Uncategorized

What The Western World Would Look Like If Women Were Never Granted The Right To Vote

374 Comments

The following article was sponsored by Pax Masculina.

Fellow ROK fans, tired of every new film having a militant feminist theme? Want to see a universe on video in which men create a paradise on earth with their wise rule, and insolent women causing trouble are given their just reward? My short film (18 minutes) is called Pax Masculina (Latin for Peace of Men) and is an alternate history science fiction movie.

It all started when I posed the question “What would the United States be like today if women had never received the right to vote?” Check out the two minute trailer below. I think you will love the PAX universe.

In Pax Masculina, a theocratic totalitarian regime takes over the United States in 1910. Under this government, women have few rights like in Old Testament or Victorian England culture. The suffragettes were defeated and women never got the vote.

Uninhibited by the influence of women, what follows is a century of peace and prosperity, known as the Pax Masculina. Out of disgruntled suffragettes evolved the Women’s Resistance Movement (WRM) which violently opposes the regime. The movie takes place in 2016 when the WRM has increased aggression in its opposition to the governing patriarchy in their fight for equality of the sexes.

The Women’s Resistance Movement uses assassinations and bombings to create terror and kill without mercy. Seduction and murder of policemen and government officials are common tactics. The government induces its own terror with televised torture and execution of captured women soldiers. The movie’s Facebook site gives more details and many behind-the-scenes photos from the film.

The following photos represent the philosophy of the regime:

The conflict between the regime and WRM is really a battle for the hearts and minds of young women who might join the WRM. When a girl turns 16, she is eligible to be married. Husbands pay the father a dowry and there is a transfer of property. There is an all-girls high school where harsh teachers use ruler and paddle freely to discipline unruly females.

Girls are forced to watch public hangings of captured WRM soldiers on classroom televisions. In the photographed scene below, one girl jokes around about the threat of hanging beside a victim she has just had to watch.

A symbol on the wall of all classrooms remind them of the consequences of having a bad attitude. Gentlemen, how many times have you wanted to tell a woman to “lose the attitude”? In this universe, it is official policy!

The beautiful women of the WRM wear steampunk inspired uniforms designed for combat and seduction as they engage in hand-to-hand combat with police. Authorities have better weapons but hesitate to use them since they want to capture these arrogant women alive for public display.

Captured WRM soldiers are hanged publicly with a worldwide TV broadcast of the event as if it was the World Cup or Superbowl. There is no drop and a large diameter rope is used to haul them up into the air so they slowly strangle, preventing permanent damage to necks or windpipes. There is a good possibility that they will be half hanged (let down before dead) to be made a sex-slave to a deserving man. This discourages young women from joining the WRM while entertaining the populace.

As for the status of the film, the cut is finished and being submitted to film festivals. To stay up to date about its release, follow the Facebook page. The world premier of Pax Masculina will be at Comicpalooza in Houston May 12-14. The exact screening time and date will be posted on the aforementioned Facebook page.

I made this film to express my view and to share my artistic vision, not to make money. Eventually it will just be posted on YouTube or Vimeo to be viewed for free. But for now, festival rules prevent that to retain eligibility. My goal is to make a full length feature film which expands the story line of the PAX universe. But that is a year or two away. Now, I just want to share the vision with like-minded individuals such as ROK readers. I hope the trailer whets your appetite andI would love to hear feedback. My best estimate for release of the short film for public viewing is six months.

I admire Roosh more than I can say after having experienced similar harassment by the social justice warriors against me. Maybe he will agree to be a consultant on the feature film? I made this movie with a balanced perspective instead of the expected female empowerment manifesto. But the mere hint that a government which excludes women might be successful has led to an effort to silence my creative voice.

Instead of reasoned debate, some think I shouldn’t be permitted to express my artistic opinion. In addition, I have openly promoted the men’s right movement (posted links to ROK articles for example), and I have dared to say some positive things about President Trump. I have been vilified and my reputation decimated with lies.

Having practiced engineering for over 40 years, I am used to dealing with truth and facts. I have learned that the artistic community is in general close-minded and truth means nothing to them. I am astonished at their ability to lie without hesitation, without guilt, without apology. Some “artists” show a total lack of character and honor. Any deviation from political correctness is not tolerated. That will be the focus of a future post. For now, I plan to continue to make movies that tell the truth and present an alternative viewpoint.

To learn more about the movie and follow its journey to completion, visit Pax Masculina.

Advertise Your Product Or Site On Return Of Kings

374 thoughts on “What The Western World Would Look Like If Women Were Never Granted The Right To Vote”

        2. wow. right under the wire, but you really nailed this one.

    2. Yet everyone I know who indulges in Kratom voted for Bernie Sanders, and/or Hillary.
      Prior to the sponsored post-induced memeing here, I thought Kratom was just another hippie indulgence. If it is supposed to make males masculine then the hippies/hipsters here are beyond its powers.

      2. I think kratom makes men more masculine by removing their money. If you buy enough kratom you will eventually have no money, lose your home and all your worldly possessions and then you will have to wonder the earth (aka be a bum) and there is nothing more masculine than that! Thanks kratom!

        4. only if I’m looking for a latte or organic doggie day care….
          (I reckon its changed a bit since you were here….)

        5. I wouldn’t believe it, and wouldn’t get near enough to try to find out. That place taught me that PTSD induced flashbacks are real.

        6. You mean wandering the earth and getting into adventures like King-Fu?
          You got no home, no money, that’s what I call being a fucking bum.

        8. An itinerant dimension mystic is your spirit see
          Like color absolute
          Youre bodyless indeed.

        9. Replace the word “kratom” with the word “women” and you have most men’s lives.

      3. I am disgusted by Bernie Sanders, but in all fairness he moved to Vermont from Brooklyn during the liberal Jihad of the 80s. He’s no Vermonter.

        1. Vermont is loaded with east coast academics.
          More Subaru’s per capita than anywhere

        2. More weed than anywhere else. Fully agree with your Subaru comment.

        3. Absolutely beautiful state.
          Larry David as Bernie on SNL is pure gold.

        4. An SJW-type was driven out of the editorship in my county paper. That counts for something. Besides, when I drive my van I scare the shit out of all the little roller skate cars.

      1. What if North Korea launches a kratom(((ic))) bomb? Then we have no freedom.

        1. We have seen Kim Jong trying to errect his “cock “(i.e. Nuke missiles) so many times that ended in a diserrectile dysfuntion. How many more “faps”/ “masturbation” (tests in this sense) is needed?

