$MONEY$ alpha males atlas shrugged beta males evil women I'm totally being sarcastic marriage strike MGTOW misogyny MRA

Ladies: He’s Going Galt — and it’s all your fault

Screw you, sister! I'm Going Galt!

Ladies! Better move fast if you want to sink your talons into some hard-working, high-earning beta man-wallet! Men’s Rights Redditor ShinShinGogetsuko is on to you ladies and your devious ways, and he’s taking his video games and going home. By which I mean: he’s GOING GALT!

Men are choosing to reject the culture that is being forced upon them which tells them to be anything but MEN. What they want us to be is slaves, to throw away our souls and toil away while women get to do whatever they want in the name of “female empowerment” and with a court system that will side with them. Equality is the ideal, but it’s not about equality–it’s about control. Men are going Galt.

When society takes a stand against the destruction of men’s character, then men will return to being men. Until then, Xbox 720.

See, I wasn’t kidding about the video games bit.


Thanks to tim-buckles on ShitRedditSays for the link (and the screenshot).




235 replies on “Ladies: He’s Going Galt — and it’s all your fault”

I once managed to live without a bank account and credit cards. It made rebuilding my credit incredibly hard and that is why it took my five years to buy my condo rather then two like it should have.

The only way I was able to do it was by 1. not having a car (my car takes up about $600 a month in gas, car payment, insurance and other incidentals), 2. only obtaining work near where I lived, 3. never traveled and 4. finding a room for rent that was $225 a month for nearly ten years. (There was no AC for the first six years during most of the summer. OY)

It also helped that I am single with no kids.

Life sucked, especially the one time my purse was stolen right after I had cashed my check. With a bank account, that problem does not occur.

Elizabeth–thanks for bringing up credit ratings! If you don’t have a credit card and bank account, not only will you not be able to own a home or car, but you’re undermining your ability to ever own a home or car in the future.

Brandon: The Post Office (like the Army) is a requirement of the Federal Gov’t.

As such it’s “job” is to provide (from taxes, be it stamps, fees, or direct support) a service.

Just like the Army.

There is no reason the Post Office should be looking to make a profit. In fact, asking it to make a profit is asking to overcharge people for a mandated service.

Dave, we are arguing about the Post Office because Brandon says the private sector is tops, and the gov’t can’t do anything right, and “going galt” is good.

Nor should it be expected to break even-it should do the job it is tasked with regardless of expense because it, like the military, is required.

Also, how come he never bothers to point out the giant waste that goes on in the military?

I can understand being careful with the money that is allocated (despite what he may assume about the government, even the most die hard socialist knows that there is only a finite amount of money to be spent) however if it means that it cannot be self-supporting, it cannot be self-supporting.

@Elizabeth: That has to be the dumbest comment ever. Government services should manage and budget their money to get the most bang out of their buck. We could just through millions of dollars at the USPS, but that means other services would suffer. There isn’t an infinite amount of money in the world. Well, we can print as much as we want…but then inflation would make it worth less anyways.

Taxes also follows a reverse parabola (The Laffer Curve). This is where raising taxes past a certain point actually decreases tax revenue for the government. It could be 35%, 40%, 55% or more. But there is a “sweet spot” where a lower tax percentage can actually bring in more tax revenue than a higher tax percentage.

Again, I don’t expect the USPS to make a profit. Since it is not getting a lot of tax dollars, that means that it is undercutting itself by maintaining prices and fees that are too low to remain in business. They can solve that problem a few ways (since the operating loss isn’t that much):

1) Make postal routes more efficient.
2) Lay off redundant workers
3) Find technology that can help automate the process more
4) Increase stamp prices
5) Increase fees to third party post meter companies.

@Pencunium: In my own experiences, I find I receive the best service from private companies. Anytime I am dealing with the government, I find staff is rude or unhelpful, the process is long and pointless and I end up doing a lot of waiting. If I had to either go to Verizon to buy a new cell phone or go to the DMV, I would rather go to Verizon everytime.

Even though most government services don’t have any out of pocket expenses, I would rather pay them just so I can get the hell out of there and get on with my life, instead of waiting an hour and filling out a bunch of pointless, redundant paperwork. But paying them won’t actually move the process along.

@Katz: The military is incapable of running for a profit since it doesn’t charge citizens out of pocket. They get assigned a budget and if they use more, they are operating at a loss. If they don’t use the whole budget, the money gets recirculated back into the system.

