Here’s the beginning:

During an appearance with Oprah, the cultural and social empress of matriarchy in America, Mamas and Papas founder John Phillips’ daughter Mackenzie Phillips alleged that she had an incestuous, ten year relationship with her father. Mackenzie claims that her father raped her when she was nineteen years old, and after that they had consensual sex until she was impregnated by him some ten years later. Because John Phillips is dead, there’s no way to corroborate the story. It could well be a lie, but given the smashing of sexual mores that occurred in the late 20th century – especially in the circles John Phillips ran in – I wouldn’t rule it out. However, I am highly dubious about the rape claim. In fact, if there was a sexual relationship, my bet is that daughter was every bit as responsible as daddy, especially given the fact that she was an adult at the time of the alleged incest.

Read the full article.

However, I’m still looking for a couple more contributors for The Spearhead, so if any of my regular readers would like to do some writing for the mag, just send me an email at welmer (at) welmer (dot) org.

On the face of it, and from an ancient perspective, it seems reasonable that a man who supports his children financially should have access to them, and that one who does not should have ties severed. There’s nothing wrong or strange about that attitude, however, it doesn’t take into account the social and legal ramifications — especially where today’s tight labor market and anti-male family law come into play.

These days, during a custody dispute, it’s pretty much no holds barred. Former spouses trash each other viciously in order to win the prize. There are precious few limits and quite a few inducements to wives who want to slander their exes. Calling the guy an abuser, a pervert and a bum are pretty much standard. These kinds of slanders are used to definitively gain custody, and they work pretty well against men.

Out of all the tools women have to malign the men they chose to have children with, should we add bankruptcy and unemployment? To do so will only give mothers an incentive to put guys out of work and destroy them financially, and believe me, they will do what they can to put a guy on the street if it gives them an edge in custody disputes. This already happens with temporary restraining orders (TROs), and is a very effective technique.

If we add being arrears in child support, women will do their best to get men fired by putting them in jail on false allegations, maligning them to employers, harrassing them at work, etc. This is because they will figure that if the guy can be forced to miss a couple payments the mother will win by default. There is no doubt that this will be used by both mothers and scummy attorneys.

So I warn men to be very careful about using traditional values to determine parental rights. The game isn’t the same as it was in the 1950s. Married men are in a precarious position, and their right to be fathers to their children cannot be undermined any more than it already is without risking a total loss of rights as a father in the event that the wife decides to go must on them.

At times the conversation verged on the ridiculous: the lesbians suggested that family law was biased against them because so many social workers and judges were “religious.” Needless to say, I had a hard time keeping my mouth shut, but I did, vowing that I would write it up later. For some reason, the gay men seemed to believe this, and directed the lesbians to a number of organizations, one of which was called “PRIDE,” that they assured the two bottom-feeders would surely fight on their behalf.

Gay politics, like feminism, seems to be stuck in the 1970s. These gay men don’t understand that, as men, their parental rights (or lack thereof) don’t hinge on religion or normality, but merely on the fact that they don’t have ovaries and a vagina.

I’ve got a few gay friends, and although I have my doubts about the normalcy of homosexuality, I’d never hold it against a guy for being born gay any more than I would condemn a man for being drawn to ballet rather than football. And to be quite honest, I’m not the most typical guy out there myself, even if I do prefer the standard female equipment. I’m pretty sure that being gay is something a guy has very little control over. Do straight men choose what excites them sexually? Of course not. If I could choose what to be attracted to, my life would have been infinitely easier up to now.

However, gay men seem to feel that fighting straight guys and their interests is always the way to go. Was it always this way? Most certainly not. Oscar Wilde was a champion of men, as was Cecil Rhodes, and Otto Weininger was most definitely a masculinist. It wasn’t until the sexual revolution that gay men started to define themselves as enemies of the typical straight guy.

Is it our fault as straight men that this happened? No, I don’t think so, although we may bear some responsibility. Sometimes we were probably a bit too hard on gay men, and this may have driven them to the feminists. But really, I don’t think the phenomenon can be explained by anything other than the toxic identity politics that have come to define the Ottoman America of the late 20th and 21st century.

