Mihailo Alić (1959) is a Serbian intellectual, electrical engineer, video artist (MFA), computer scientist (MS), entrepreneur and futurist, and since 2017. Men's Rights Activist (MRA) and gender (politics) analyst,
founder of www.ultrahome.in.rs/muska

by Mihailo Alic (alic@rocketmail.com)
and participants of the 1999 San Francisco Examiner Bay To Breakers 12k race (May 16)

How many parties to go to, dinner invitations, dates, wild nights out dancing,
smiles, laughs, hugs, kisses and caresses,
icecreams and chocolates,

how many daisies in bloom, romances, dreams,
candle baths, red roses, love letters and quiet, peaceful moments,

how many friends and partners, gossips, vacations,
puppies, tail wagging, little children playing and snow men,
sunny days, ocean views,

how many beers, shots, pills, power bars and dollar bills,
sport cars and cell phones;

how many people must suffer, cry, be alone and die,

and how many, and how many,
how many does it take
for us to be happy?

"All the suffering in the world arises out of wanting happiness for self. All happiness in the world
arises out of wanting happiness for others." - Buddhist saying

Serbian translation: http://www.ultrahome.in.rs/muska/maskulizam1999.html


Human cloning from a sensitive male point of view
07/09/1999, San Francisco, https://humancloning.org/mihailo.htm

It should be a constitutional right of every individual to choose the method and outcome of their reproduction. Parenting and reproduction should be limited to people who are financially and emotionally able and responsible individuals in order to prevent bringing into the world children that are unwanted or won't receive adequate care from their parents. Cloned or not, all children are the same, and there is no need to change or append laws that govern this matter.

It is a popular belief that women love and want to have children more than men. Although this may be true, there are some men that strongly desire children as well, but are, in the absence of a mate, unable to have them (while it is much easier for women to have a child on their own if they choose to). Allowing human cloning will slightly alleviate this inequality. Ideally, one prefers to have both parents, but there is no guarantee that children from these families experience more love and attention than in one parent families. One parent families exist today
already, so bringing up a child produced through cloning would not be any different. Legal or ethical issues have been quite overblown - in the case of a single cloning to exercise individual reproductive right, parenthood and child rights would be as currently defined. Today we have surrogate mothers that are providing a service of bringing a baby to term and delivering it for infertile couples, so this part is already regulated. The only difference from the current situation is that the genetic material would come from a single person rather than two, but this is quite a technical detail. If today one can get sperm and an egg from anonymous donors, and find a woman (all providers are financially compensated) to be an incubator for nine months, there is not much more legally involved in simple cloning.

Another reason for accepting human cloning are people of both genders that have not found a mate that they would like to share genetic material with in their offspring. In such cases it should be their right to have a wanted child through cloning. It should be obvious that in such cases, after investing a substantial sum of money, the child would be highly desired by a parent (let alone that it carries parent's exact genes), and would get more attention and love than most
"regular" children.

In conclusion, men are unable to have children unless they find a mate while this is not true for women. Human cloning is a technology that would expand reproductive options of individuals and relieve current situation that is unfair for men. It should be allowed, while establishing rules that would prevent its misuse.

Serbian translation: http://www.ultrahome.in.rs/muska/kloniranje.html


Dreaming of Eve
by Mihailo Alic (alic@rocketmail.com), 22 Oct 1999.


prototypical woman,
mother of humankind, accomplice in primal sin;
you who every man searches for,
plethora of love and kindness, source of all pleasure and pain;
bearing a child as a miracle of life, your influence eternal, power unsubjugated.

Tell me who rules the world - is it men or is it you,
goddess in whom everything starts and ends - life, lust, love and hate, desire and fulfillment.
You create and destroy, and men are your humble subjects,
trying to please you and appease you by offering sacrifices to your altar,
to get close and sew seeds into your fruitful valleys,
to drink from your well, to savour your flesh, and sweet pleasure that you hold in the dance of conception,
in ephemeral moments spent together and alone with you.

And let it be light, let it be happiness, spread your arms
and welcome tired warriors, fallen sons, raped homeland;
Praise them with kisses of gold, heal their wounds with caresses
and ask them to fight no more, to rip no more. Tell them that you love them as they are,
for who they are, and not for the presents they bring you. Because the presents for your vanity
have been taken from others, for you to have more someone else had to have less,
someone else had to be exploited, someone else to be unhappy.
Receive these simple offerings of everlasting love, for better or worse,
in happiness and sorrow, in sickness and health.
Help men find the way back to Eden, where children of the Earth are going to be free again, and no evil will happen to them;
where men and women will learn to love each other again, and to love their neighbors.
Eve, you hold the keys to the gates of Eden - we are waiting.