    1. Sure they do, isn’t that the entire essence of the apparently biologically-hardwired “shit tests” mentioned here?

      1. No, that helps reinforce patriarchy because deep down they want to be corrected and put in their place. It’s an opportunity for a man to exercise his domination skills and frame mastery.

        1. The movie ends in women getting their punishment/reward in some BDSM dungeon
          The twist is the villain is a hero who pulls out every 50 shades of gray reference

      2. I mean they don’t actually rebel by forming armies and terrorist organizations. There has never been a women’s liberation movement in any patriarchy ever.

        1. Yup, it has consistently been the most lenient societies that have had the women marching about “oppression”. The ones complaining are the ones who are too unattractive to have an “oppressor” to take care of them.

        3. Wouldn’t work. All those hurt feelings from some of the girls looking better wearing the same outfits.

  4. Before the 19th amendment, each state could decide suffrage.
    We today have debates over privacy, due-process, and the rest.
    The interesting subplot is what to do about white knights, as I would assume they would exist. Also the civil rights movement and Jim Crow. The problem with alternate history is you need to know the history at the point where you propose the alternate time-line. Woodrow Wilson, WW1, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the even more destructive 17th Amendment…

    1. I propose The Donald’s alternate time line, where “Zombie” Andrew Jackson is made POTUS in 1860 and fixes the lack of representation in DC, instead of the crony corporatist Lincoln who willfully lit that powder keg.

  5. You have some good hoes in there. Did you fuck them behind the scenes or smth ?

  6. Imagine the progress we were making from 1900 to 1960 and then continue that exponential trajectory. No wonder they thought we would be making regular space flights by 2010.

    1. yeah that’s all well and fine, but what about the rights for a man to put on a woman’s clothing and go into a ladies room and watch little girls pee and then sue the store if the manager suggests that he really ought to leave????WHAT ABOUT THAT JIM?

      1. Maybe we could create a perversion island, let them go and ruin themselves on their own time.

        1. We could easily have jet liners running on nuclear with all the improvements made since the sixties, but people are still freaked out over the nuclear boogeyman. Even despite zero significant environmental damage from the Fukushima “disaster”.

      1. Not really. You have the 12 tribes of Israel (Reuben Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulon……Joseph). We believe the 12 tribes will be gathered (Spiritually) prior to Christ returning. A person can be adopted into a tribe (by conversion). Which means that the gospel needs to be preached to pretty much the whole world prior to Christ returning.
        Judah was the covenant people under Moses, but broke that about the time of Christ. Since then, there was an apostasy (falling away and loss of the priesthood), but has since been restored.

        1. So basically doomsday lite, minus the we must kill all goy to accellerate the return of the chosen one …
          So as you guys believe jews are still chosen, would mormons stand against the expulsion of jews, if the u.s find their balls?

        2. 12 tribes, 12 apostles, 12 signs of the Zodiac…12 is a big number in spirituality.

        4. The Son/Sun of God begins his father’s work at age 30…the Son/Sun of God enters each house of the Zodiac at a 30-degree angle, sidereally. Hidden in plain sight. Best place to hide it.

  7. Still don’t think even genetically enhanced women could take down a neckbeard, let alone a police officer. Make sure you correct this for future films, women are not excellent combatants. Therefore if they kill trained men, it must be sneaky and clever because thats the only way they could do it.

    1. if one offers to suck his dick and then mid blowie the others bash him in the back of the head with hammers they could probably get the police officer and absolutely get the neck beard.

      1. Well, if a mans gotta die….that may be the way I wanna go.

    2. Yes that was just eye-rolling. I couldn’t take it seriously. It was almost like watching some SJW feminist fantasy in that way. So no thanks.

  8. Looking at the trailer, and I don’t buy it. Western society where only men voted would not become some Road Warrior type existence. Families would be as strong as in the 1800’s. Morality would be strong (no welfare state to corrupt). Prosperity would be through the roof. With proper guidance, women would be happy and healthy, families would be large. Freedom would be abundant, and so would self responsibility. If there were users, and losers they would be left to care for themselves. Frankly, the movie would be boring. Who wants to see the “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”?

    2. I agree – I wanted technology to be the same as in 2016 in the real world except a steampunk “look”. my Director went behind my back to make things 1960s. For example, I wanted high def 60 inch screen TVs instead of the small CRT 60s models. He did not share the vision and also believed that a misogynistic government would result in slower technological progress – i.e., he didn’t buy the basic tenet of the movie. He should have resigned before shooting started.

    1. They meltdown on everything. Frankly, I am tired of it. Let them piss and moan (again).

      1. Buzzfeed: Misogynist Neomasculinists want to Hang Women for not Being Housewives

        1. Nah, man. “Mysogynist Neomasculinists recognize trials and tribulations of the average feminist”. (minus the multi-syllable words, of course).

    2. Looking at the trailer I think it might be supposed to be feminist. The hangings are supposed to denote genuine misogyny, thus justifying the actions of the brave freedom fighters

    3. They’ve had tons of meltdowns. Frankly, it’s about time they condensed and coalesced. Then meltdown again. The life cycle of a simple life form.

  11. I suspect Western society would be a lot more like Japan.

  13. You need some manosphere consultants, you’re movie is the exact opposite of a 100% patriarchial society
    You’ve basically described a matriarchial society, only matriarchial societies devolve into mad max dystopia’s with no alpha’s to lead them …

    1. Needs some firearms consultants too, that guy with the cap and ball revolver couldn’t hit a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle.

  14. Instead of hanging they should get spankings…well, the ones that ain’t ugly anyway.

        1. Mclintock is a decent show, not something to write home about. But, he finally does get his ca-hones back in this scene, and shows who is the alpha in the end.

      3. How freaking hot is that? That redhead…mmmmmm..mmmmm…. Her face is saying “Oh God yes, please…please correct my disobedience…” Heh

        1. She was begging for it throughout the movie. This and “The Quiet Man” are excellent shows on how to deal with disobedient women.

    3. Absolutely agree. There’s just something about a woman being spanked.

    4. Yeah, why are they hanging good looking women. I would think in the scenario that really fugly lesbians would be out trying to kill the patriarchy.

  15. Under this government, women have few rights like in Old Testament. . .

    Women, in both testaments, have exactly the right number of “rights” and so do men. No more, no less.