Most of the time, government agencies go on a spending spree if they haven’t used all of it since they wont get back the same amount of money next year.

“Most of the time, government agencies go on a spending spree if they haven’t used all of it since they wont get back the same amount of money next year.”

Actually, no. The budgets usually increase, even if the organization doesn’t need it. It’s almost impossible to put in for less money.

I died. Thanks, Brandon, you accomplished what East Coast drivers never could and finally finished me off. :p

1) Make postal routes more efficient.
2) Lay off redundant workers
3) Find technology that can help automate the process more
4) Increase stamp prices
5) Increase fees to third party post meter companies.

They have been doing that. They have been doing that for years now-doing as much as they can to ensure that things are as efficient as they can be. So the idea that they are just not breaking even because they are lazy inefficient tax slurpers is belied by the evidence.

They cannot break even and as a required agency of the government, why should they? Careful with money? Sure, they should be. Break even? Not if it means shorting on the duty they have.

Also, they are better with money then the military is. The military is the spoiled darling of the US discretionary budget.

That has to be the dumbest comment ever. Government services should manage and budget their money to get the most bang out of their buck. We could just through millions of dollars at the USPS, but that means other services would suffer.

You mean like the TRILLIONS of dollars we throw at the military?
Think about how other services have suffered.

Taxpayers in The United States will pay $122.0 billion for Afghanistan war spending for FY2011. For the same amount of money, the following could be provided:
56.2 million Annual Energy Costs for a Household for One Year OR
62.5 million Children Receiving Low-Income Healthcare for One Year OR
1.8 million Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR
11.8 million Fair Market Rent for One Bedroom Apartment for One Year OR
2.0 million Firefighters for One Year OR
16.0 million Head Start Slots for Children for One Year OR
52.6 million Households Converted to All Solar Energy for One Year OR
110.5 million Households Converted to All Wind Energy for One Year OR
15.6 million Military Veterans Receiving VA Medical Care for One Year OR
58.3 million One Year Worth of Groceries for an Individual OR
25.1 million People Receiving Low-Income Healthcare for One Year OR
1.8 million Police or Sheriff’s Patrol Officers for One Year OR
15.5 million Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR
22.0 million Students receiving Pell Grants of $5550

They cannot break even and as a required agency of the government, why should they? Careful with money? Sure, they should be. Break even? Not if it means shorting on the duty they have.

They’d have a budget surplus right now if the Bush administration hadn’t forced them to fully fund health care coverage for retirees for the next 75 years, an obligation which costs $5.5 billion per year and which no other federal agency is required to meet. The current crisis the post office is in, the one against which Congressional Republicans are calling for layoffs and branch closures in poor or rural areas…is completely manufactured.

Somebody brought this up earlier but Brandon didn’t pay attention. Maybe he will now?

@VoiP, Ah, there it is. I couldn’t find the source of the pension BS.
I was pretty certain that it was a Republican issues, since their M.O. is smashing things with a wrecking ball and yelling “See!? It doesn’t work!!!”

Brandon: As I have stated above, I am fine with government services that charge for their services to not make a profit.

Lets use the wayback machine and see what you said on page 2 of this thread:

I want practically everything motivated by profit. Then maybe I will actually get a decent product or reliable service. More often than not my time dealing with the govt is slow, convoluted and a pain in the ass.

Yes I am well aware of that. However, I think it is slightly disingenuous to pick an industry that is basically a government monopoly. If you want to pick something slightly better, you can go with the USPS…which UPS, FedEX and email are basically destroying the USPS. Government services when competing against private companies will most likely lose in the long run.

So even with more money from the government…they can’t even break even. Nevermind turn a profit. I can live without quasi-govt/private companies not making a profit (since they are funded by taxpayers). But they should at least break even.

So, you want everything to turn a profit, but you also want less regulation and you don’t care that FexEx/UPS/DHL use the, de facto, subsidy of being able to exploit the fixed costs of the USPS to undercut them.

Then you complain about how they, “can’t compete”.

You say the Army isn’t comparable to the Post Office, because they don’t provide a chargeable service. Never mind that nothing in the Constitution says the Post Office ought to be charging.