"The world is not interested in hearing the truth, especially if it is not the one that does not bear heavily on
their conscience." - Mrdja Zoran, MD, during NATO bombing of Serbia

Serbian translation: http://www.ultrahome.in.rs/muska/maskulizam1999.html


While mechanical piano continues to play

Robotic arm with a syringe at the top is releasing a stretched artificial fiber and connecting it as a muscle to tendons of a synthetic bone. Human torso crucified on a great circle drowning in silicon which will become the new skin. This is the beginning of prime time HBO series Westworld, current science (fiction) show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRi3ULhyQq0). Is it science or fiction, certainly more the former, 43 years after the eponymous film about the amusement park in which hosts were humanoid robots. Unstoppable wave of movies begining 90 years ago with Metropolis by Fritz Lang, continued with classic of the genre from the eighties, Blade Runner, in the 21st century got a new impetus with TV series Real Humans (Sweden 2012), Humans (UK / USA, 2015), and last year culminated with mentioned HBO series. It seems that one of the greatest of human dreams, to create intelligent life, is at our fingertips, but voices saying that it could become our biggest nightmare are also loud. How far are we from the Singularity point in history in which the Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes superior to human? And will we at that time, or shortly thereafter become meaningless and useless as a species, and get off the stage of history and enter into some new textbooks of biology as a species that has lost supremacy? Whether our own technology, androids we created to be our servants, will surpass us?

Without returning to the distant past, let us remember the carpenter Gepetto who made Pinocchio doll in his desire to have a son. The desire of both was strong, and the whole story is of the journey the doll enbarks on to become a real boy. Discontent with the world around them, humans have always tried to control it, often in the form of creating an artificial world which can be programmed and adjusted to their needs and desires. The creation of the robot, and in this century an Android, is an expression of this desire. Westworld amusement park is just a continuation of our fascination with virtual worlds, video games in which we move to a different reality and fight against new enemies. The challenge, like a caveman going against mammoth with spears, modern man from the livingroom chair leads new battles, with new arms, this time for fun and in relative safety, at least physically.

Matt McMullen, founder and CEO of the company that produces Real Doll is a modern Pygmalion, who successfully implants life (Robotics and Artificial Intelligence) in his sculptural creations, hyper-realistic sex dolls. His pioneering work began in the garage 20 years ago as a hobby after work in the factory of silicone masks. Having made the first life-size anatomically correct doll, orders began to arrive rapidly. Technology has changed over time, the doll overcome the basic purpose and become a partner for lonely men. Thus, the adult entertainment industry is the first to step into the field of companion android robots to serve in the homes of the future. The technology is still in its infancy but robot heads already have articulated neck, eyes, eyelids, lips, facial expressions and speech. Customers do not really expect high levels of conversation with the robot, more a fun interactions with the beauty that is waiting patiently at home when they come back tired from work. Interesting is also the possibility of adjusting the robot's character, so her answers and questions will depend on what you set, which you can change later and over time, always getting different answers to standard questions, which may justify the initial high cost of these adult toys. Also, the doll has an articulate skeleton, so it can be placed in whatever pose you want, either to talk or for primary function ;-) User's interest in the game is furthered with unlimited creativity in dressing the doll in different outfits all the time.

This technology, as most others, already has their promoters and bitter opponents. Crusade against sex robots is led by Professor Kathleen Richardson on campaignagainstsexrobots.org website and on the opposite side are the psycho therapists around the International Congress on love and sex with robots on loveandsexwithrobots.org site. First assume that prostitution as a profession is humiliating for women, but they also do not approve of robots that replace them, probably in both cases fearing that women will loose exclusive status as providers of sexual services to men, also opposing potential human cloning for the same reason. Interestingly, men never campained against production of vibrators. Propagators of the relationship between humans and robots advocate for freedom of choice, as well as the therapeutic effects these artificial partners can have on people who for whatever reason can not or do not want to have a traditional partner relationship with another human. Nowadays, it is not surprising if one chooses to have a pet or a child / grandchild instead of a partner, but it is unacceptable if the subject of love is an object or an intelligent device. The expanded number and types of options for emotional and sexual partnership in the future will certainly affect the traditional ties, but not necessarily in a negative sense, since the absence of exclusivity will only make people want to put more effort into achieving a mutual relationship, competing with these alternatives that are less binding, safer, and more easily achievable.

On the way to the service home android, there are many technological hurdles. Today's robots are still plastic and metal buckets whose limbs are driven by electro-mechanical actuators, motors, which are heavy, consume a lot of electricity, and do not have the power that human has with only one small meal a day. Artificial fiber-based dielectric elastomer which will play the role of muscle already shown remarkable advantages over motors, and will soon introduce a new category of robotics, soft robots like living creatures we know, and ourselves. The development of artificial intelligence as software on which will these machine operate, certainly is parallel to the progress that will in a few decades lead to a synthetic human - android.

