The Actual Wage Gap 5.85 cents: From The Mouth Of The Beast.

"In 2006, women earned 76.6% as much as men) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.htm

Keep in mind the wage gap is what economists refer to as the Raw Wage Gap i.e. the median average wage disparity of all men and women in the workforce as is outlined above. It is NOT calculated for the same job as pop feminism would like you to believe. Lets continue...

"After controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the research indicates that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained"

Source: American Association of University Women
http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/actionpages/payequity.cfm

So where does this leave us. Well the only part of the pay gap that is not explained by women's OWN CHOICES of hours worked, occupation, parenthood,and other factors of women's choices there is one quarter left of the Raw Wage Gap that is unexplained. The portion "unexplained" totals to 5.85 cents. Feminists attribute this "unexplained" portion to "sex discrimination".

So not only is the 76 cents to the male dollar NOT FOR THE SAME JOB as feminists say but is the RAW WAGE GAP or "calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men." furthermore the actual amount of this gap that is left after WOMEN'S OWN CHOICES ARE FACTORED IN is 5.85 cents. This amount according to the AAUW is "unexplained".

So just to be thorough in statistics there is what is known as the "margin of error" which is +/- 2-3%
When the average margin of error is factored into the statistics that leaves us with
5.85 cents with 0.1755 cents +/-

Female Circumcision (genital mutilation) Explained

Below is the correspondence I wrote to an inquiring young lady regarding my thoughts on female genital mutilation or the procedure of a clitorectomy as part of the social customs of the people of central Africa.

When trying to understand a problem what helps most of course is to try and answer the question why??? What is the cause and effect.

I know that in social structures in which virtually all males are able to mate, incentive for production among males is very high and over all there is lower crime, conflict and in general peace and social stability.

Humans are voracious when it comes to the consumption of resources and as such highly developed competitive advantage infrastructures for resources and to compete for access to females are essential for the development of a stable thriving economy. Males will fight, commit crime and kill each other to acquire territory and resources if need be. All the lines between countries were established by competition and bloodshed between males. All of these things go hand in hand.

So I would presume that the practice of clitorectomy would serve, at least in theory to prevent female promiscuity and thus preserve social stability. (Female polyandry or promiscuity by definition creates an extreme dichotomy in the mating dynamic in which some males get multiple mating opportunities and others if not most get none. However, the practice of clitorectomy to achieve equal access to females seems like quite a drastic measure to achieve such ends.

So I presume that there must be some sort of force conducive to female promiscuity in these societies or at least a volatility of the social structure that is ordinarily stabilized by other, more natural means which ordinarily would have the same effect of creating equal access to females. The practice of clitorectomy must be an alternative and adapted means of accomplishing the same ends.

Typically female promiscuity goes hand in hand
with availability of resources directly to the female without need of efforts from a male to provide them..or an institution in which males are forced to provide them both in and out of a mated pair bond of marriage. Female promiscuity or polyandry is typical in a communal or communistic social structure. I imagine it is also prevalent when access to resources is not stable within the economic system and between males or control over scarce resources changes hands quite often.

To me, such drastic measures to curb female promiscuity must have an equally drastic causational or volatile and unstable force....

I suspect it has something to do with unstable and fluctuating access to resources between social groups and males. Ordinarily the natural competition between males serves to stabilize the system but I suspect it is the scarcity of resources all together in Africa that leads the implementation of other, more drastic measures to achieve it. So it seems to me that since stability could not be achieved by natural means, out of sheer desperation female promiscuity was "cut off" so to speak and strong social taboos and morals most likely followed which further condemned female promiscuity.

As crazy as it sounds, it might have worked, conflict between males subsided or at least became not as pronounced, the system stabilized, economic competitive advantage structures began to develop and equal access to females followed. This system was reinforced by the "back up system" of forced and morally implemented female monogamy through clitorectomy. At very least the use of clitorectomy may serve to dampen conflict and buffer volatility in the social and economic infrastructure.


Is this phenomena of human behavior unfortunate, reprehensible and in an ideal world should be avoided, yes. But the solution is not condemnation but understanding, then and only then can we take reasonable action to end the practice.