Whatever the case, the enmity between gay and straight men serves neither side very well. When we have gay men doing their best to help lesbians separate boys from their fathers, it’s obvious that some odious influence is at work that can’t do either orientation any good. Do fathers really love their sons less if they aren’t quarterbacks? Do gay men really support the removal of the influence of straight, male father figures from boys’ lives?

I’d be willing to bet good money that a gay son raised in the company of a loving, straight father will turn out much better adjusted and prepared to face the world than one who is raised by a bitter, single feminist mother.

I guess what I’d like to know is why gay men think it’s a good idea to join up with the feminist camp in the assault on men and fatherhood. I think this is a disgusting thing to do, and gay solidarity doesn’t even begin to excuse it.

Having had the dubious benefit of having raised a couple of children for almost five years, much of the time all by my lonesome, I’ve started to get an idea of what’s going on. One thing I can say is that raising kids, although rewarding in some incomprehensible way, is hell. I’ve never had a harder job. Doing it yourself is an exercise in masochism, or maybe martyrdom, which is why I don’t believe all the BS about “single mothers” going it alone. In fact, I’ve never, ever met a single mother who did it alone. Women are better at social networking for a reason: they need to be to get help raising kids.

Nevertheless, modern young women are particularly deluded about childrearing. Most of them have no more experience than a few weeks in total of babysitting kids during the easiest possible age bracket — between the ages of six and twelve. Your typical parent wouldn’t dream of allowing a teenage girl to babysit an infant or toddler for more than a couple of hours, and in that event would do their utmost to set everything up for the babysitter so that it went as smoothly as possible.

So young women come into marriage without a clue. In days past this wasn’t the case. Just as boys in old times would be expected to handle firearms, chop wood, and deal with large, dangerous farm animals, girls would be thrust into the business of childrearing and homemaking as soon as they had the strength to pick up a child and handle a cast-iron skillet. Now, these girls are texting on mobile phones and chatting with friends online all night as soon as they’re done with their homework.

However, the instinct to be a grown woman and mother remains, so girls dream of the traditional marriage without having any idea what it really means. Therefore, as a guy who’s been there and back again, I’d like to give other men an idea of what they really ought to be thinking about if they are serious about a traditional marriage, so I’ve come up with a few questions to ask women before tying the knot:

• Can you handle the obliteration of your former physique for at least eighteen months for each child you bear?
• Could you drive a car with someone screaming into your ear at a high volume for a prolonged period of time, day after day, without losing your cool and/or crashing?
• Would you be able to interrupt your dinner to put your hands on human excrement, and then return and finish eating?
• Can you go for weeks without sleeping more than a couple hours at a time?
• Are you prepared to handle a 1000% increase in housework?
• Can you see yourself acting as impartially as a referee in a boxing match during sibling disputes?
• If your sex life were to evaporate, would you still be able to retain a fair perspective concerning your spouse?
• Does the prospect of being chained to a few little hellions every minute of the day, at the risk of prosecution if you fail to do so, seem bearable?
• Can you sacrifice your shoe budget for family necessities?
• Would you be able to control your hormonal mood swings enough to prevent yourself from blowing your marriage sky-high?
• Do you have enough sense to stop and look for the light at the end of the tunnel?

If a woman says no to any of these, she’s a bad bet. Not to say there’d necessarily be a divorce (although chances are better than even), but the road will be very rough. Unfortunately, this probably comprises at least 75% of young American women. Their mothers, indoctrinated as they were by 1970s feminism, did a huge disservice to society. Not only did they frequently emasculate their sons; they coddled their daughters, teaching them to be the cheap facsimiles of men we are so familiar with today.

Is it possible to change a girl who has grown up within this milieu? I have my doubts. Even with game, just keeping things together with such a woman requires a Herculean effort from most men, and we have to be honest with ourselves and ask whether it’s even worth it.

However, if you are a guy who wants to knuckle under and go for it anyway, ask these questions. If you can’t ask your girlfriend, at least ask yourself about her and try to detach yourself from your feelings for her so that you can be as honest as possible about the answers. Although the conclusion might be depressing, it could save you from a kind of pain you never suspected you could be subjected to.