(yes, I mentioned Blackwater, mostly because that’s a case of a similar sort of service; if Blackwater’s (sorry, XIE) use of gov’t equipment was as obvious as FedEx, et al, I could make a more direct comparison there too, but they aren’t as blatant/visible if you aren’t in theater with them: Perhaps we should look at KBR, which is charging more money than it would cost to have soldiers providing LSA services [and would do a better job. KBR refused to deliver promised services becauase the roads weren’t safe; so soldiers, and vehicles, had to be detailed to escort/guard them, which had a notable effect on the mission).

@Pencunium: In my own experiences, I find I receive the best service from private companies.

Ever misaddresed a letter and handed it to FedEx? They don’t deliver it.

I had a girlfriend who was going to school in San Diego, when I was in LA. I managed to write her address down incorrectly. It was six months of misaddressed mail getting to her before I had one thing come back to me as, “undeliverable.”

Every single piece of mail, for six months, at a whopping 34 cents an oz., and they went to the effort to get it to the right place; no extra charge.

I could have spent more money to send it FedEx, on the theory that, “the best service” comes from private companies. I’d have had that mail come back to me.

Profit as a motive to increase service. Hmm. Maybe in the diamond-tipped manicure realm, but in the every day realm that most of us have to deal with, it leads to using shoddy materials, cutting corners, and treating staff like crap until they burn out or quit in disgust.

True story: seven buildings worth of condominium apartments in my town were recently condemned. These buildings were built less than 10 years ago. The builders cut corners and the inspectors failed to notice the complete lack of structural support. (There was more shit going on, but honestly, the inspector fail alone is enough to fry my brain.)

That’s a few hundred people whose life savings are tied up in mortgages for condemned apartments that they will be years in resolving (lawsuits ongoing). Because of profit motive.

You know what would have been a basis for better service? Ethics. There’s a reason that people are talking about the “triple bottom line” these days.

i have a question which is how can women tell men that masculinity is not in a downward spiral its like telling a lady there cramps or labor pain during periods or child birth are not that serious. i fell like alot of boys are punished for well being boys its generally known boys play rough but every time i see boys rough housing they get no lee way. yes i know bullying is no good but there are alot of boys that like to play fight dose that mean they should be aloud to fight all out of course not but letting them go a little is healthy .is it wrong boys and men to like violence ?

I don’t get your analogy at all.
Being active is fine. Lots of men and women are active. People can wrestle and fight with eachother if all parties feel like it. My sister and I would play wrestle with my dad when we were younger.
I’d think the same kind of rules that apply to sex apply to play fighting. If you’re both into it, if it stops whenever one of you wants it to stop (like when somebody loses a lenses in their glasses or really hurts themself tripping over a tree branch), then there’s no problem.
As far as kids are concerned, they just need to know the boundaries. Don’t roll in the mud in nice clothes, don’t pick a fight with someone, don’t fight in the classroom or anywhere with fragile or dangerous objects around, don’t use knives, don’t aim to kill or injure, yada yada. That applies to all gender identities.

@Amnesia i think you miss some of what i am saying, men and women i take that title for adults ,adults its a different thing we have enough sense to know no and yes. i mean boys 5 6 7 little kids where sense is not high and just that urge to run and punch and so forth .i was once little and use to love to fight and fight all the time i did .by the time i hit third grade i have no clue but all that just faded i am 25 now .what i mean to say and please hear me out if you consider most schools have zero tolerance then how can boys rough house and play fight play wrestling and so forth. the way things are now oh your kid is suspended or expelled for actions like that . if your 100 % honest who dose that more then likely affect girls who yes some will try to play fight or boys where most will try to play fight. i consider that boys tend to have that urge to play fight and as we get older work out or keep play fighting or just stop .the reason i mention boys is to say are we 100% the same as girls ? no we have testosterone at much higher levels thats what gives us a huge difference to say that is not relevant would be crazy since every one knows steroids tend to cause roid rage do to testosterone where people may get more violent ,not all but some do or get more aggressive . and i fell like this goes back full circle to what i was saying earlier with masculinity being in a downward spiral . this is just to say to boys not grown men there are things for us to .

Heero: Schools in the past were much stricter in enforcing obedience and discipline, and that’s boys’ schools I’m talking about. For some reason, boys did just fine in those systems. The rules against fighting and “rough-housing” only became a problem once girls entered the school system.