  17. This doesn’t scream anti feminist to me. Glorifying the WRMs seems contrary to the stated aim.

    1. the film doesn’t glorify the WRM. But they look so cool they will be our primary visual selling point.

  18. “Fellow ROK fans, tired of every new film having a militant feminist theme?”
    You say this, and characterize the movie as pro-masculine, but the majority of the trailer is “militant feminist” women killing men with ninja quick reflexes and superior fighting skills. The women appear to be the protagonists of the trailer, and even the scene of the woman getting hanged is clearly shot to evoke the watcher’s sympathy, not to show a rebel getting a just punishment, much less “insolent women causing trouble are given their just reward.”
    The trailer looks much more like a dystopian male-dominated alternative timeline, where the poor oppressed females are revolting against the evil men and the patriarchy. The women are clearly the heroes of the movie poster and the trailer.
    EDIT: And Kratom.

    1. looks like you were having the same thoughts as me, but got there first

        1. well if you mention kratom, anything you add to that can only detract

        3. Chuck Norris is just Kratom wearing a Chuck Norris mask. Chuck went to a tibetan monastery to find himself and that’s what he found out

    2. I have a suspicion of this too. The alternative timeline does not jive with common sense. It would be peaceful, prosperous, and free if women couldn’t vote.

      1. Well, we would probably still be fighting Islam and communism and shit, but we wouldn’t be fighting ourselves and sabotaging ourselves as much.

        2. Probably true. But even if women can’t vote, there are still tons of Beta pussies willing to pedestalize chicks and screw shit up.

        3. Would there be that many willing to pedestalize? Would any of those manginas get into congress?

        5. We’re only fighting Islam because we’re in and have been in their countries for 200 years and more. Modern tech has made it possible for them to strike us back where we live.

        7. Beta pussies would make different decisions if the culture were different.

        8. Well in time, we’ll find a new energy source and the Oil War will die.

        10. And they’re just sitting there forever innocent.
          Really?

        15. There wouldn’t be as much beta males. I have a suspicion that feminizing our culture lowered testosterone in men. Men that aren’t proud of being a man would get a drop in test

        19. My last paycheck was $22500 for working 12 hours a week online.Start earning $97/hour by working online from your home for few hours each day with GOOGLE… Get regular payments on weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time… Read more here
          !sl432c:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs722ShopGiftGetPaid$97/Hour… ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!sl432c:….,…..

        20. Exactly why we should start fracking the fuck out of PA, NY etc….and IGNORE The middle east bullshit. Let them all kill themselves like the ignorant savages they are.

        21. It all comes down to crazies who believe they are doing Allah’s work and then in the end they just cannibalize each other.
          Yes, money, the root of all that is evil.

        22. Virtually every war in history has involved one group of people trying to take another group of people’s stuff. If you think we’re fighting a war over religion then you fell for the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

        23. Land (oil), money (oil), religion (crazies). When the great Jihad is called for I know what side I will be on.

        25. that’s complete horseshit. A huge number of men are androgen deficient. YOU are fake news.

        26. The West should stop arming the jihadis, ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with any so-called “religious war” or civilisational war which is propaganda for more wars of conquest in the ME

      2. Just like America in 1880. Absolutely agreed.

    5. Exactly. Has the look of a Trojan Horse. Like some feminist revolutionary struggle fantasy in disguise.

    6. That’s exactly what I was thinking too, if he is sincere about his anti-feminist viewpoint than he expresses it terribly.

    7. I had a creeping suspicion of this too. If anything this is a more blatant in grrrl power than anything ever perceived. First of all there would be no female attempt to an armed forces coup and if there was it would be snuffed out quick. The movie would of ended in 10 min

    8. Agreed, 100%. I smell a rat on this one. Roosh should QA sponsored posts a bit more.

    10. The simple fact that movies evoque a battle between men and women must make us question its intent.
      If women were not allowed to vote, we would see a world based on complementarity between the sexes, not dissidence.

  19. I’m a bit wary of this. Firstly the narrative is about a dystopia not a utopia: the scenario is ‘what if evil (white) men had acted to prevent women from enjoying equality / freedom and when they resisted (violently) they hanged them. The hanging of pretty female freedom fighters denotes murderous misogyny institutionalised. This hasn’t gone down well by the looks of it so now the filmmaker is trying to rejig the remarketing – instead of a femsploitation with largely feminist sympathies it’s being presented as a pro-reactionary masculine supremacism.
    Pretty women being hanged for resisting the patriarchy is only of interest to those already committed to the idea of toxic and indeed in this case lethal masculinity.
    Disassociate from this

      3. It lost me with the female super-assassin thing. I also don’t see why a world without feminism would look so technologically backward.

    2. please watch the film when it is publicly available before concluding this. Remember a trailer is meant to catch attention and get people to watch the movie. So, it emphasizes action scenes and conflict. More history is filled in during the movie itself.

      1. I can appreciate the trailer isn’t the entire film and that there is a need to catch attention within a short period of time, however if your film – which markets itself visually as though it were full of feisty kick ass heroines – really is sympathetic to ‘the red pill’ – you really couldn’t have chosen a worse way to advertise it.
        For a start the inclusion of scenes of attractive women being hung for resisting male domination / tyranny is not exactly likely to elicit sympathy for the ‘patriarchs’ you claim are the film’s heroes. It doesn’t matter if those patriarchs are responding to terrorism. Since they are fighting against a system where women have no rights “except the right to serve men” they would objectively be classified as ‘freedom fighters’ against tyrannical male domination. In fact you might as well be depicting life under the Taliban except with evil white men i.e. just as feminists would prefer it.
        You claim to be sympathetic to the manosphere but I cannot see any way your film can do anything other than harm. In case you weren’t aware the hard-left “progressive” media and establishment have been bending over backwards to try to associate any kind of dissent from feminist orthodoxy as ‘extremist’ in nature, and to make out that any such dissenters from said orthodoxy are necessarily woman hating misogynists whose idea of a good time is going on a clockwork orange type rape spree (c.f. the media coverage of last years planned ROK ‘meet-up’). So when you depict your allegedly pro-red pill film with scenes involving pretty young women being hung for disobedience to the patriarchy it’s worth asking just how sincere you are?
        In fact in the following quote from your article you appear to be deliberately trying to sexualise punitive violence against women while suggesting that this is the kind of thing that would appeal to the men of ROK:
        “Captured WRM soldiers are hanged publicly with a worldwide TV broadcast of the event as if it was the World Cup or Superbowl. There is no drop and a large diameter rope is used to haul them up into the air so they slowly strangle, preventing permanent damage to necks or windpipes. There is a good possibility that they will be half hanged (let down before dead) to be made a sex-slave to a deserving man.”
        Do you really think hanging women for disobedience is a sex-power fantasy that “misogynists” like us would get off on? I find it impossible to believe that anyone with the slightest sympathy for the red-pill would write such words, at least in public. On the other hand I do believe someone who was trying to do harm by association might well try to associate an anti-feminist site with sexualised violence.
        If I am doing you an injustice here I can’t say I care much. Whether it’s a feminist fantasy or a genuinely misconceived ‘masculinist’ one either way I think it’s depraved. I’m sorry I can’t give you better feedback than that. I hope your next feature is better thought out