Here you can see the preponderance of clitorectomy is prevalent in the area of Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan in the east which is the geographic epicenter of this practice including parts of southern Egypt. You will see that it is most prevalent in Sierra Leone and the southern part of Mali to the west as well. It would be wise to find out the variables here. Are resources plentiful here? Are these the most volatile or stable competitive advantage infrastructures (economies) in Africa? What makes this area and central Africa in general different from the other areas? How does the sociopolitical climate differ in these areas? Where are there the most "warlords" or gangs of males fighting for resources? Indeed you may find there is more to clitorectomy than the "patriarchy"



You are a very smart woman and I see you are studying neurobio. I urge you to expand your scope of understanding away from the feminist world view to a broader, more humanitarian and scientifically objective understanding of the human condition.

Sex Objects? or Reverence of Women?

I happened upon a picture the other day that reminded me when men were allowed to revere women, sung songs about them, named the dearest of machines after them and otherwise were allowed to or felt compelled to celebrate women.

It was well known in WW II that fighter and bomber missions over Nazi occupied Europe were in many cases a suicide mission. The connection men had with the planes that would carry them through to the end dead or alive were adorned with the comforting, powerful and inspirational pictures of women. They would christen these planes with the woman's name. She was something to fight for. We fought for her. She would metaphorically carry us in her womb, comfort us upon her breast. Our dear lady made our chest swell and gave us the comfort and courage to fight on, headlong into battle we carried her, she carried us through. The relationship and feelings these men had with their machines could only be encompassed by the feelings and reverence men have for women. She was beautiful!


Today our military planes and boats that see us through to the end are only machines. Men are no longer allowed, nor do they celebrate women. It is the pilot that takes on the identity of the aircraft with his tactical call sign. Boats are no longer given a woman's name. It is no longer bad fortune not to. The symbolic imagery and reverence of women has been snuffed out and castrated away from men.


Gentlemen, I present images from a time in which women and the thoughts and feelings of reverence for them would get us through our hard days at work and in times of battle. In the most prominent of male bastions men would display pictures of women called "pin ups". It was here that she was in the heart of the working man. She was a symbol of inspiration and a promise that if he worked hard enough he may someday have the woman of his dreams. This is something that has been stolen from the masculine and is now punishable by law.

Below are some pictures that decorated so many World War II aircraft. Like the beautiful female images used as mastheads on old sailing ships.

---Feminists call these deepest of male expressions "sex objects". Display of "sex objects" constitutes what feminist call "sexual harassment"

Here are some of the best and meaningful male expressions of reverence of women in my opinion which were known as "nose art".

What Men Want

Lou Dobbs trying desperately to find out what women want now after 40 years of non stop second wave feminism. What it is exactly that they want from men now?

"What Men Want"?

Wow, have you ever heard this question asked when it was not a headline on ALL the women's magazines deducing us to sex crazed limbic cortex driven animals who need a little dose of pussy here and there and we are satisfied. You certainly won't see a whole week long segment of the news devoted to it nor magazine covers. Everything women speak of in terms of men's needs is reduced to sex. Men are simple creatures after all right??? we are primitive apes right???

Even Maria Shriver who wrote The Shriver Report on the supposed state of women tells us men that if we contribute to more house work we will get more sex...oh boy...oh boy..caveman get sex if do "what women want"...me like..me like!

Honestly to tell you the truth I really don't care what women want anymore. I figure it is time to tell them for once in 40 years what it is that we want. Growing up I was told over and over and over what it is that women want and the answer it seems is everything. It is always male male competition for female choice. What can I do to please women so I can get a date so I can bend over backwards for an opportunity to mate with her. The biggest lie ever told is that men and women are the same and as such are equals. The biggest lie ever told was that men brought women here, that it is men who control and run everything, that men do everything they do to serve themselves.

God forbid it be recognized that men don't have inherent value. Men don't get approached on the street by women for the simple fact that we exist. Men must be, we must produce, we must brutally compete, we must sacrifice, we must provide and protect, we must give, we must give, we must give and even die for "what women want".

When "equality" is reached will women still require us to court, to produce, to provide both in and out of marriage? Will we still allow women the option to be dependent? Will the mating dynamics change or will something still be required of men?


How self serving it seems women are when it comes to maintaining and pampering their inherent worth. Couple this with their demands for the relentless toil of men without nurturing, loving and supportive deference to us and "what men want" and need. When will they honor what we are and do for them. Why for once can they not understand "what men want".