I’ve got nothing against servers, but I hate tipping. I always do it, and my tips fall between 15-20% about 95% of the time. However, if I ran a restaurant, I’d include the gratuity in the price of food. Selling a sandwich for $5? Raise it a buck and give the extra to the server. $1 for a soda-pop? Make it $1.20. I detest feeling that somehow I have to prove my worth by giving the server some exorbitant fee for showing cleavage as she bends over to serve me food. And that’s really what this comes down to — as women have come to dominate food service they’ve sexualized it to the point of something near pole dancing.

Frankly, I’d rather a guy serve me my food. He’ll usually do a better job and not try to use some physical assets to try to open my wallet. Same goes for a therapeutic massage. After getting run over by an old lady doing a thankless, low-wage job that I should have been tipped for, but never was (courier), I had a few sessions of much-needed massage therapy to minimize scar tissue in my neck and back. By far the most useless practitioners were females. Not only were they weak and ineffective, they seemed to feel that I owed them $60/hour simply for them having deigned to touch my back. As a young guy who had no shortage of female attention at the time and definitely needed a therapeutic massage, I certainly didn’t see it that way, and after a couple sessions with lazy, pathetic masseuses I made it a point to demand a masseur – preferably a strong one – or no go.

I’m getting to that point with waitresses. I am quite frankly sick of their entitled, bitchy attitudes. I don’t care if they serve me a sandwich underneath a couple of pushed-up, scented breasts; I don’t go to restaurants to masturbate, after all. Give me a professional, deft man who handles the table with skill and reserve and I’ll be all too happy to pay him what he deserves. But after reading Ms. Raskin’s bitchy, greedy little screed, I’ve vowed that the next slut who tries to squeeze some extra cash out of me by shoving her tits into the center of my visual field gets 10% and no more.

Whatever the case, if I had my way I’d eliminate tips altogether and have waiters work on commission, as I suggested before. If their 20% is in the menu price, I know exactly what I’m getting into when I look at the menu and there’s no reason to complain. If the service is bad, I simply don’t go back to that restaurant. If guys want gussied up little hussies, they can go back over and over again, but as for me I’ll be happy to patronize pleasant places with a touch more class. Pardon me if I’ve been a bit uncouth in this post, but to be quite honest I find Ms. Raskins’ attitude pretty offensive and simply replied in kind.

I’d like to hear Chuck Ross’s take on this.

Tom, who has a deadline on Friday, used sheer force of will to get me to come along, saying that he needed to go TODAY or he wouldn’t finish his work. After dropping the kids off with grandma this morning, I got some much needed time to clear my head, and when Tom called I relented and packed a bottle of water and a couple sandwiches for the trip.

We drove to the trailhead in North Bend and began our little journey into the hills, which started out on a steep grade. No problem for the first mile or so. We were moving along and chatting happily as we wended our way through the woods and ferns. “What a happy little hike,” we remarked. However, trouble struck around the halfway point, when I misinterpreted a sign, leading us to a rock-climbing ledge on a sheer cliff, cut through only by a meager trail fit for goats at best. Tom and I heroically lugged our hefty frames some 100 yards up the diversion, until it became clear that something was wrong when we saw climbing ropes snaking past us into a mossy abyss. Looking down was out of the question — our grim fate was written all too clearly on the faces of defiant boulders many stories below. So we held on, grasping the slanting rocks for dear life, clinging to the diminishing trail, which mocked us with every narrow neck and slick protrusion. Fortunately, we made it back down in one piece, and continued on our way along a far more tame route up the hill.

But I digress.

Despite our brush with a gory demise, there was something else remarkable about our hike up the mountain. On the way up, we came across a number of young women, some coupled and some alone, who really stood out for their physique. Healthy, trim, fresh and happy, they greeted us like valkyries on our ascent. Every single young woman we saw on this hike was well above average in terms of looks. They emerged from the trees with little backpacks, trim legs and ponytails. It was a wonderland up there that bore no relation to the world I see around me every day in Seattle. In fact, the closest I can get to it is at daybreak, when younger career women go for their morning jogs, but they hardly compare to the fresh-faced, leggy girls I saw today.

I mentioned this to my friend, suggesting that perhaps selection bias is at work here. In fact, it must be. The two of us had a rough go of it hauling ourselves up some 1,200 feet in the two miles to the peak. Your typical city girl would dread this kind of exertion, as moderate as it actually was. But the girls I saw on the trail were so at ease that they had no problem stopping to chat with a couple sweaty, red-faced guys from the city.