        1. Hey, again. First of all, that is excellently put, but I wanted to talk to you about something else if you don’t mind.
          I am planning to publish an article here on RoK and would appreciate your take on my early draft since you helped me a lot last time.
          Basically, I have recently been thinking a lot about how we can actually do something about our situation and before continueing on I thought it’d make sense to get your feedback.
          So, here goes:
          How we can actually do something
          I write this article here as I have found other articles on this topic to not only be incomplete but also severely lacking of an actual game plan.
          There are many rules that are evident in every aspect of our lives. Using these rules we can determine what works for our situation and what doesn’t.
          One of those rules is that nothing worldly lasts forever. Therefore, such a thing as a “Halt” does not exist.
          Either something progresses forward or it is being dragged backwards. This goes for really anything in life.
          Either you push towards discipline and maximizing your will or you will be dragged to indulgence and complacency.
          Tied to this is another universal rule. Wether it is the economy, a heartbeat or the fate of civilizations, everything happens in cycles. There is a rise, there is the turn at the peak and there is the fall just to turn again.
          Let’s take a look at the public in that regard. In many ways are there definite similarities between the consciousness of the public and the human mind. As such complacency and a drive for indulgence is something we all share and therefore it is also being expressed in the mind of the public.
          Like any individual, the public adapts to certain things and accepts them as a new normal by the mere way of being exposed to it continuously.
          At first, when something new is introduced, there will always be a massive uproar against it.
          After this uproar has faded away however, the second introduction of the foreign object will go much more smoothly due to multiple factors.
          Here again we see the rule of cycles in effect. As such you could say that the way to a breakthrough is simply being able to outlast the most arduous moment of a cycle. A shit-test if you will.
          Taking all this together, let’s look at what is currently shown to work and what isn’t. To do this we also have to look at our enemies
          Let’s take a look at current affairs, our situation and at our opposition with the sentiment of learning from our enemy. Here we see what works and what doesn’t.
          We see, on somehow our side I guess, that obnoxious characters such as Milo Yiannopoulos have the most public effect, whilst other semi-altright characters on youtube are able to speak to the youth directly.
          However there is a common theme among these characters that goes against everything truly conservative.
          Pretty much none of them strives towards discipline and all their “efforts” are caused by a drive for indulgence. Without a doubt if we let them continue unaccompanied by our voice we will end up in a MGTOW-culture of indulgence and complacency.
          It is true after all that the loudest voice is the most effective. This holds also true for our enemies as their main strategy is to be as loud and obnoxious as possible and nothing is ever enough.
          This is the most painful lesson we have to learn from our enemy. Do not compromise. Do not apologize. Do not back down, but continuously push forward and you will ultimately win.
          We can currently witness a new development in our enemies’ plan. Do you think that they will stop with transgenderism? Beastiality? Incest? Pedophilia? There is no such thing as a halt ever. Whatever has been established as “normal” will always be expanded upon. The indulgent sodomites will always push further.
          First, they said that sodomites simply want to live their lives and that these certain things are simply necessary to do so. Now we see that they do not even bother to lie anymore. They are trying to establish the actual reality of the lgbt-sodomy as the new normal. This is being epitomized in the new show “Bill Nye saves the world”.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/70f21aec9a49ab510440253695cfc49731efef19e3ddf521335f956274806d6a.jpg
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/720c68fdc9b6b6d7bf6917fe79cd97165526b040db9da8da4fffbcbbc0f0874d.jpg
          One could almost think that this is planned and specifically made to get a reaction. Then they only have to wait and do the same thing after some time again.
          For me there are many reasons why I view RoK as the most valuable player of the alt-right sphere.
          Do not forget here that there are two sides to this coin. One side is that of the mind and the other is that of the body. I find it quite effective to look at the worst certain groups of the alt-right have to offer to deem their value. With this in mind MGTOW and the entire #GamerGate isn’t about personal growth but way too much about the freedom for indulgence. Men’s rights activists are not about personal growth but simply about justice. The new nationalists seem incapable of effectively fighting the cancer of feminism and beta males for many reasons.
          The Christian church has completely lost it’s true nature and has become complacent aside from some unknown and irrelevant fringe-groups. As such I have chosen RoK because at least on this side of the coin is the sentiment that you won’t be handed pussy but you have to grab it yourself.
          Also, paradoxically as our enemy practically holds all power our voice has the most potential. Remember that some years back the public was in outrage because of us merely wanting to meet up.
          It is now, that we have publicly established the possibility of pro-rape advocates meeting up, that we should publicly go through with it.
          Further, there are many factors that indicate that the time to strike is now.
          For one the “ultimate sexist, homophobe, racist and literally hitler” has been established as a president and so made a broad basis for us to push further.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/69ad20d7ce97ba855ee66718e3557c0fe6bb12bb5ee92139a37a32a61bae6e6d.jpg
          You could say that the left shot at their own foot for building this leftist up as hitler.
          After establishing rape-advocates meeting up as a new normal it is most obviously time to plan out further steps towards normalizing our worldview.
          Do not forget that this is the way our opposition, wether intentionally or not, has operated and will continue to operate.
          Looking forward to your feedback.