Do they not realize that if men do not produce we end up under a bridge like the 85% of the homeless that are men? Do they not understand that a man stands alone and on his own two feet, that he has no choice, no one to be "dependent" on like women can for the things women demand. If there was ever a version of male "independence" it would be a free market, an opportunity for equal opportunity for competitive advantage, rules that allow for free enterprise, liberty, freedom and justice to make and mold of the world what we will so that we may be ever more worthy of high status and resource potential so that we may be of use, of value to women. How selfish, self centered and delusional is the ideology of feminism.

When men speak of our needs we are quickly put in our place and told it is only our "fragile male ego talking" or that we are chauvinist or misogynist woman haters.

For god sake can we stop placating to women and making movies and prime time newscasts placing them on a pedestal constantly. It really has gotten out of hand.
Think about it, have women ever once included us in conversation or listened to what we want without shaming language and the ad hominem retorts I mention above..Really..do they care to arbitrate or compromise?

In all 40 years of the second wave feminist assault have we ever met somewhere in the middle with all of their demands or do we legislate over and over again against ourselves and our basic rights as equals, as members of a family, a husband and a father in fruitless acts of chivalry? When will we stop sacrificing our very lives for women in their insatiable desires to be oh so ever more provided and protected for at our expense to give them all the more "choices" "a womans choice"

If there is anything men are the best at it seems we are more than willing to compete and destroy each other for the favor of women, to sacrifice and die for them. I ask you brothermen, do you feel respected for this. Do you have rights within the institution of marriage?

Many great philosophers, many of eastern origin specifically have pointed out that the opposites define each other, there is not one without the other. The opposites are the equal and that we are meant to be complimentary. When will women realize this, when will feminists see the truth.


-"Man and woman have each of them qualities and tempers in which the other is deficient and which in union contribute to the common felicity. Single and separate, they are not the complete human being; they are like the odd halves of scissors; they cannot answer the end of their formation." -=Benjamin Franklin=-



I ask you my brothermen, is not marriage defined by divorce and as such is not marriage now an obligation and risk from a man to a woman? Where is our reciprocation, where men, are OUR choices we've so graciously sacrificed and given to women to have? To marry and to divorce (as neither is of any risk to them) ,to work or stay home, to approach and spend on a woman and to be allowed to date her or be rejected or even the choice to have sex? Where is our choice to conceive or abortion of responsibility after conception? Is not sex a mutual act or should it be he who is responsible and he who should have "kept it in his pants".

Did you know gentlemen that if a man and a woman are mutually intoxicated on alcohol and or drugs regrettable sex is your fault! Did you know this is rape? Did you know that it is you who should have maintained the control and power to make decisions while in a state of mutual inebriation!


It is time to arbitrate, it is time to resolve the battle of the sexes. Men, it is time to rise up and join the growing voices of your brothers, to speak out, to no longer be shamed for being male. You are not a brute, you are not an oppressor, you are not redundant, you are needed as part of the family and as a husband and father whether women admit it or not. Do not back down. Your sexuality is not perverted, you are not a pedophile if you interact with children in public. You are a MAN and you have just as much a right to exist, to an equal education, to equal healthcare, to fair divorce law, family law, and child custody. Men, my brothers you deserve better than your ever giving chivalry and sacrifice, you deserve RESPECT!

Thank God, the woman monkey is off our backs?

Thank God, the monkey is off our backs!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33196583/ns/business-consumer_news/

-A Rising number of women earn more than their mates: Recession likely thrusting more women into breadwinner role, experts say-


LOL, THANK GOD!. We've been proudly carrying women on our backs since the beginning of time. Now we get to call them out on the whole equality thing! We men get to stay home and breast feed the baby because it makes no sense to remove the primary bread winner from the workforce. All this and my brother's ex wife calls up and demands he send her more "woman support" money (She is married by the way). The inate sense of entitlement feminists and feminist indoctrinated women have is amazing!

Ahhh the trials and tribulations of broken families, I tell ya. I come from one my self. Anyway, my bro has to sort out the mess she created by claiming my newphew as her dependent on her tax return, the gaul of some women when her ex-husband of years ago is forced to support her and support her child with child support. Did I mention my bro has 51% custody. It cost him his life savings to purchase the right to be a father but who's counting right?

I'd say this independent woman is the dependent if you ask me. If he does not support her they will throw him in prison and then when he gets out award her 22% interest as punishment for not supporting an independent woman. They are now garnishing my brothers unemployment money.