In addition to the controversy over the use of robots for sex and emotional partnership, there is a concern about the loss of jobs and high-range artificial intelligence that can be achieved in its development. Eligible are fears that with the development of synthetic humans, real humans will become unnecessary and will be replaced by them. In production and business, cost efficiency rules, so what happens when people become too expensive? Automation and the introduction of robots in production,lead to an increase in unemployment, first in the working-class occupations, but as computers get smarter with the development of AI software, there will be also a loss of jobs in industries that require highly educated employees. Increasingly, there are discussions and experiments introducting Universal Basic Income that would all citizens receive, regardless of whether they are employed or not. For naive this sounds like Eldorado or the biblical story of Paradise, for those more astute an indication of the end nearing - every civilization that indulged in luxury and idleness was counting its last days. The idea sounds also as Euphoria, pain-free state achieved near the end by a dying patient. According to the story, Adam and Eve lived in Paradise, where they did not work, and God provided everything, with only one condition - not to seek more knowledge and wisdom than those he gave to them. Eve's curiosity or lightheadedness, Snake-like virus introduced to her brain, Adam devoted to her, ended in God expelling them from Paradise and condemning them to a life of work and suffering, antithesis of Paradise. Now, at the end of the road, we reach the synthesis - technology and artificial intelligence allow us to do and think less, and we will soon receive a guaranteed income - a mirage of Paradise, in fact Consumer Paradise.

Apocalyptic scenario scientific community also discusses is the possibility that people will to Artificial Intelligence become what monkeys are to us today, and this also has a rational basis, since people often work against the interests of thier species out of personal greed, destroying the environment, and Artificial Intelligence may upon reaching the Singularity install itself as a tutor to us, in the best interests of those it serves, the people.

The only rational response that matches the Ascent of AI comes from one of the greatest visionaries of the 21st century, Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX corporation. He proposes the integration of the human brain and the computer, founding a new company, Neuralink, which plans to make implants that will allow this wireless man-machine synergy. Biologists would call it evolutionary adaptation in the presence of competing AI. Or consider it Transhumanism at work.

Whether we like or not the future ahead of us, the changes are permanent, inevitable, and faster and more radical. Those who adjust will survive, the others ... you already know the famous "theory" of evolution. While the Earth rotates, the Space expands, and mechanical piano continues to play its endless tune ...

Serbian translation: http://www.ultrahome.in.rs/muska/westworld.html


Transmasculism, starship style gender equality
(Misogyny, or the struggle for genuine gender equality?)
June 2017.

The text that follows is the struggle for genuine gender equality, and is not misogyny!

This is not (just) Men's rights activism, it is above that, the struggle for truly equal gender rights. Like transhumanism, it is a futuristic thought, looking around the corner, and should be reached by the time human race embarks on interstellar voyages. It is the term I coined to describe the extension of my activism, transcends pure struggle for men's rights, and calls to abandon gender rolls, in search of profound equality. It is possible, requires just a few generations of social engineering, like gynocentrism that was established as a norm through feminist struggle.

After winning the basic human rights for women, feminism continued to infiltrate and fight for new and greater privileges mostly for its leaders, becoming an male-hating ideology that encroaches on men's basic rights, and deepens the gender conflict. In order to reduce or resolve the conflict, it is necessary to work towards achieving true gender equality, but that can not happen UNTIL:

Work and consumption

1. women create 1 / 3 of world's GDP, and spend 2 / 3
2. men pay for going out, and later finance life with women, even when women are employed and have equal incomes
3. what women expect from men (financial success) requires much more work than what they provide (sexy appearance in a tight and short dress put on and taken off in less than a minute)
4. men create civilization with their inventions and production, and women mostly play the role of consumers
5. the length of service till retirement for men is longer, and life expectancy is shorter than for women, which is in direct relation, as well as with the stress of the leadership and protective role they now have
6. quotas that obligate employers to employ a woman, although they have a better male candidate, are abolished
7. women do not become entrepreneurs and stop complaining about alleged discrimination in employment
Managerial positions and privileges

8. education, judiciary, and media are governed by militant feminists who demand that women be equally represented in political and economic power, without having previously earned it by their work and results
9. women do not start to take on responsibilities and obligations, instead of just seeking rights and privileges, power and money