        2. Thank you for your post, which is certainly interesting.. Having read through it though I find myself a little bit puzzled by some of the statements you make towards the end. You write the following intriguing sentences:
          “Also, paradoxically as our enemy practically holds all power our voice has the most potential. Remember that some years back the public was in outrage because of us merely wanting to meet up.
          It is now, that we have publicly established the possibility of pro-rape advocates meeting up, that we should publicly go through with it.”
          So, you are basically saying that ROK commenters see themselves as pro-rape advocates?” I would have said that you were writing in jest or that I had misunderstood you somehow except you then repeat the allegation when you say:
          “After establishing rape-advocates meeting up as a new normal it is most obviously time to plan out further steps towards normalizing our worldview.”
          you are far too intelligent for this to be a mere oversight or a genuine expression of your beliefs. What were we talking about last time round – oh yes Syria and zionism I think?

        3. What? That’s what you got from this?
          Come on. I thought it’d be obvious that this is merely sarcasm that also serves to remind us how the public views us.
          Which perfectly goes in line with the narrative of the article – atleast I thought. Maybe you just got caught up with that “avenger” guy’s insane, apparent sentiment and applied it to me.
          It is also to be mentioned here that I never used the phrase “pro-rape advocates” in any other context outside of the public view.
          When you think about it, it should be clear that we have indeed publicly established the possibility of “pro-rape advocates” meeting up.
          Maybe I should add those ” ” albeit that takes away from the factuality of our circumstance.
          “After establishing rape-advocates meeting up as a new normal it is most obviously time to plan out further steps towards normalizing our worldview.”
          In hindsight I should really have added a “…in the eye of the public” or something. Even as I made it most obvious that we want to change the publics view on us and get them used to us.
          I made it very clear to never back down on anything after all.
          However this still perfectly serves as a gateway to another aspect I wanted to get your feedback on regarding the article. I feel unsure wether or not I get my message across properly and as such I would like to urge you to keep doing what you are already doing superbly.
          That being said I can’t remember talking with you about Syria and/or Zionism.
          I am the pizzagate guy, remember?
          But frankly, I can imagine that this entire thing can be very annoying. As such I don’t mind if you don’t want to use your time for it.

        4. Thanks for the compliments Izzal but with respect I’m still not buying it. Your english seems perfectly adequate – accomplished even – when you need it to be. It only seems to get fuzzy when you are deliberately creating ambiguity. If I’d not read what you wrote carefully I would right now be trying to assist you in setting forth a plan of action essay about how the men of ROK can go forward in establishing “rape advocate meetings” lol. Bless your heart but I don’t think I really want to do that for some reason. You say you should have chosen your words more carefully. I’m afraid my suspicion remains that you chose your words very carefully indeed.
          As for the very lengthy conversation I remember us having, this was about Tulsi Gabbard and her challenging the MSM, neo-con narrative on the situation in Syria. Like the author I considered her actions and words to be brave, humanitarian and worthy of praise but you were of the opinion that we should condemn her for having had a career in the military or something like that, effectively neutralising her condemnation of neo-con aggression in Syria. Again and again I told you that I considered that you were trying to move the subject away from the lies we were being told about Syria, and each time you tried to shift the subject back to the topic of a woman’s place in the world or something like that
          Ordinarily I would be very happy to try to assist you with your article, but I don’t believe that’s what you actually want.

        5. Okay, whatever, I swear as a Christian that I don’t deem rape as a good thing for multiple reasons. Not only does it indicate a lack of control over the body, but also a lack of morality and it is extremely psychologically harmful to the victim.
          I also swear that I hate neocon or general intervention in any other countries outside of the own. Trump for one should not have bombed that airfield.
          Isn’t it far more likely that I am simply a purist and not some sniveling, lying neocon?
          I have not written this article to trick you. We should indeed learn from our enemy that “nothing is ever enough”. Without continuous progress decay will always set in.
          How could we, above that, possibly be hypocrites then?
          That being said, I agree that we are done here.

        6. My suspicions are what they are. It’s possible I have misinterpreted but my position remains the same. I don’t think I have. Neither do I think you are a pro-rape advocate, or a ‘purist’.
          Whether your English is or isn’t efficient you exact words were: “it is now, that we have publicly established the possibility of pro-rape advocates meeting up, that we should publicly go through with it.” How can that possibly be misunderstood or be a result of poor wording?
          At no time have I indicated that I thought you were sincere in saying the above, that you were actually a pro-rape advocate, or for that matter that you thought ROK was pro-rape. Since presumably you read ROK fairly regularly you will be well aware that it is not pro-rape and has never been, which is precisely why the inclusion of such words beg questions about your intentions.
          As for your actual politics all I know is that with regard to the Syria article you directed focus away from the political message, and in the comment / request above, intentional or not, there was a sting in the tail.
          I accept the possibility that I may somehow be wrong but I don’t think that I am. Either way lets move on. Best of luck with your article. If it’s good I will comment favourably

        7. I think the manosphere is being probed by Jewish sociologists to determine exactly how to subvert it for profit and to learn ways to manipulate it for control. I would appreciate it if some of the Hasbara posting here would let my poor dumb beast of a goyim brain know if that is true? Just kidding, everyone knows Jews can’t tell the truth.

        9. Okay, I can’t quite let this stand. I am going to go through that sentence with you bit by bit.
          “…that we have publicly established the possibility of pro-rape advocates meeting up, that we should publicly go through with it.”
          Tell me. How do you think the public sees us? They see us as
          pro-rape advocates. Isn’t it factual then that we have publicly established the possibility of pro-rape advocates meeting up?
          Any move we make will publicly be a move of pro-rape advocates.
          How is what I said not simply stating reality?
          How do you conclude any ulterior intentions with that?
          But maybe I am viewing you incorrectly. I think that we should make noise with the things we have at our disposal. You seem to think we should get away from any dehumanization of the public.
          Do you think however they will believe us?
          The truth is they will not care until our own undoing.
          And I think we shouldn’t care about them either.
          Let them cry; anyone who is open will find us anyhow.
          We should use the image they have created of us to our advantage.
          “…or a ‘purist’.”
          How do you conclude that though?
          I think that no one should ever dilute his views in order to reach a broader audience. Any behaviour can be critiqued no matter the holiness or achievements of any person in question.
          One should always try to come closer to the ideal of one’s worldview. Tolerance shouldn’t be tolerated. It is a self-destructive thought.
          How is that not being a purist?

