by Bruce McGovern
Copyright © 1997 by Bruce McGovern
There are many theories about why American women run roughshod over American men, but only one seems to be consistent with the facts. Welfare makes individual men virtually unnecessary.
I started speaking out against feminism 30 years ago, in 1967. After I started counseling men, in the early 80's, I also began studying all the things one should know to counsel men through these terrible times.
Of course, I also started trying to figure out what on earth caused this horrible mess. I subscribed to all the newsletters I could find. I talked to men and women, and quickly learned that everyone had a theory. There were almost as many theories as men, and everyone argued with everyone else.
One thing I noticed was, no one was testing these theories. Argue, debate, argue the darn theories, but never bother to test the darn theories. Question was, how do you go about it?
Because you can't change societies or people around to see what happens, you need to look at reality, now, and as much as possible, in history. I decided if you can't find a theory expressed in reality, anywhere in the world, now or past, it's not a usable theory.
Maybe that's wrong, but that's what I concluded. People are a consistent variable. Every culture in the world has had every personality type one encounters today. Dominatrixes, butt holes, lesbians, feminists, bigots, misandrists, rapists, intellectuals, peacemakers, people who avoid conflict, etc. You can find them in Mexico, United States, Central America, anywhere in the world.
The personality types are always there. So, it's circumstances that dictate who has power. Thus, if we study long enough, we can ascertain what has caused male-smashers to obtain power. And, I felt that if we could find a primary or sole, cause, we could stop wasting time on side issues.
The most common theory, one that I subscribed to for a long time, was the political basis for laws. If we push and shove in the political system, by damn, we can get these laws corrected. Well, Dick Woods lobbied effectively, and got some good laws passed in Iowa on joint custody, and visitation enforcement. I believe other men had some successes in other states. But then the feminists shifted to the false-sex-abuse system of custody determination, and all the legal work went to naught.
About that time - 1983 - is when I first went to Mexico, and discovered a different world. Male-smashers simply don't have power in Mexico.
I realized I was sitting on a gold mine. Do doctors first study sick people? No, no, not at all. First, they study the relatively healthy anatomy and organs, to learn normal operation. Then, they begin to study deviations from the norm, and their cures.
Few activists in this country have seen a "healthy patient," that is, a society that isn't twisted with hatred for men. And, there I was, a totally pissed-off men's rights activist, spending up to a year, in a society where men are treated like humans.
I read the codigo civil (civil code) for several states, and talked and talked to an extremely brilliant (and extremely beautiful) niece, and her dad, an attorney. Slowly, over 10 years, I began to see the difference, based on what these two intellectuals told me.
"The women here don't pay much attention to feminists, because if they make their husbands mad, they may be sleeping in the street, or surviving as a beggar, a prostitute, or someone's mistress."
Hmmmm!
I developed the theory that misandry is caused by welfare - the substitute husband - so wives in welfare nations know they can make it without a husband. Women are inherently insecure, but they get pretty brave if they have a substitute husband available, who keeps on sending a check no matter what she does.
I "tested" my theory by looking at all the nations I could identify as misandrist, and they all have the Substitute Husband. Though my resources are not unlimited, I could find no exception, anywhere, not even in history.
I decided to present this theory to other men in the movement, and those loitering nearby. The longest that anyone would consider this theory was about 90 seconds. That's the longest - some men wouldn't even let me finish presenting it, before they interrupted me, and presented their 10-second theory.
Lots more theories, but no one tests theirs, they just want it to be taken seriously, because they thought of it, and if someone objects, well, then we're gonna fight.
So, where am I? Hung up, because I need help testing the theory, and no one will even listen to it. (Also, painting my house to sell, so I can move to Mexico.)
What about the other theories? Some suggest welfare has nothing to do with it, it's the other laws that encourage women to do smash men. What about that? Mexico has all the child support laws, all the divorce laws, including no-fault by mutual consent, etc. No male-smashing. Their divorce rate is an estimated 6 percent. (And no, Mexican law is not run by the Catholic Church.)
If not the law, then perhaps it's because wimps - "sensitive new age guys" - handed over the nation to the feminists. Wrong, again. In the sixties, when all of this began, the men running the nation were the War Heroes. From Kennedy, to George Bush. These men weren't wimps when it came to bullets, sinking boats, and death. But, they couldn't stand up to women.
Let's test it another way. Let's see if there is any welfare nation where the men successfully stood up to the women, and stopped male-smashing in its tracks.
Since it seems all nations that have welfare also are male-smashing nations, by definition there obviously can't be a nation where the men were able to stand up to the women, in face of welfare. The facts indicate men simply can't organize to stand up to women in a nation that has welfare. Welfare causes males to be unable to stand up to women, and thus welfare causes male-smashing.
I must admit, since no person can totally test a theory this big, that I don't claim to have proven it beyond any reasonable doubt. But, I think it deserves to be tested, instead of just rejected because someone else knows how to stare at his navel.
With that in mind, I have some questions myself, about this theory.
These questions notwithstanding, I am acting on my theory that welfare must be present before women will successfully form male-smashing power groups that take over societies. I am preparing to move to Mexico, a society that does not, and can not in the foreseeable future, have a system of welfare.
Not all women in Mexico are saints. Mexico has all the personality types that are found in every society. There are faithless women; women who pound on their husbands; feminists; lesbians; women who abandon their husbands and children. But in Mexico, bad women aren't treated like goddesses.
If a woman kills her kid, or husband, she goes to jail, period, and gets no sympathy from other women. Adulteresses don't get custody and child support, nor do they get sympathy from other women. Age of consent is 12 (it's her dad and uncles you gotta worry about). There is no marital rape.
There are false rape charges everywhere, since the days of Joseph, and Potiphar's wife; the difference in Mexico is, the cops ask her some hard questions. There will be no rape charges if she was naked in your bed for 2 hours, if you had sex the day before, or if she screwed some guy in a bar in front of other drunks, and the rest joined the fun.
Nor have I heard of an innocent foreigner being hauled away by the federales. The same wonderful press that bashes men with a vengeance is doing the same thing to Mexico. (Or, is it another feminist plot to keep the wimps from moving there?) Our people go down there and start drinking around, end up in jail, and tell these sob stories, as men raised by single mothers always do.
The "crooked" traffic cop you hear so much about lets you off the hook for about $7; cheap compared to our fines, and the people expect it to be that way, believing it's immoral for the taxpayers to pay someone for stopping violators. I'm not scared of Mexico; I'm scared silly of the United States.
It's fine with me if you guys tough it out here. I tried and failed to change things for you guys; now, I can sleep through your screams of anguish and despair, as you slept through all my efforts. There are only a few people I encourage to leave, and they are usually the ones who have tried to do something, and are totally burned out and pissed off. It's better for me if the losers don't come down and create hostility toward gringos.
At this point in my life, I am singularly uninterested in debating untested theories, but maybe that's obvious from this essay.
| Home | Boutique | Directory | Links | Definitions |
The Backlash! is a feature of New Chivalry Press
Copyright © 1993 - 1997 by New Chivalry Press
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.