10. long-term psychological and emotional abuse of a woman over a man is not recognized as violence against him and the most frequent cause of his later (often short-term and moderate) physical aggression over her
11. women do not stop playing the role of the victim, although, in addition to children, they are actually the most protected beings in society
12. the rights of women are represented by 50 well-funded NGOs, while there is almost no one to represent fathers, boys and men
13. a film about men's  rights can not be screened, and issues discussed, without pressures and threats, while hundreds of films on women's rights are shown without problems

14. In divorces, usually not initiated by men, men are left without children, house and finances
15. men do not have rights to equal parenting and upbringing of children, during marriage, and after divorce

16. more than 90% of wartime victims are men, and in many countries military duty only applies to them

additional notes:

Feminists complain that men consider women sexual objects, but do not object to how women are willing to dress and "improve themselves" with aesthetic surgery, provoking men to experience them as sexual objects. Also, feminists do not object to privileges women acquire with such behavior in male company and employment. Instead of teaching women to work more and spend less in order to be equal with men, feminists teach women to act as victims and be greedy and demanding.

Furthermore, feminist's contempt for patriarchy stops half way, since they still embrace benefits and privileges women had under this model of a male-female relationship, and that is to evade being employed (since "working" at home is much less demanding and time consuming compared to 9 - 5 in the office with commute, overtime and stress of office politics, plus it gives them bigger influence over children and more abundant "retirement" package), and to be partially or fully financially supported and taken care off by a man. Equal rights and responsibilities, with no privileges of former models is much different than what women enjoy today (equal and greater rights + former privileges - equal responsibilities).

Finally, the notorious feminist claim of salary difference for doing the same job (pay gap) is so outdated and transparent: in negotiations with a potential employer, the salary is always an important part, so if a woman is offered less than she believes her colleagues get, she can always go to another employer that values her knowledge and skills more. Also, if we are talking about earnings within the profession, they differ from company to company, the best workers work in best companies, and they are paid more, regardless of the gender. There is one even more obvious explanation why pay gap is just a myth: if employer could pay women less for doing the same job, who would ever employ men, since hiring women would then be cost effective and their goods or services would be with higher profit margin or cheaper, having a competitive edge over companies that would hire men and pay them more?

Serbian translation: http://www.ultrahome.in.rs/muska/zenomrstvoRavnopravnost.html

Misogyny, or documented criticism of feminism?
(Alternative title: Mechanisms of the feminist subversion of the system and the tendency towards global domination)

The following text is a documented critique of feminism, not misogyny!

There is a significant difference between the terms "equality" and "sameness", and while among the sexes we now discuss the first one, in the future it may be possible to achieve, hopefully, the other one. Equality is when one sex has more rights in one area, the other in another, but in the sum of the rights they are equal. The problem arises when a group, in this case women led by feminists, tries to equate with men in areas where it was not equal, but also tries to retain privileges in the areas in which it had an advantage. A battle for supremacy under the pretext of the struggle for equality is hypocritical, but it can be obscured by various forms of pretence, lobbying, sponsoring, substituting theses, pressures and unethical alliances, in one word - politics. Gender politics and gender studies recruit party soldiers who then in the war of the sexes are crushing barricades and conquering an increasing area until the opposite side begins to feel cornered. It just happened at the latest presidential elections in the USA: although Tramp was not anyone's favorite, he even did not have the support of the party he was a member of, he won the elections just because his opponent was an aggressive woman! After 100 years of the informal rule of women in the US, men had enough of it. For past 50 years, political correctness required that women and their representatives should not be criticized, otherwise the label of misogyny was earned, with possible losing one's job and social position. But once it has passed the red line, in the past few years men have begun to organize to prevent this usurpation of power that has gone too far. And here is how it came about: while men worked hard on building a civilization, women stayed home and raised boys to be obedient to women and sensitive to their "problems" and "needs." When they gained the right to vote, together with their Oedipus Complex afflicted sons, they became the majority, and since then every new law has been in their favour, and more against men. The most obvious is the discrimination men face in divorce, when they lose child custody, and everything they have gained while women stayed at home (which is now already fully automated, and in which there is no longer much work).

How and why did feminists choose family relations and the judicial practice of a fairly equal Family Law as the primary goal of their subversive activity? This is certainly not a coincidence, it is actually very wise, and for them the only possible entry into the system - through the reproduction and upbringing of the next generation of their supporters, both male and female. In achieving that, 90% of the divorce separates children from fathers, they have set up mothers as the sole influence on the formation of children, and advising women not to suffer even the slightest disobedience of their husbands, and that any refusal to have their way is declared to be violence, they succeeded in drastically increasing the number of divorces. The third group of their supporters is recruited from a group of unmarried women who became that because feminists convinced them through Gender studies that men were the problem since they are violent, that marriage was a patriarchal dungeon for them, and accustomed them to expect and demand too much from men, and not enough from themselves. Lonely people, and thus women, are unhappy, and easiest to manipulate. Thus, feminists managed to exponentially increase support for their ideology within a very short period of a couple of decades, and now they have a dominant role (both numerically, and influentially) in the media, culture, education and judiciary. There remains only economics and politics, and then they will become unrecognized rulers of the human race by introducing a matriarchate, where men will only work and fight on their side and for their goals, as ant workers and warriors serve their mothers or queens.