        10. “Isn’t it factual then that we have publicly established the possibility of pro-rape advocates meeting up?
          Any move we make will publicly be a move of pro-rape advocates.
          How is what I said not simply stating reality?”
          I’m sorry, but that is simply a bizarre way of describing the situation. At least it wouldn’t be if you were an SJW but you insist you’re not. Why are you adopting the perspective of the worst and most dishonest leftist media outlets? It is only they who have tried to portray ROK as ‘rape advocates’. You even continue to omit the use of quotation marks when using the phrase ‘rape advocate’
          “But maybe I am viewing you incorrectly. I think that we should make noise with the things we have at our disposal. You seem to think we should get away from any dehumanization of the public.
          Do you think however they will believe us?
          The truth is they will not care until our own undoing.
          And I think we shouldn’t care about them either.
          Let them cry; anyone who is open will find us anyhow.
          We should use the image they have created of us to our advantage.”
          What I say is what I think, even if generally I try to choose my words carefully. Moreover I do not believe in dehumanizing anyone, and in saying that I am not engaging in any kind of public relations exercise. If others here think differently I am happy for them (and you) to express themselves as they see fit. However at no point in my lengthy sojourn here have I ever thought the commenters here were in way ‘rape advocates’, which is simply the stupid libel of a bunch of unscrupulous marxists journalists trying to spread dirt and do a harm to a cause they dislike. That’s why it is absurd to concede to such a viewpoint, and despite your explanation above, one of the reasons I am afraid I still have reservations about your intentions here. Personally I consider consent critical in all manner of human relations, but I go further than your average feminist and progressive in that regard because I also think representing oneself with a degree of honesty and integrity and not adopting an ‘end justifies the means’ approach is an important part of that.
          “We should use the image they have created of us to our advantage.”
          And Roosh and ROK have done so with great effect where appropriate and no doubt will continue to do so. I am not trying to prevent ROK from presenting shocking viewpoints to people out there who may genuinely need to be shocked out of their complacency. But what you are advocating is allowing ROK’s enemies to ‘position’ and define it. That would be a very bad move

        11. I don’t like where this is going but are you just trying to annoy me?
          “I’m sorry, but that is simply a bizarre way of describing the situation.
          At least it wouldn’t be if you were an SJW but you insist you’re not.”
          What is your deal with jumping to complete asinine bullshit that I won’t call conclusion?
          In what way does this make me look like an SJW?
          Yes, it is a bizarre description of our situation as it is the view of the public.
          This is the view of the public. I have clearly stated this.
          I basicly only reported how the public views us.
          From this alone you should conclude that it is not the factual truth about us but simply the factual truth about the view of the public on us. Do I have to spell it out for you every time that our situation is of course different?
          Even if the public factually views us differently, that only means that I have made a mistake in my reporting.
          That does not in any way ever serve to indicate anything beyond me being a bad reporter.
          “I also think representing oneself with a degree of honesty and integrity and not adopting an ‘end justifies the means’ approach is an important part of that.”
          Where did I say we should try to be as vile as possible or even that we should confirm the public’s view on us? No, that is what they will do themselves. Any action we take will be interpreted accordingly.
          I say that we should take action regardless and relentlessly of them until the public has become used to us taking action. Until we have been normalized.
          Which is my clearly stated goal. What actually normal public action have we taken lately?
          How often has Roosh tried to establish our meet ups?
          “You even continue to omit the use of quotation marks when using the phrase ‘rape advocate’”
          Please, really? Who cares? I don’t know what it is but there is something in your reasoning that seems to allow for completely out there connections. “You even…”
          What? How do you use this to justify anything? How is this in any way logical or even logically worth mentioning?
          I forgot to use quotes; I must most obviously be a SJW.
          It is almost insulting how you keep disregarding my word in exchange for any asinine indication of your choosing.

        12. “What is your deal with jumping to complete asinine bullshit that I won’t call conclusion?
          In what way does this make me look like an SJW?
          Yes, it is a bizarre description of our situation as it is the view of the public.
          This is the view of the public. I have clearly stated this.
          I basicly only reported how the public views us. ”
          No, that is the gloss you put on it after I called you out on what you said. Ultimately I don’t know what you meant but I do know what you said, and I don’t mean, afterwards by explanation but within the text that you wanted me to affirm, support and partake of. You understand the notion of quotation marks because you yourself referred to their use yet even after that point you failed to use them – and still claim they aren’t important – trying to to make out that it is ‘obvious’ that you were referring to the public’s view which according to you is objectively that we are all a bunch of ‘rape apologists’. You even add in a subsequent post that we should embrace the image that this imaginary public (i.e. the lying progressive media outlets) has sought to inflict upon us. As I pointed out in my previous post to do so would be to allow detractors to position and define us, including as “rape apologists”.
          Maybe I’m wrong, and that it’s all just ‘bad reporting’ on your part. But you’re not really convincing me that I am. Words matter, and I think you choose them more carefully than you let on. Indeed if you think back to the February 2016 controversy the whole thing can be seen in terms of how important it is to choose ones words carefully.

        13. You have not called me out on anything.
          What is your deal? Is this just some personal vendetta?
          This is perfectly factual reporting of the truth.
          “It is now, that we have publicly established the possibility of pro-rape advocates meeting up, that we should publicly go through with it.”
          What about “possibility” and “publicly establishing” do you not understand?
          Can you not stop fabricating inanity?
          “No, that is the gloss you put on it…”
          What? Do you think that you have me in a pinch squealing?
          Because of what?
          You hav never even demonstrated how what I said isn’t factual.
          “… that you wanted me to affirm, support and partake of.”
          In what world dp you live? Does just everything fall into place for you as long as it’s as asinine as possible? I wanted you to simply critique it.
          “You understand the notion of quotation marks…”
          I have said myself that it would take away from the factuality of our public situation. Bizarre, utterly bizarre.
          “…and still claim they aren’t important…”
          What a joke. You have to be insane to think anyone of us would seriously think we’d be rape-apologists.
          “…trying to to make out that it is ‘obvious’ that you were referring to the public’s view…”
          Oh, maybe the “public” part of that is in that very sentence?
          “which according to you is objectively that we are all a bunch of ‘rape apologists’.”
          Well, guess what?
          “…we should embrace the image that this imaginary public…”
          Never did I say that. You have to be insane to think that I would suggest that we should act like rapists. I want you to really note the next sentence: I said we shouldn’t care and carry on with everything we do anyways whilst being aware of cycles.
          “…to position and define us…”
          Guess what they did and do without our help? Should we cuck to them now? Is that what you suggest?
          Weakness seems to be inherent in your worldview.
          “…and that it’s all just ‘bad reporting’ on your part.”
          You will not sidestep here. How does any of this make me look like a SJW? Incoherent and pathetic.
          “Words matter, and I think you choose them more carefully than you let on.”
          Either you have the logic of a woman bundled with a whole lot of hysteria or you are just trying to piss me off.
          “…how important it is to choose ones words carefully.”
          Have you not even red my article? Any victory against the narrative has been made exactly the way I suggest it. My plan is failproof as there is nothing we could lose and it’s the best chance at success we have. How is it not the truth that our opposition can only scream and cry? They only have influence because aslong as someone cares about them. To keep going regardless of their bullshit is wjhat has always brought victory.
          Shut your shit; we are “pro-rape-advocates” in the eye of the public. But clearly this is lost on your hysterical and almost hilarious mind. You who you have to arbitrarily make up some ulterior motives whilst you cannot even define their purpose.
          Your disrespect to my word makes you an living insult.
          I have given you your second chance and that’s it.