Man oh man this country now has men living in the basement of their bosses and construction foremans house and still they garnish the shit out of their unemployment to give to independent women.

Hmm I wonder why they portend that women accomplished their supposed "independence" on their own merit....See below:

Couple this sea change with the fact that they just diverted the vast majority of the stimulus package to women (Read article "No Country For Burly Men" by Christina Hoff Sommers) while 83% of jobs lost are to men and the Supreme Council of Women (Council On Women and Girls) just announced the new Title IX battle plan called S.T.E.M. or Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics. Along side GET-EM or Gender Equality Through Engineering and Mathematics (I suppose "get em" meaning men) this one-two punch should knock men out for good.

If you know of anything about what Title IX has done to male sports teams and programs get ready for the further slaughter of males. Heck women already acquire 60% of college degrees. So the way I see it the idea is to exterminate the last vestige where males predominate. After all, we all know how much women are not allowed to take certain classes in college and are banned from earning whatever degree they choose....right?

Wow, women have won the "battle of the sexes" in an all out one sided selfish slaughter of men so lets see if we are the androgynous beings feminists say we are, lets see if women are not indeed hypergamous in mating preference of males. Thank god, they will no longer require us to earn more money and pay for their dinner on a date. Lets see if they respect us for this or end up miserable and frusterated and blame it all on men... Lets see if women will respect us for doing their prior important and necessary role.

Hmmm I don't think they can do it. I wonder if women will respect a father, kitchen bitch and house husband like men respected with great honor the role of house wife and mother.

This is getting good...the end game is here..victory by design, I love it! Superb social engineering at it's finest! I don't think Stalin or other fascists could have done a better job than the femi-fascists!

I always thought the religious conservatives were kinda nuts but then I turn on ABC the other day and it was a back to back line up of Modern Family showcasing "homosexual parents" followed by the show Cougar Town where middle age women regret "wasting" their youth being wives and mothers and having a family and instead decide to divorce their family and relive their 20's by fucking young high school boys and sucking dick near the pool in their former husbands house. Wait wait I'm not done, the last show.....I forget the name... was about witchcraft and evil witch bitches who are practicing "wicans" just like the femi-fascists!

Long live the Republic LOL .. How long do you give us.....seriously.....lol we're fucked with a capital F.

Title IX: - S.T.E.M. action plan discussed at the feminist round table by the supreme presidential Council On Women and Girls :

These Communist Gender Feminists are ruthless in their Marxist class struggle for "equality". Dividing the world by gender, race and religion has and will continue to cause the death of our free Republic. Allocating resources and creating women only laws such as Affirmative Action and Title IX has and will continue to become the downfall of our Nation. A nation which claims to be indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

"Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country." -=President James Madison=-

Demand equality my countrymen they are using the philosophical concept of the symbiotic definition of opposites against you. "Equality" in the fashion in which the gender feminists continue to implement is at the same time oppression. It is so because men and women togther my dear countrymen make the equal and we are not and should never be divided, our bond is sacred and we must fight to preserve it.

An MGTOW Exclusive: BBC Male Gendercide & Discussion

Below is propaganda aired on the BBC pertaining to the uselessness and redundancy of men and how to deal with this problem. Gendercide or the mass extermination of males is discussed as well as current technology that can be used to carry out the extermination process. The segment begins with the exaltation of female supremacy as well as commentary by two feminists and female supremacist guests.

The male at (min 3:39) makes a slight attempt to resist such a suggestion by making the very good point that women will still conceive male babies when men are cut out of the picture. He also suggests that these male babies raised without a father has shown to be detrimental to them and children in general when men no longer are a part of the family. Anyway, the film is quite interesting as this propaganda is using the same techniques that were employed against the Jews in Nazi Germany.

This is a great insight into the female supremacist movement and feminism. A thanks to MGTOW for airing this on their YouTube channel.

Video: Roots of Feminism & A Call To Arms

I would like to introduce my readers to an outstanding MRA who goes by the name of barbarossaaaa on YouTube but you can call him Roberto.






