-made civilized society. So maybe there IS some truth to the title of the poem "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world", in that the hand rocking the cradle is the hand of the adult.

>Well, I'm sure Eoghan's stupid comment will be deleted as he is banned for repeatedly violating commenting policies, but I do think it's weird that he has come to the conclusion that women are responsible for societies ills from a study based on female monkey's behavior with their offspring which includes no perspective of paternal monkey behavior at all. Not even close to good enough to prove his point. Common sense is that abuse and neglect by EITHER parent will lead to dysfunction. There are persons of BOTH genders that abuse and neglect children.

>Pam, you said it! There's nothing like making people build something for you and then taking credit for it. The guy that "invented" Q-tips for instance. He saw his wife put cotton on the end of the tooth pick and clean out the babies ears and he claims that he invented the idea. In any corporate world, what he did is called Marketing. Taking an idea, tweeking it, naming it and packaging it. Marketing is important, don't get me wrong. But to claim that he invented it is a lie. His wife probably didn't think the idea up. She probably saw her mother do it and her mother do it and so on. That's one area where we women could improve, realizing our own power and taking credit for it in the market. But OOHH no, we couldn't do that, that might ruin our chances of getting married. LMAO! -Cheers.

>Out of curiosity, what did Eoghan say specifically, if anyone recalls? Not to disagree with our host's banning policy, but it's hard to respond to someone else's comment when you can't see it. I am interested in the study he mentioned, if only because I like monkeys. :3

>@thevagrantsvoice,Took me a few minutes of Googling "Orchid and Dandelion Children" to find the link that Eoghan posted. It wasn't a lengthy response from Eoghan, it went something like this….It's maternal abuse and neglect that breeds dysfunction and war into society:The Science of Success

>Oh, forgot to mention, Eoghan's reply was addressed to me and that is why I directed my response back at him. What he responded had nothing to do with what I said in my previous two posts.

>What Pam said (her comment was spam-filtered, but is now directly before yours). People, just ignore Eoghan. He was banned for being disruptive. And because Blogger doesn't enable me to actually ban people (just delete their comments after the fact), he continues to be disruptive after the fact with spammy, off-topic posts. (He made this claim about maternal abuse umpteen times in umpteen threads already.)

>Oooops, sorry David, I didn't realize that you had banned Eoghan or I would not have responded, knowing that my response wouldn't make much sense being directed at a post that no longer exists. Can't say that I blame you for banning him, though, as although he was not abusive in his language towards others (not in posts of his that I read, anyway), he was not only disruptive with his spammy, off-topic posts but also in his proclivity to completely misconstrue what I and others said in some of our posts and then run with this misconstruction over and over again. There were a few threads that I was engaged in that I soon opted to abandon because it was like chasing my tail having to repeat over and over again that I did NOT say what was being represented as my point of view.

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.