Climate change has been recognized, and their terrible consequences can be predicted, the same is with feminist ideology and intent for world domination over men. The time for action is now, without delay, with no monsters we should wait to reckon with if we want to survive dignified. I repeat, this is not hatred for women, but toward the destructive ideology of feminism, which sole goal is undermining men, under the guise of the struggle for equality of women and their rights. Biology and history reminds us that many groups, plant or animal species, weed or parasitic species, viruses that destroy their host and die with it, national states and now a single family of Homo Sapiens, can have tendencies towards global domination. It is dangerous when this presumption becomes destructive for other groups, and then the Nature through their representatives opposes them, and whoever wins.

Serbian translation: http://www.ultrahome.in.rs/muska/zenomrstvoIli.html
originally published in Serbian on 28.6.17. : http://xn--j1aat.xn--90a3ac/2017/06/28/mihailo-alic-zenomrztvo-ili-dokumentovana-kritika-feminizma/

The future of gender relations

Feminism is a phase and an expression of a ceaseless war of the sexes, and Men's Rights Movement and MGTOW are just logical reactions. Biology supports the idea of gender war, as sexual conflict is observed in most animal species. Sociology also testifies that most organizations and groups tend to spread and attempt local or global domination, usually detrimental to other and competing groups.

At present, we live in GYNOCENTRIC SOCIETY, where men do most of the work, but are implicitly ruled by women. The explanation for this situation is quite simple: while men were out hunting to provide for their families, or later engaged in wars, inventions and industry, women were practicing skills of social manipulation as their source of power. Men were manipulating nature and tools, women were manipulating men - a man was the head of the family, but woman was the neck. Women were needed by men for sex, companionship and procreation, and so it stayed relatively harmonious and balanced throughout patriarchy. As progress and industrial revolutions evolved the society, feminism emerged as a movement for women’s rights. Through inertia and backed by initial success, it went far enough to provoke creation of men’s human rights activism. Of course, women are unwilling to give up privileges accumulated through patriarchy and feminism, and trade in their easier gender role for the one with equal responsibilities. Unrightfully gained can be taken away only through force, but men are at the present not ready to do that since they still need women, and have been raised by mothers in gynocentric society where a woman is portrayed as a victim. So they are silent, and waiting, or live in blissful ignorance until they face consequences of a divorce and discrimination in Family courts.

Collaboration between sexes was necessary evolutionary step while sexual reproduction was the only way of human procreation. As we have seen from the second-wave of feminism, collaboration started to give way to competition, and third-wave feminism is bringing alienation and mistrust between sexes, and more or less open conflict. Reproductive technologies as artificial womb, sex robots and genetic engineering will advance to the point when cooperation between sexes no longer will be necessary. At this point one of two scenarios will take place: either gynocracy becomes permissive to the new technology, and creates PLURALISTIC SOCIETY where all reproductive options are acceptable, or becomes repressive towards it, and creates rebellion and later WAR between sexes.

In repressive scenario, as it plays out now, women will not passively observe as they are replaced by technology, they will develop legal framework where single men will be prevented from using it, and if illegally used, babies produced this way will have hard time registering into the system. So rebel fractions of men will form, secretly funded by sympathisers in high places, but unwilling to give them open support in fear of dictatorship gynocracy. What will start as rebellion, will soon become all out war with troops relocation, and territories held. In a few hundred years, or sooner, if trends continue and sexes drift apart as we see today, men and women are going to completely go their own way, become two distinct species of Homo sapiens, and be at war with each other. Amazon women, and warring men, they may look like us, and feel like us, but their relations will be utterly changed.

Men’s camp will, in addition to men, include some renegade women (although under constant scrutiny to watch for spies in their ranks), women genetically engineered to just be nice partners to men, and synthetic woman androids for sexual pleasure, alternative companionship and more outlandish adventure. The situation in women's camp will be similar, enabled by technologies developed by and then stolen from men. Procreation will be performed through technology, and very few of now conventional gestations and births, if any, and if not outlawed, will be happening. Collective rather than a nuclear family will be the norm. LGBT population will grow and integrate within the two camps, although majority will be with women, as it is at present.