It is an important part of growing up, learning to respect other people’s physical boundaries, following the rules and repressing one’s “urges” for the purpose of co-existing with one’s peers. If a child can be taught not to urinate in the middle of the classroom despite the fact that urination is “natural”, that child can also be taught not to get violent all the time just because he has testosterone. If men’s testosterone levels are so high that they can’t help being destructive, perhaps men should be institutionalized for everyone’s safety. But you don’t want that, do you? Besides, careful observation shows that boys of any age are perfectly capable of controlling their supposedly testosterone-fueled mischief when they feel it is in their interest to do so. It’s like that whole debate as to whether a teenage boy can stop mid-coitus with a girl; if he can stop seeing her father come in, he can stop, period.

Whenever someone starts talking about differences between boys and girls, the point ISN’T that each gender should be allowed to follow it’s “natural” tendency, even if it’s destructive, but that boys — and boys alone — should not have any rules applied to them because it’s in boy’s “nature” not to be bound by no stupid rules. Sorry, but that’s not how the world works. If you want the benefits of being a member of society, you have to behave yourself, and it’s no harder for boys than it is for girls. By contrast, teaching little boys that they don’t have to respect other people’s boundaries or play by the rules because rules and boundaries are “for girls” leads to them growing up to be men who don’t take “no” for an answer, prioritize their wishes over other people’s comfort and bodily integrity, break the law and resort to violence when they think they can get away with it.

Besides, if you want to play-fight, go ahead — on your own time and off the school property. The purpose of school isn’t to indulge someone’s “natural” beastly urges, but to impart education. Schools are absolutely right to have zero tolerance for conduct that interferes with this purpose.

i think your telling me boys can check them selves yes but then again when boys where aloud to rough house and i mean with other boys that like to play fight the harm was ? also not always in the class i was one that did fight in class but mostly on recess where you can go all out . again i am not aiming for girls anything since i fell like boys cant even pander to there “beastly urges” so you say also most boys are falling behind in school now a days of course it be crazy to link the 2 but i would assume you have heard that the teaching lessons are more geared towards girls probably just crazy talk .and this one pay attention to no way do i want my kids out after school jesus you see these kids there so rude i live in nyc alot of these kids are just trouble making till god knows when cause no parental checking of any nature, out till 2 or 3 am doing well no good.

you know what i kind of fucked my argument up there is a clear idea there but it did not come out .but where i was going with it was that i fell its kind of ridiculous that women can tell men there wrong on masculinity being under siege .i think my period cramps and child labor pain analogy was more then spot on cause if a man said oh god you and your bs cramp pain or child labor pain .well you call him a idiot cause he dose not go threw it my logic is how can women tell men that there wrong on something they fell that dose not include women ?

I guess heero’s never been in a kindgergarten class where the one kid who liked to bite was female, or a grade school where everyone played Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers (complete with kicking, though after the first week we weren’t allowed to kick actual people, just do air kicks.)

Actually, chicks also get a form of ‘roid rage: PMS. You don’t often hear about women going and beating guys up just ‘cuz their hormones make them feel murderous, tho. 😉

well not completely true women do tend to hit there bf alot during that time of the month at least mine dose but once in a while i pick her up and just kind of slip and well whatever i dont start it but i let it fall where it falls .as for being in school being biten by that one girl yea i had that but i knew i really get in trouble (my dad beat the shit out of me ,he did say if a girl try to kick you down there hit her as hard as you can )for hitting her so i just get piss and walk away .and power ranger well that started most of the fights who want to be the green ranger or red as for kicking i think none of use where gifted enough to kick into each other faces and body shots while they hurt where not that bad .


Re. the supposed boy crisis in school, I hear two mutually exclusive claims from MRA’s: On the other hand, boys are failing in school because lessons are somehow, mysteriously, geared towards girls; on the other hand, boys do so much better than girls in academic work, ’cause men rule!! Sorry, but you have to pick one or the other; you can’t have both. And besides, fighting and rough-housing, even centuries before feminism, were never used as teaching tools.

Re. child birth and PMS: Are you SERIOUSLY comparing a boy’s urge to hit someone just ’cause with the pain of childbirth? Seriously? You know, I suppose it’s true that you can’t judge the amount of pain for yourself because you’ll never be in child birth, but consider the objective manifestations: the pain of child birth makes women lose control of their bowels, many women suffer tears of the perineum (ever experienced what a torn ass-crack feels like?), and you have that whole small matter of something the size of a football squeezing through the opening the size of a tea-spoon. Do boys experience anything like this as a result of being told to spend 6 hours a day without fighting?