        14. “Your disrespect to my word makes you an living insult.”
          It’s strange phrases like that which almost make me wonder if you could just have been sincere. But ultimately I don’t think you are. I cannot conceive anyone sincere would choose the words you used and still commit to those words once they were advised how they came across. You also use the word ‘us’ rather too much. When someone disagrees with you so explicitly why insist on using a word that suggests commonality of purpose?
          I suggest you write your article and submit it. I will read it with interest. If I really have done you wrong I imagine it will become apparent to me over time, in the meantime I believe my judgement is sound.

        15. There you go again. You don’t believe me because my wording is strange?
          I am german and even if I wasn’t in what world is this grounds for anything?
          But let me explain that phrase:
          “Your disrespect to my word makes you an living insult.”
          Of course it doesn’t bother me what you think of my wording.
          That you constistenly suggest that I have a ulterior motive and that you practically call my denial of that lies just because of my wording is what insults me.
          I have never met anyone on the internet who has shown your degree of disrespect to my statements.
          I use the word “us” too much? I am talking about us in the sense of RoK and not directly you. If you go back you will see that it works in that context.
          Oh, do you not want to stop me from using my incriminating wording on a broader scale?

        16. “I have never met anyone on the internet who has shown your degree of disrespect to my statements.”
          It isn’t a question of disrespect, I am simply saying what I think is the case. If that changes I’ll let you know.

        17. When I tell you that I am none of the things you accuse me of and you disregard it, which is essentially calling me a liar, it clearly is.
          To add to that that you have virtually no evidence to stand against my word but whatever.

        18. I’ve said what I think is the case, which is more respectful to you than if I just humoured you. As I’ve said if I think I have cause to do so I will revise my opinion. In the meantime why don’t we leave it

        19. I really hate to drag it but that you value your arbitrary “evidence” over my word is what boggles me.
          Don’t answer but how is the way I say something more valuable than what I say? Even just in a empiric sense?

        20. “Don’t answer but how is the way I say something more valuable than what I say?”
          Err….ok

        21. Oh, please can you not grasp nuance?
          I didn’t want this bullshit to continue and you have clearly already “answered” this question.
          I merely wanted you to think it over again.

      2. I can’t imagine what you have to go through on a daily basis in such an industry if your intentions are true.
        It could be that this flick is your way of channeling that massive resentment.
        However your best course of action would be to realize what it means to be part of RoK.
        We stand in for our values as we believe that those are best for society, for us and most definitely for women.
        All being backed up by a extensive background of facts that I’d be more than happy to share with you.

        1. see my comment posted to this message just now. I believe I represent RoK values in my film.

  20. I think this film looks as good as anything coming out of Hollywood these days…now if you can make the hero gay, make the heroine a white single mom with six kids by six different black men who has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, and toss in a shitload of Holocaust references, I think this might get some serious distribution.

    1. That’s just good down home small town right there Bob. How can they not?

      1. Money in the bank. I’ll put up a couple of wet socks and some Scotch tape, count me in…

  21. Here is a little taunt that I invented and have been playing with lately. I will ask some young female cashier/employee/slave if she likes working for a corporation that forces her to dress like a man. Most of these clueless women will vehemently disagree that they are “dressed like men” simply because they are wearing trousers and a polo shirt. But the sad fact is that women now dress like men more than dressing like women; and the worst part is they don’t even comprehend this fact. If you ask them if they would like to start seeing men wearing dresses or if they would find a man attractive if he were to approach them in drag they will not hesitate to voice their opposition, but they simply can not/will not see that in their capacity as an employee of a faceless and soul-less corporation they have lost the very thing that makes them feminine and attractive. 99% or more have no clue! They are NOT to be seen as a fuckable woman but just another sexless/androgynous robot/humaton because true human relationships get in the way of the almighty profit. So go out there my brothers and spread this “You Dress Like A Man!” taunt and perhaps we can stir up a little shit like the faggy left ALWAYS does…

  22. Hell with it, give the public what it wants. Let’s put together a porn movie, with a zombie theme – “Night of the Giving Head.”

    1. Nothing wrong with eating pussy. Nothing wrong with eating brains. Just not at the same time. It’s all about boundaries

        2. “Co-starring Cary Grunt. Special guest appearance by Maureen O’Whora…”

        4. “Featuring Moan Crawford, Clark Gay Bull and James Gag Me. Rated S for Stupid.”

        5. Didn’t James Gag Me star in the Rock Hard Files. Or was that Rock Hard On?

        9. ACtually Rock Hard-on was a bit dazed and confused. Well a total fag

        11. Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in high-heels…

        13. I think James Gag Me starred in “Spank Me Doodle Dandy”. Or was that “Porn on the Fourth of Jew Lie…” Not sure.

        15. I tend to lag behind the times. I like the good ole days…you know, when men could dress up as women and go into ladies’ rest rooms and take a big shit on little kids’ lunch boxes – and nobody batted an eye. Sigh. Who knows what the progressives will be up to next week.

        16. “I’d like to spank the Academy…and my agent, Cohen C. Dense…and, um, my mom. Thank you.”