On Women in the Workforce:
"Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance." "Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

On Childcare:
"The state is responsible for the upbringing of children" "The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

In her book The Second Sex famous feminist Simone de Beauvoir wrote: “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” (p. 760)

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -Simone de Beauvoir

“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole F*#@+*g patriarchy!” -Gloria Steinem (Detroit Free Press, April 15, 1974)

“For the sake of those who wish to live in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of legal marriage.” -Gloria Steinem


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY DEAR COUNTRYMEN AND WOMEN PLEASE READ:

Stalin's Communist Playbook Is In Motion

Alexandra Kollontai: Stalin's right hand woman.
Valerie Jarrett: Obama's right hand woman.


A thanks to Christina Hoff Sommers
and http://www.marxists.org

The First Congress of Working Women was held on November 19th 1918. This for Kollontai was a real advance, and a vindication of her agitation for a separate women’s section within the Party which she had been advocating since 1906.

A year after this took place it became evident that something more was needed because it was proported that the oppression of women went so deep. The Women’s Department or (Genotdel) (replicated by Obama and the new Council on Women and Girls) thus replaced the committee.

This new department was to mobilize them for practical political activity. Jessica Smith in Women in Soviet Russia (1928) describes conflict between men and women in Changing Attitudes in Soviet Russia and records debates in which women accuse the men of condescension (oppression) and patronage or (misogyny) & (patriarchy).

As the communist revolution grew and took control over the state The ‘Genotdel’ was dissolved in 1929 with the official explanation that "equality" or the Marxist ideal of a classless society had been achieved and as such an independent women’s movement was no longer necessary.

It is important to note that one of the first orders of business for the Council on Women and Girls was to divert the stimulus package to women in vast entirety.

Upon meeting the approval of the Women's Party ( Council on Women and Girls) Obama tasked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Joseph Biden's chief economist, with preparing an extraordinary report that calculated not only the number of jobs the plan would likely create, but the gender composition of the various employment sectors and the division of largess between women and men.

Romer and Bernstein delivered "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" on January 10. Though what is now 82% of all jobs lost were to men, they concluded that the stimulus package now "skews job creation somewhat towards women." (Please google and read "No Country For Burly Men" by Christina Hoff Sommers.)

Karl Marx recognized the importance of usurping to populous through women.
Through the feminine and in defense, protection and provision for her, in being told she is not fairing well, her inherent entitlement to such and the labors of man and the state will emerge. In being told it is his fault men can be usurped. He will not dare question the advocacy for such. Women will surrender to their own needs, men will surrender to the needs of women and both to the provision of state and working industry.

- "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."-- Karl Marx

God save the Republic

Men's Rights!?....Yawning..& More Yawning at Hofstra University Case

A Syndication of:
Yawning at Hofstra
Thursday, September 17, 2009
By Paul Elam
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/17/yawning-at-hofstra/

In what has become a more or less common turn of events, the female Hofstra University student that accused five men, including one classmate, of gang raping her in a school dormitory bathroom has recanted the charges. That’s legal and media speak for admitting she cheapened herself by taking on five men willingly on a men’s room floor and lied about it later out of what little capacity for shame she had.I suppose, I say yawning, that this is the time for outrage. And there are plenty of reasons for it, starting with Nassau Police Detective John Allen, commander of the special victims squad. Allen announced in a press conference that the men had tricked the 18 year old woman into coming to a dorm by taking her cell phone.“Clearly,” he said, “I think the cell phone was taken to lure her away from the crowd to do her harm.”And of course, in the Nassau Police Department as in so many others, “Clearly” means she said so.

And next we have Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. After releasing four of the men from jail (the fifth was still being hunted down), Rice issued a statement that a criminal investigation would be conducted but that no decision had been made as to whether to file charges against the woman.Rice already has more evidence of an actual crime committed by the woman than she did against the four men that were incarcerated. Which is to say that she didn’t have any evidence against them at all save a single allegation. And she is waiting now for what, the fair application of justice? Due process? Her next hair appointment?I guess we can also save some indignation for when, over the next few days, stories of the woman’s mental health issues and other reasons emerge to soften her treatment. This will happen, regardless of the DA’s decision on whether to prosecute, and it will be used to lessen the consequences, if any, for what the woman did.After all, we shouldn’t imperil the future of a woman simply for committing a possible felony that lead to the false imprisonment and public humiliation of four innocent men.And I suppose that there should be some ire directed at the media, who continue to print the names of the men but not their disgraced accuser, hiding the name of the only real criminal in the story. Her name will come out now, but only after the search engines bring back a few thousand returns on the names of the men.There should be too, I assume, and yawning again, a fair amount of finger pointing at feminists who pushed for and got these insane rape shield laws, resulting in so many travesties of justice, so many lives ruined.Truth tell, though, when I read what one of the accused had to say about the matter, I’d rather focus all my anger at him. In fact, I want to put him back in jail myself and throw away the key.Upon being released, accused Stalin Felipe had this to say:“Basically, I have no hard feelings toward her. I don’t know why she did it. I don’t know her so I don’t want to say anything bad about her.”Bottom line is, if this guy wants to give her a pass, why should anyone else give a damn?And the truth is that this guy is not unlike most men. Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.

”Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?”Is this blaming the victim? You better believe it. And it is blame they have coming. Truckloads of it.I am not going to bother asking. ‘where is the outrage?’ It’s like asking ‘where is the free health care?’ There isn’t much point in pursuing fantasies. I’ll leave that to police departments and DA’s. They have become experts at it.I know that in the minds of many I am supposed to point to the nobility of men’s desires to protect women at all costs. That is why men continue to remain silent while they are destroyed before each other’s eyes. Yeah, that’s the ticket, it’s the nobility.

Normally, I’d expect feminists to find a way to mistake cowardice for nobility. Such delusions seem more their forte. It’s disgusting to see so many men do it. But such behavior has become part of the modern masculine repertoire. And frankly I am growing weary of men, myself included, protesting modern affairs as long as we are leaving jails and courtrooms like grinning weasels, wearing our disgraces like badges of honor.Where are the Duke three? Why are they not all over this story? Why aren’t they doing anything to help prevent what happened to them from happening to others?I’ll tell you where they are. They are busy being men. Which is to say that they are doing nothing at best, doing more damage at worst. It is the same place the Hofstra five will be by early next week. And with that they will join the legions of men wrongfully accused, falsely imprisoned, publicly humiliated and shamefully silent.The only way that this is going to change is if some shepherds emerge to protect a flock that is incapable of, and unwilling to, protecting itself.It is going to be a hard job.

Not only do the sheep need to be protected from the wolves now stalking them, they have the unfortunate tendency to collude with the wolves themselves, to seek their approval and attention, and to extend to them blanket exonerations, even as the wolves size them up and make dinner plans.The same sheep also have the insane habit of pushing each other into the line of fire whenever they get the chance. They then stare at the carnage of their dead brothers in front of them, in the words of Don Henley, “uncomprehendingly, like cows at a passing train.”It reveals a bitter truth that advocating for men is trying to extend the lifespan of lemmings.And so it isn’t just standing guard for the shepherds, it’s remaining on suicide watch the whole time. And it explains why so many efforts for men to organize and make things happen result in exactly squat. It’s easier to heard snakes with a stick.Better that a few shepherds go wolf hunting on their own than to take the sheep with them, keeping in mind the whole time that the sheep themselves could be sneaking up behind them.

In what has become a more or less common turn of events, the female Hofstra University student that accused five men, including one classmate, of gang raping her in a school dormitory bathroom has recanted the charges. That’s legal and media speak for admitting she cheapened herself by taking on five men willingly on a men’s room floor and lied about it later out of what little capacity for shame she had.

I suppose, I say yawning, that this is the time for outrage. And there are plenty of reasons for it, starting with Nassau Police Detective John Allen, commander of the special victims squad. Allen announced in a press conference that the men had tricked the 18 year old woman into coming to a dorm by taking her cell phone.

“Clearly,” he said, “I think the cell phone was taken to lure her away from the crowd to do her harm.”

And of course, in the Nassau Police Department as in so many others, “Clearly” means she said so.

And next we have Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. After releasing four of the men from jail (the fifth was still being hunted down), Rice issued a statement that a criminal investigation would be conducted but that no decision had been made as to whether to file charges against the woman.

Rice already has more evidence of an actual crime committed by the woman than she did against the four men that were incarcerated. Which is to say that she didn’t have any evidence against them at all save a single allegation. And she is waiting now for what, the fair application of justice? Due process? Her next hair appointment?

I guess we can also save some indignation for when, over the next few days, stories of the woman’s mental health issues and other reasons emerge to soften her treatment. This will happen, regardless of the DA’s decision on whether to prosecute, and it will be used to lessen the consequences, if any, for what the woman did.