The outcome is unpredictable: one or the other side wins, they make truce, they annihilate each other? Or create SOCIETY OF EQUALS: In the most utopian, but most mutually beneficial and stable scenario, women would give up privileges gained through radical feminism and those held from patriarchal / chivalry model, embrace equal gender roles and take equal responsibilities, creating long lasting gender peace and collaboration. It is unlikely that women would do this voluntarily, but it could happen through social engineering if men were given the opportunity to raise next generations, same how gynocentric society was created when women held that role.

originally published in Serbian on 13.7.17. : http://xn--j1aat.xn--90a3ac/2017/07/13/mihailo-alic-buducnost-odnosa-medju-polovima/


Women who, not by choice, went their own way (WGTOW)

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is an online community cautioning men against romantic relationships with women, especially marriage. MGTOW men describe the world in which we live as gynocentric because it favors women at the expense of men, and they oppose it. A term that loosely corresponds to this is WGTOW, it is about women going their own way, but for very different reasons. This is a phenomenon I noticed while going out and walking around the city, and it is also confirmed by demographic studies. Consecutive population censuses show that the number or percentage of unmarried persons of both genders increases, for yet unknown reasons.Resulting is also a decline in birthrates, but that is a topic for another article. Here we talk about girls and women, and possible reasons for their WGTOW behavior. Throughout the city, and reports from other cities are similar, one can see groups of two, three or more girls or women, who are without men, passionately talking to one another, not noticing anyone around them, taking selfies and spending time on mobile phones, most often on Facebook. No one approaches them, and they do not pay attention to others. Advances of men are rare, and usually frown upon, women are unprepared and confused how to react. They go out on the city, armed with make up and everything fashion has to offer, without the goal of getting to know anyone, and so they return alone as they came. Time passes, they pretend they are "entertained" in prolonged adolescence, until the age when nobody is interested in them anymore.

What is the cause? Excessive expectations of men, too little of themselves? The confusion is in the duplicity of the messages they receive through the media, its source being gender studies, feminism. From the media, they constantly hear exaggerated stories that men are rapists, that marriage is a patriarchal institution that endangers their equality with men, they are in such a danger that they need a Commissioner for Gender Equality, Safe Houses, and Numerous women's NGOs to protect them. On the other hand they retained, and feminists did not tell them that it was anachronic, privileges of the patriarchy like man pays for going out, he is expected to earn well and fulfill all their desires in the consumer society, and that they only need to look pretty and be carefree. Men do not even know that they are not obliged to give all of this to women who 70 years ago got the right to vote, the right to education and equal professional and paid jobs as men, so they are confused, and often unable to provide all the luxuries that women expect and think they need to be happy. So the confused genders are moving away from each other, mistrusted, disinterested, or even hostile. It is a fruitful ground for the promotion of LGBT ideas, so when "Gay is OK" already a new social reality, and the guys do not approach us because we do not seem interested, maybe we will get closer to each other? And so women go their way, men also, and the land is inherited by new barbarians who have not yet heard about women's rights, and whose women are giving birth as long as they can. I do not say It is a model that needs to be supported and adopted, but the liberal WGTOW is certainly not a better alternative.

Perhaps it would be ideal if women would go to work, and children were raised by men, so girls would be more athletic and into work, fashion would be peripheral, and the genders would be taught to be equal. Once in the villages, both genders worked equally in the fields, and today they could equally work at home, feminism would be abolished as a hate speech, and genders would live in harmony. The word "love" would again get its original and true meaning, only when boys and girls are equally raised, and not girls with puppets, and boys with guns. Today's fathers already change diapers and feed baby food, so I do not see why women could not pay for going out. Everything would be better if there were no ideologies that bring in divisions and insist on gender roles, because they are not needed anymore (divisions, and different roles). Of course, those who now have better and easier roles will not agree to this, we know who that is, but social engineering could fix this within a couple of generations, if only we get rid of those who prevent us from being together.

originally published in Serbian on 26.7.17. : http://xn--j1aat.xn--90a3ac/2017/07/26/mihailo-alic-zene-koje-su-doduse-ne-sopstvenom-voljom-krenule-svojim-putem/


Statistics in service of gender (in)equality

When feminists say equality, they actually mean equal numbers, but only in positions of power. When masculists (Men Rights Advocates) say equality, they want to equate men numerically with women in important areas in which they have more rights, such as parental rights, the right to institutional protection, the right to not to have to be employed to be loved, to not have to plunder (legally or illegally) to be respected, the right to live happy, unstressed lives as long as women do (now men live 5 - 7 years shorter). That feminists do not really want true equality, we see because they do not strive to equate women with the number of men in difficult, stressful and risky jobs, those that are done outside and at extreme temperatures and weather conditions, that are poorly paid.