And besides, even putting the comparison aside — women don’t give birth in a public place. We don’t normally go into labor in the middle of a classroom, nor are any feminists demanding that something like this should be a right. Instead, we go to the hospital, or stay at home, and have our labor in a place and in a way that does not inconvenience the general public or disrupt anyone’s school or work. If you are the father to the child being born and you think child labor pain is totally BS and annoying, you don’t have to be there.

If you are saying that I can’t opine on boys’ urges to fight and destroy things like men can’t opine on the pain of childbirth — fine. In that case, I suggest that boys in the throws of rage do what women in child birth do — remove themselves from the public eye and go to a special facility where they can duke it out without any cost to anyone else. Childbirth does not prove that boys have the right to do this at school.

As for cramp pain, girls are taught from an early age to control the symptoms of menstruating so that they don’t inconvenience anyone else. I am sure the same can be demanded of boys who feel an “urge” to hurt each other, destroy property, or disrupt other people’s learning.

Why do kids these days think their asinine ideas will gain validity if they write like they have a half broken keyboard?

UR not e.e. commings KTHNXBYE!!!

hellkell: I was drinking tea when I read your comment. Now there’s tea all over my keyboard.

Molly: OMG I totally used to play Power Rangers in school. And I went to an all girls school. The bad guys were imaginary so we must have looked silly punching and kicking the air. I was always the yellow ranger ^_^

@Pecunium: In reference to your comment at:

Clearly, you don’t understand the definition of “practically”. Private companies are required to turn a profit…otherwise they go out of business. Private businesses can stay afloat while in the red, but not forever. Sooner or later, they need to earn a profit.

Government services are in their own category in and of themselves. So while I wouldn’t mind if the USPS earned a profit and stopped taking taxpayer money, I can tolerate them just breaking even.

If the USPS was constantly losing money, it helps make the case as to why they shouldn’t exist. If there is enough demand for something, earning a profit is fairly easy. Only businesses that are finding it difficult to market their services have trouble earning a profit. So maybe, the USPS is outliving it’s usefulness and should be scaled back or they are under regulation they can’t comply with without wasting loads of money.

I am not a fan of the US paying mercenaries like XE (blackwater). If anything the role of government should be law, courts, prisons, military, roads and a few others. The things government is charged with…it should do. There are very few things that only government’s can do and it should do them without contracting it out. (war, courts, prisons).

How does USPS not earning a profit indicate that there’s no demand when FedEx and other equivalent services do earn a profit? There is demand or FedEx wouldn’t be earning anything. You’re flipping back and forth between “We don’t need it!” and “We need it to be done like those guys do it!”

@Katz: That just makes it even more ridiculous. If FedEx and UPS can earn a profit…then why is the USPS losing money? At the bare minimum, they can easily break even.

I am not flipping around. My point is, I don’t really care if the USPS stops operations, but since it does exist…it should not lose money (i.e break even or earn a profit).

Ooh Goody! Brandon is a Laffer Curve fan!

The problem with the Laffer Curve is not that it’s wrong but that it’s trivial. We know exactly three points on the curve: what happens with zero taxes, what happens with 100%, and where we are now. We have no idea the overall shape of the curve, where the maximum is, or how it changes shape from day to day. The curve could very easily have multiple peaks and valleys. Laffer convinced Reagan we were on the far side of the maximum and that reducing taxes would slide us up the curve. In the short run it worked, just like blowing your savings on coke “works.” In the long run it worked just like blowing your savings on coke would, also.

As for the USPS, how do you suppose FedEx and UPS get packages to really remote places? They mail them via USPS. Effectively they’re parasites on the USPS. USPS has tried repeatedly to shut down small and unprofitable post offices and been shot down by Congress. So USPS is required to do something FedEx and UPS can’t possibly do and make a profit – reach every single person in the U.S. Maybe we should ban FedEx and UPS from using the Post Office and require them to service the entire country and see how profitable they are. Also, USPS is required to have its employee pensions fully pre-paid. Now I’d support that plan if it were required of EVERY business, but it’s only a mandate for the USPS. Can you possibly figure out why?

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.