        17. It might have been Fourth Protocol or Signs by Not Sham or Lying

        4. You lick the ABC’s dummy! Sam Kinison explained it completely…

    2. Dawn of the Head? about a zombie hottie who likes eating fresh sausages???

      1. Interesting. Let’s do lunch at a strip club. I’ll have my secretary call your secretary…

        1. Cool, but only if you let me pay the strippers by running my credit card down the crack of their asses like a terminal…

        2. Sure. We’ll use a company credit card – let the {{{Hollywood producers}}} pay for it…

        4. Bob, did someone slip you a bottle of viagra? If it was a pic or image please share.

    1. Yeah, I am thinking this is a feminist flick inserted into this website.

      1. There actually was a feminist writer who said she tried to submit joke articles to ROK. Maybe she succeeded this time.

      2. that’s what I think, but he pitched it wrong, and now he’s doing the same again to the opposite kind of audience

      1. This guy’s not getting a good return on his advertising dollars here.

        1. Maybe not. Just because 80% of the comments are critical or skeptical doesn’t meen there aren’t 2,000+ people that may be willing to pay to watch it when it comes out.

    4. it is all marketing. Looking forward to the feature film based on this short, it must make money for me to continue making films. Sex sells so having the WRM soldiers dressed sexy and looking defiant is appealing to say a 18 to 26 year old male which might be our core audience. You have to make compromises in art as it must be marketable. Although as long as they lose and get their just punishment in the end, what harm having them look tough?

      1. The trailer strongly suggests the female freedom fighters are the good guys and the ‘patriarchal’ rulers are the bad guys. Who wins or loses doesn’t necessarily determine the winner. I think you’re trying to spin this in a quite cynical way. If you genuinely have political sympathies in one direction or other then you need to work out where they lie and stick with them.
        Otherwise, I guess you deserve some respect for at least making a film in the first place, which is more than most of us will do

  25. I don’t honestly believe that women would be capable of organizing and carrying out a violent resistance movement, as there is no evidence to back it up. Women are too petty and short-sighted to provide the necessary organization and command structure, it wouldn’t be long before infighting began and wouldn’t take much to sow distrust, nothing is more irrational and arbitrary than a female grudge.

      1. The only example of women holding much power and influence in a resistance movement is Post-WW1 Ireland and devolved into vicious purity spiraling that lead to the Irish Civil War. Other than that women have been used as bomber layers and informers (Algeria being a prominent example), but never held command positions.

    3. That was my first take as well.

    4. Women don’t really WANT to rebel. They are just going hmm who is the strongest man right now and how can I fuck him ? Oh right now it’s the German Nazis nice !

  26. What about a movie featuring a fat, half-black, half-white feminist who goes deep into the jungles of the Far East to assassinate an Alt. Right guru who is on the lam…”Apocalypse Cow”.

    1. An alcoholic Vietnam Vet goes after her… “The Beer Hunter”.
      Two bull dykes (one from the ghetto and the other from the trailer park) and a queer SJW in the wild west… “the Hood, the Fag and the Fugly”.

  27. A list of 12 famous Hollywood films that I’d like to see remade as porn movies:
    1) The Wadfather
    2) The Barefoot Cunt Tessa
    3) Diddler on the Roof
    4) The Sexorcist
    5) All That Jizz
    6) Forrest Hump
    7) Glad He Ate Her
    8) Bangs of New York
    9) Broke Black Mountin’
    10) The Squirt Locker
    11) American Snapper
    12) The Greatest Hoe on Earth

    1. Haha the wadfather! “I’m the wadfather of this clan. (thunder) Now settle down kids and do your homework.”

    2. Hey Bob, let’s make it a baker’s dozen and include “Throbbin’ Hood.”

      2. Nice! The other characters: Laid Marian, Triar Fuck, and the Sheriff of Naughty Ham…

    3. Did you ever see “All in the Family Way” (I think was the title)?
      Ron Jeremy as “Itchy” Binker…

  28. Haven’t seen the entire movie but the trailer seems to portray all men in the way that ‘Mississippi Burning’ stereotyped white people as swaggering fat toothless rednecks. I always thought Morris Dees must have had a hand in screenwriting ‘Mississippi Burning’. Similarly, I sense a little Valerie Solanas spiritidness in the script of ‘Pax Masculina’. Feminist posters will come on here so clueless like they were embittered against men from birth by a vile feminist bag of a mother, that I’m guessing it’s a feminist that sponsored this and a jewish one too, as a shit test for ROK to see who bites at it. It’s like a Hollywood race baiting flick, only it’s in the form of sex bating.
    Good virtuous women, ones who are not jewish instigators have learned their place and are happiest serving their firm and wise man. Me thinks a secular jewish feminist woman scripted this. It’s just so boogeymanly in its depiction of men, like a horror film that was really taylored for some women’s studies klavern that resides in some dyke student co-op on some teacher’s college campus somewhere.
    IN PATRIARCHY men are the dreamers who push and move the species to explore and venture to the stars. But the men depicted in the movie seem more like wrathful lesbians with beards and jeans. The manly mindstate isn’t there. The men are acting more like what a fat butch lesbian prison guard or administrator in a women’s correctional institution might behave if they were on a power trip. And it is how that type of woman might conceptualize or imagine what it’s like to be a patriarch in a man’s shoes. That’s why I think a jewfem lez woman wrote this as her worst nightmare horror flick. They lack the essence and meaning of the word patriarch who rules with grace and divine superiority. Only a real patriarch could know what real patriarchy is.
    I LOOOOVE the title though. Don’t get me wrong.

    1. It’s a modern remake of blaxploitation movies from the 70s. Looks like a reboot of something like “Foxy Brown”

    2. “…I’m guessing it’s a feminist that sponsored this and a jewish one too, as a shit test for ROK to see who bites at it. It’s like a Hollywood race baiting flick, only it’s in the form of sex bating”.
      Fuckin hell. Your post was full of quotable lines. Since nothing was there about Kratom I had to settle for second best. I don’t even have to watch the trailer now because I know you fuckin’ nailed it. Good shit bro.

    3. sorry, I am a 63 year old white, non- Jewish man. The problem addressed is the ageold one of how to control “women with attitude” as we would call them today. In colonial america, they used the dunking stool. That is the problem with 2017 US – we have no control mechanisms and young women do anything they want. Men instinctively know they were meant to rule their household but society tells them they can’t.
      For the sequel, I tend to have images of scenes in my mind rather than character development which I am weak at. I am seeing a wedding of a 16 year old girl. She wears a collar like a dog collar but nicer. Her father has a leash attached to it and hands the leash over to the new husband. A symbolic transfer of property. Wouldn’t that be a cool cinematic vision?

Comments are closed.