After all, we shouldn’t imperil the future of a woman simply for committing a possible felony that lead to the false imprisonment and public humiliation of four innocent men.

And I suppose that there should be some ire directed at the media, who continue to print the names of the men but not their disgraced accuser, hiding the name of the only real criminal in the story. Her name will come out now, but only after the search engines bring back a few thousand returns on the names of the men.

There should be too, I assume, and yawning again, a fair amount of finger pointing at feminists who pushed for and got these insane rape shield laws, resulting in so many travesties of justice, so many lives ruined.

Truth tell, though, when I read what one of the accused had to say about the matter, I’d rather focus all my anger at him. In fact, I want to put him back in jail myself and throw away the key.

Upon being released, accused Stalin Felipe had this to say:

“Basically, I have no hard feelings toward her. I don’t know why she did it. I don’t know her so I don’t want to say anything bad about her.”

Bottom line is, if this guy wants to give her a pass, why should anyone else give a damn?

And the truth is that this guy is not unlike most men. Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.”

Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.

You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.

And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?”

Is this blaming the victim? You better believe it. And it is blame they have coming. Truckloads of it.

I am not going to bother asking. ‘where is the outrage?’ It’s like asking ‘where is the free health care?’ There isn’t much point in pursuing fantasies. I’ll leave that to police departments and DA’s. They have become experts at it.

I know that in the minds of many I am supposed to point to the nobility of men’s desires to protect women at all costs. That is why men continue to remain silent while they are destroyed before each other’s eyes. Yeah, that’s the ticket, it’s the nobility.

Normally, I’d expect feminists to find a way to mistake cowardice for nobility. Such delusions seem more their forte. It’s disgusting to see so many men do it. But such behavior has become part of the modern masculine repertoire. And frankly I am growing weary of men, myself included, protesting modern affairs as long as we are leaving jails and courtrooms like grinning weasels, wearing our disgraces like badges of honor.

Where are the Duke three? Why are they not all over this story? Why aren’t they doing anything to help prevent what happened to them from happening to others?

I’ll tell you where they are. They are busy being men. Which is to say that they are doing nothing at best, doing more damage at worst. It is the same place the Hofstra five will be by early next week. And with that they will join the legions of men wrongfully accused, falsely imprisoned, publicly humiliated and shamefully silent.

The only way that this is going to change is if some shepherds emerge to protect a flock that is incapable of, and unwilling to, protect itself.

It is going to be a hard job. Not only do the sheep need to be protected from the wolves now stalking them, they have the unfortunate tendency to collude with the wolves themselves, to seek their approval and attention, and to extend to them blanket exonerations, even as the wolves size them up and make dinner plans.

The same sheep also have the insane habit of pushing each other into the line of fire whenever they get the chance. They then stare at the carnage of their dead brothers in front of them, in the words of Don Henley, “uncomprehendingly, like cows at a passing train.”

It reveals a bitter truth that advocating for men is like trying to extend the lifespan of lemmings.

And so it isn’t just standing guard for the shepherds, it’s remaining on suicide watch the whole time. And it explains why so many efforts for men to organize and make things happen result in exactly squat. It’s easier to heard snakes with a stick.

Better that a few shepherds go wolf hunting on their own than to take the sheep with them, keeping in mind the whole time that the sheep themselves could be sneaking up behind them.

The Male Guilt Complex

It occurred to me recently how divided male identity has become, how in conflict many men really are from the continuing assault on masculinity.

I realize that men are told how horrible we are so often that men, in our minds divide ourselves and our identity into two camps, the good man and bad men. We tell ourselves all the time that the masculinity our society continually attacks is not our masculinity, that we are the good man, the nice guy, especially to women.

The guilt complex runs so deep that we constantly placate to the shaming, we constantly want women to know that we are not "him", the bad guy, the evil masculine, the so called "typical male".

Those that have not found the sound reason of Men's Rights carry this burden, it weights heavy upon them, my brothers, those, the many who feel they have to tell themselves and show the women in their life I am not him, I am not him, that is not me, I am different, I am a good man, a nice man, I am not like most men I hear about, I am not him I swear, I am different. I am ok, please trust me.