Let's take a look at some of the most important statistics feminists and masculists highlight. The left are feminist complaints, from the website of the government Coordination Body for Gender Equality (www.rodnaravnopravnost.gov.rs), and the right are made according to the publication "Women and Men in the Republic of Serbia", Republic Institute for Statistics, 2014, and represent the masculist perspective:

Feminists claim that men and women should be equally employed, and, as it is not, suggest this is an indicator of discrimination against women. Of course, it is easy to find another explanation to the 13.34% difference, for example, the fact that women are more likely than men to be voluntarily unemployed or dependent, whether they are mothers or mistresses. On the other hand, the masculists do not agree that men should make 95% of all those convicted of domestic violence, since violence is mutual, only that violence by women towards men often remains undeclared, and the psychological and emotional violence does not find way into statistics. That the masculists are correct show numbers of women and men killed in domestic violence, official statistics are 30some women and 20some men per year, but do not include those men killed at the orders of women or those who were poisoned but not detected, so the numbers are actually equal. Also, feminists do not mention that male violence against women is often a consequence of the long-standing violence of these women against male aggressors, but bruises are easier to prove than psychological maltreatment, and according to feminism, all female victims are innocent, and men are monsters.

When feminists talk about employment, they often think of leadership, so they want to equalize with men, initially asking them to be a third in parliament, and only a few years later to raise it to 40%. Of course, this is not the end of their demands; the rising quotas will reach a parity (50% or perhaps 51.8 which is the representation of women in the population) with the aim of "gendering" the entire political sphere, that is, the radical and complete "feminization of political space and institutions" (Kolin and Čičkarić, 2010: 112). It sounds like some Orwellian scenario of a totalitarian society where a woman's half of deputies and governments will lead a "women's" policy, or a policy of representing the specific interests of women (Mršević, 2007: 41). The mentioned authors are prominent Serbian feminists, so we see that they do not even hide their aspirations for domination of men. For their part, masculists have much more modest goals: in the future, for men to not make up 90% of all convicted adults (among adolescents that figure is as much as 95%), as current statistics show. This will definitely happen if in the future they would not have to fight to get the money and rank to procreate. Interesting statistics on the global level, not shown in the above charts, is that historically, as many as 80% of women have procreated, while only 40% of men succeeded in this, indicating that only selected men manage to secure to pass their genes, while this for women is much easier because they control the process of reproduction by their choices and acceptance of mating.

We see that feminists advance women through system of quotas, and not in some other way (by expertise, dedication, merit, or sexual availability), now constituing a third of the state assembly, as well as in the assemblies of municipalities and cities. According to these numbers, Serbia came to the 5th place in Europe, but for Serbian supporters of gender equality this is not enough; they want to be in the first place, above Sweden and Finland (42 - 43% women in Parliament)! On the other hand, we have a depressing statistics that 3/4 of all deaths in traffic accidents, suicides and violent deaths are men (75%). Of course, masculists are advocating that gender equality in the future should also be introduced in these areas, with men driving less, being less angry and under the influence of alcohol and other means of reducing stress that goes with their protective gender role, which would reduce the number suicides and violent deaths as well.

Here are two charts that seem to be similar, since the percentage of women and men in both is almost identical, on the left and on the right. The difference is that women complain that they do not have enough representation in leading economic and legislative positions (previous charts showed a situation in political power), and men account for over 70% of all work-related injuries. From this it is evident that men, although representing more than a two-thirds majority in the top of the economic sphere, also represent more than a two-thirds majority in the lowest levels of the same, i.e. they work at the most risky, and usually poorly paid jobs, often in the open. Women stay in medium-paid office jobs, which guarantee social and health security, and comfortable work free from stress and risk. Accordingly, equality has already been achieved, especially since feminists do not require women to equalize in numbers at these hard and low paid jobs, but only in the positions of "managers, officials and legislators". Like we just need more women legislators, since this feminist lobby has already ushered in many harmful and violent laws, with apparent negative consequences (family breakdown, gender conflict and demographic depopulation of the nation).

Since it was achieved that women are almost 35% of deputies, feminists are now unhappy with women being only 25% of the members of the Government of Serbia. Of course, they do not mention that 70% of judges are women (graph on the right), and even greater percentage of judges working in family courts (the consequence to men will be apparent in the next graph).

As we approach the end of this review, it is noticed by the feminists that even though women make up one third of the councilors in the assemblies of municipalities and cities, they were not able to achieve as often the positions of the Mayor. This ambition is still unfulfilled, but at the same time there is a depressing statistics on the right that fathers after divorce extremely rarely can get custody of their children, in less than 10% of cases, usually only if the mother is uninterested because she remarried (and these children would be unwelcomed by her new husband), or is unsuitable because she is a drug addict, in prison or locked in some other institution.