Although making it to the peak was a satisfying accomplishment, I think the lesson I learned today will stand out in my memory in far sharper detail than the view from the top: if you want to find healthy, attractive women, engage in some healthy, active pursuits.

It should take me a little less than a week to launch the beta version, at which point we might as well start posting — I can always polish and tweak it as we go along, and it will be structurally sound from the beginning. Rather than using a free theme, I purchased one from DIY Themes, which is probably the best WordPress theme design company out there. This is why I will be able to get it going without putting too many hours into it.

When it’s ready to launch, I’ll notify people on this blog and email everyone who expressed interest in contributing (if I miss you, be sure to let me know) so that we can all get set up as users. In the meanwhile, I’ll set up a Google docs account for the site and set up some user documentation so as to help content contributors better understand how to post to this particular WordPress theme. It isn’t difficult to post, but I think I’ll set it up to automatically crop pictures for teasers, so you may have to use a certain protocol when posting images.

This could be ready to go as early as Friday, but to be on the safe side I’ll say early next week.

Because of these and other limitations of cell phones and other handheld devices, and the fact that I like the power of a real computer, I’ve avoided them to the extent I could up to now. However, the evolution of WiMax technology has brought some advantages in terms of price and convenience that have given me cause to reconsider my distaste for handhelds.

I have been a big fan of wireless for some time now, having had an intense dislike of unnecessary cables for quite a while. I’ve set up my home office with Clearwire broadband and a VOIP phone, which has finally started to work about as well as a normal land line and has the added benefit of incredibly cheap long distance (I can call China and Europe for two cents per minute from my home phone, and all of North America is free). If I travel to any city with a Clearwire connection, I can bring my modem and phone box along and plug them into any normal telephone and make and receive calls as though I were at home, and I also get the same broadband internet connection on my laptop. This is quite convenient, and requires no more than a power outlet, but the equipment is too bulky to take to a cafe, meeting or park — it isn’t worth dragging around unless you have a place to stay for a few days where you can set up a little desk.

However, Samsung has just come out with a little machine called the “Mondi” that promises to offer WiMax connections (3G and 4G) and is eventually supposed to be enhanced to serve as a miniature Wi-Fi hotspot. The reviews for the Mondi haven’t been glowing, but I see some serious potential in these kinds of devices. With a $40/month plan, I could use one of these devices as a mobile VOIP phone, broadband router and PDA all in one neat little package as well as cut $10/month off my current phone/internet bill and rid my house of even more cables (yay!).

If someone brings out something like the Mondi that does not use Microsoft software, it would be hard to pass it up.

Finally, I see a day when I can dispense with cumbersome modems, cables and telephones, have access to 4G speed on my laptop, and receive all my calls at one phone number — all with one little device I can keep in my pocket and one reasonable monthly bill. Simplicity is elegant.

This is what I have in mind when I think of social conservatives. Essentially, I see them as people who have a strong impulse to judge and punish others – men in particular – for flimsy or backward reasons. They justify their sadism by portraying themselves as defenders of virtuous, defenseless young maidens who, not coincidentally, are the objects of their lust. This is why one can see some very odd intersections between policy advocated by lesbians and social conservatives, who disagree violently on some other issues, such as abortion — they both have similar motives in the matter of relationships between females and other men.

Christians may know well the words “Judge not lest ye be judged,” but this is only the first line in a profound statement, and needs to be read in its proper context:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 7:1-2

So when I criticize social conservatives, I’m not thinking of good, religious people, but rather those hypocrites and liars who hide their base instincts in a cloak of righteousness. They are the Pharisees of today; the kinds of people who mask their avarice and lust with legal constructs and false piety. The PUA, who openly declares what he is doing and honestly explains why is morally of a far higher stature from my point of view. He is like the heathen barbarian for whom salvation is an open possibility.

As for the social cons, I can’t say I’m all that optimistic. They’ve led us down a long, strange path to a dark, ugly place, and still they urge us along.

But I leave open the possibility that the term “social conservatism” may not be the best choice. However, language has a funny way of overriding our personal objections, so I’ve learned to take a utilitarian (or Daoist?) attitude toward it.