Almost three months ago we posted a piece titled Warren Perkin: “Ms Patterning: She’s Making MGTOW”. It included a free downloadable PDF of his book of that name. Today I received an email from Warren, reproduced here with his agreement. It takes up the remainder of this blog piece.
Hi Mike,
A bit of a stream of consciousness, this one, but see what you think. About three years ago, I read this 2002 book by Michael Steane, ‘The Rape of the Male Mind’. It’s well worth reading, a novel about the effects of feminism on a marriage, written by someone who must have been scarred by similar experiences. Slowly, he begins to understand the toxic effects of an ideology he had previously viewed as harmless, perhaps even beneficial to society (the idiot). However, sticking in my mind is his prologue:-
“Our big mistake was to give women the vote. After that, the modern male tragedy became inevitable. When women got the vote, they became the majority of the electorate. Politicians at odds with each other on every other issue fell over each other in order to pander to the female vote. These politicians being men did not understand what women want and so (convincing themselves that they were modern un-sexist men) wantonly gave away men’s rights. These are not the rights women want, but they are the rights men need. Thus men have been impoverished while women have not been enriched.”
What made me think about this paragraph again is the current situation in Ukraine. Zelensky complains about insufficient manpower, and looks set to alter the upper and lower levels for conscription. Perhaps he wouldn’t have found himself in such a pickle had he not allowed women to leave the country en masse, at the slightest whiff of danger. Had he followed the model of Norway or Israel, he’d have had plenty of female conscripts for logistics, catering, drone operation etc, etc. Everyone knows that they’d be useless as frontline troops, as women crumble in the face of sustained stress. The female response to stress hormones is entirely different to the male. Nature wants females to withdraw from stress, pronto, to protect their fertility.
Going back to Michael Steane’s prologue, I honestly believe that the only way things will ever get better for men, politically, is for a legal reduction in the female electorate. Instead of an exclusively male conscription model breaking every aspect of the tissue of lies which passes for ‘equality’ law, then women should also be made available to the conscription pool. If they do not wish to be considered, then their voting rights are forfeit for the duration of the conscription age window.
Even better (and keeping it fair) would be if men were offered this option also. Personally, if I were a younger man, I would take it. Why fight, and possibly die, for a system which disrespects you, and places untold barriers in the way of meritocracy? I say this as a veteran of STEM laboratories, which were a joy to work in during the 1980s, and early 1990s. Basically I was being paid to follow an arduous, yet enjoyable hobby in which I had a deep interest. I quit in 2003, when I could no longer abide the sequestration of projects (into which I’d invested blood, sweat & tears), so that management could prop up the failing ‘careers’ of the new, female quota intake.
The attitude of my wife also puzzled me. “I don’t know what you’re so bothered about. You’re being paid anyway, aren’t you?”
Trying to get to the bottom of the mystery which is female nature has been my abiding interest over the past 20 years. No longer a research chemist, this has been financed by being a postman, a breakfast chef/odd-job man at a local hotel, and finally the old age pension.
I’m still learning!
with best wishes
Warren Perkin
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
The point about the vote is interesting. The key change in 1918 in the UK was in fact to move from a voting system based on an electorate that paid taxes to one of any and eventually everyone whether they had a responsibility to pay, or not. The American revolution “no taxation without representation” exemplifies this notion of democracy. The citizens are represented because they pay. In a way to connect the vote to conscription is a version of that, though it was seen as an aberrant idea in the UK until the carnage of WW1. Forgotten is the fact that for decades before 1918 women had voted in and been in chambers of the various local councils and institutions which enfranchised “rate payers” people who paid local taxes. What the enfranchisement of all men and all women over a certain age did was create an electorate in which a large % had no real responsibility for the things they may want, no increases in the proportion of their income and assets taken from them to enact what they voted for. As is often noted on this site men pay roughly 75% of the taxation, those responsible for all the expenditures on our now massively intrusive “state” are generally men. One need not link to military service to find a logic that could define an electorate, one that was the norm in all democracies until the 19th Century and almost all until the 20th Century.
The debates about extending military service in Ukraine was really interesting. Much of it was about how they could ensure they had enough energetic young men to “rebuild”. They didn’t expect their young women to be such an asset! After all literally millions had been let go. The result is that the Ukraine army in the field is surprisingly middle aged, men of course. Unlike the Russian army composed at first of young conscripts. Facing high losses and possibly a protracted war the Ukrainians in debating the ages for drafting were very direct about the value of men to their society. And the comparatively small contributions from women.
LikeLike