The biggest inequality in Serbia is how women's problems are treated and how are those of men. The problems of women are exaggerated ("violence, violence, inequality"), they are constantly spoken and written of, there are numerous institutions and government bodies that deal with them, and over 100 NGOs, which are like mushrooms after the rain, well funded from abroad. In sharp contrast, the problems of men are very rarely spoken of, there is no single NGO to support them, institutions are disinterested or even discriminating against men under the influence of feminist seminars they had to go through, and the media are pretty closed to these topics, as if they were taboo. Feminist dominance in the media does not allow room for male problems, as this would reduce the space and resources the state allocates to women's "problems".

originally published in Serbian on 13.9.17. : http://xn--j1aat.xn--90a3ac/2017/09/13/statistike-u-sluzbi-rodne-neravnopravnosti/


Feminism is a virus

Feminism is a virus that destroys society - demographically, economically, inter personally! The masculist performed the screening, found that we were infected as a society, now is the time to find out and apply the therapy.

Feminism is a virus of refusal to procreate - "My body, my choice". All countries that have encountered the abuse of women's emancipation (a longer description of feminism today) have a negative population growth, and the White Plague (caused by the feminism virus), regardless of the economic situation, is actually proportional to the high standard and loss of family values that the consumer society carries with them.

Feminism takes away children and property from fathers after divorce usually initiated by women, and impose child support proportional to the income rather than to the needs of the child, which additionally discourage the fathers to economically develop, develop their businesses and property that should be left to the children whom the mothers alienated from them. This makes the business less developed or disintegrating (especially if they were family business). When men are demotivated, this has a negative impact on the economy, tax collection, female-male relations, ... Employment of women who have completed crowded occupation studies and gender studies through NGOs and state-funded institutions to oversee "human rights" , "discrimination", "media freedom", "gender equality", "violence" against women, will cost the state a lot, and takes away money for real problems, such as men's health (which is much less funded, compared to health and protection of women), pensions, education.

Feminism introduces clashes between the sexes, in the form of suspicion between those who have not yet met, among those who are already in contact, and then the violence between those who have broken up. The conflict over children and property can not be resolved; the practice of centers for social work and the courts obviously favors one side (the mother), and then the state economically helps "single" mothers, that is, single-parent families and "victims" of "violence" and "discrimination" with money collected from taxpayers, who are mostly men.

"Radical feminism will be (only) suppressed by women, as communism was put down by Polish workers, because they saw what kind of poverty it had brought them compared to workers of neighboring non-communist countries. Former communist countries still can not catch up with Western countries because communists destroyed the entrepreneurial class and successful companies. Of course, the analogy between feminism and communism is obvious, since Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Cetkin were both communists and feminists.

Milo Yiannopoulos recognized the devastating effect and expansion of feminism by saying it is a social cancer, and I went a step further, and claim that feminism is a virus, therefore a transmissible, infectious disease, and as such it should be treated. So, in addition to opposing feminism within the nation or globally, the fight must also be on its unveiling, calling out, and suppression of transmissions at the individual level, we must fight for every woman and man, they should be vaccinated against this destructive virus, which is equally harmful to both them and to the wider community. There is also an organized attempt to infect men, to become unconditional women protectors, White nights, even when women only claim to be endangered, and when their behavior and choices do not deserve that protection.

How is this virus transmitted? Verbally, through written or spoken words, through media, seminars and training, women's / gender studies in the academic framework, the establishment of coordination bodies and the adoption of action plans by institutions, writing and adopting laws that extend the privileges of women, as well as the possibility of abuse of these new laws. There is a war against heterosexual men, to shame them, and plunder their leading positions, while the quota system ensures that women are subsequently employed there. A strong civil sector, foreign funded feminist NGOs, which then influence the work of government institutions through corrupting, training, and then taking over, so institutions work effectively under them, and for them.

The only therapy is a constant struggle, spreading knowledge, lobbying, until the moment when we are ready to say the final NO (to RADICAL FEMINISM)!, and commit to build a society of true (responsible) gender equality. Simple as that!

originally published in Serbian on 23.5.18. : http://xn--j1aat.xn--90a3ac/2018/05/23/feminizam-je-virus/


On the Origin of Genders by Means of Social Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Genders in the Struggle for Life
to be written in August of 2019.

Sounds familiar? Sure it is, it is Charles Darwin's most famous book from 1859. Hundred years later I was born in Belgrade, some 2,000 km SE from there. It took me 60 years to realise my theory that is for social science as important as Darwin's was for biology. Jocking again, but parallels between his and mine are quite interesting.

Mihailo Alić