Steve Bergman is a member of Men-4-Change and enters our school buildings in an effort to help boys with what he calls relationalization to the feminine. He states:

"In our work, we ask thousands of eighth-grade boys, "What do you want girls to know about you?" It rips your heart out to hear what they say: "I'm not really like this. I'm a nice guy underneath. I act like a pervert, but I really care. Don't believe my behavior and my actions."


Steve works to help young boys become more feminine and to realize why male sexuality is wrong, why being male is wrong and needs to be reformed...

"All the pressures in the culture demand that the little boy disconnect from his relationship with his mother to become a man. The culture says only in disconnection can you become a strong self that can grow." (One need not disconnect with the feminine to become male, one must be more feminine)

"People tell me, "You're just talking about the feminization of men! You just want men to become like women." We're not talking about the feminization of men, but about the "relational-ization" of both genders. If that, in this culture, is taken as feminization, we are in big trouble. That's what we're up against."

(In other words there is something fundamentally wrong with masculininity and only by relationalization to the feminine, only by getting young boys not to disconnect from the female archetype of mother, as he has stated above, can we get boys to be more agreeable to what females want, to behave and move toward a feminine ideal.)




Men know this burden I speak of well. This burden has ruined their innocence of spirit and that of boys. I hope my fellow men may realize, upon reflection, the forces they are up against and exactly how many horrible things they are told about themselves when they realize they are not alone in these thoughts, this experience.....

Men, despite the message you receive there is nothing wrong with being male. You are not those many things. You are not base, primitive, unevolved, selfish, a jerk or your sexuality perverted. You are not a bumbling, incapable man-child fool of a man they show you on TV. Do not be afraid, do not be shamed. You do not need to be reformed by gay men to make you acceptable. ("Queer Eye For The Straight Guy"). You do not need to apologize for being male. Reject your popular culture, reject misandry, reject male subjugation, reject the lack of respect for fatherhood, join us, lets go our own way!

Debate With A Feminist

You say: "Kids stay with their mothers because children are drawn to their mothers."

More than 79% of Americans feel the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home. Research shows that the lack of a father in the home correlates closely with crime, educational and emotional problems, teenage pregnancy, and drug and alcohol abuse.

Source: Ad Council United States

-------------------------------------
You say: "Pop culture shows women as sex objects"

And pop culture shows men as success objects, horses asses, pigs and jack asses (donkeys), thrown into garbage cans by women, beaten and humiliated, so what is your point exactly, that only women deserve advocacy and are oppressed??

-------------------------------------

You say: "And only 40% of college degrees are male because 40% of college *students* are male. Its not that men arent given degrees, its that they choose to not go to college in the first place"

No see, men are not admitted to college because they are not given equal opportunity under Affirmative Action, Title IX and women only loans and scholarships. Furthermore all competitive\resource reward based learning models have been removed from schools and are now cooperative learning models.Statistics also show that boys that come from fatherless homes do more poorly in this regard than girls.

--------------------------------------
"Women are 51% of the U.S. population and the voting public."

No they are 51% population and 54% of the voting public

"But there are 82 male Senators and only 17 female Senators. There are 44 male Governors and only 6 female Governors. 83% of House representatives are men, only 17% are women."

Again women do not run for office at ANY level of government in the proportions men do and furthermore females tend to vote for male candidates..No one is holding women back especially since women are the voting majority and decide elections. In politics the politicians serve and cater to their voting base, in America this is women, politicians strive to appease and perform the bidding of their constituents. It is women that dictate laws and policy from family law to the federal level.

---------------------------------------
You say "Womens success and ascent in the business world is determined less by their actual ability compared to men and more by their appearance."

Men's success in the mating world is determined more by their ability and less by their appearance. Can you see how sexual selection and female preference play a role here??? Besides, this is the first I've heard such and assertion, can you provide a empirical study or data showing women are promoted by their looks and not how much money they make for a company. Your assertion is counter intuitive to basic economics.

I can tell you that intelligence has been correlated with bodily symmetry and proportion or what is also know as the golden mean or ratio or Fibonacci Sequence i.e. good looks or beauty. However certain people are specialists in a specific adaptive trait. By enlarge though the two are indeed proportionally related and in general selected adaptive traits are aggregated and expressed.

Have you measured the mean statistical variance of the good looks of males that are promoted or how tall they are? Perhaps intelligence is the trait being promoted and it is the correlation to good looks you notice only in the female. Correlation is not causation. Furthermore as always you feminists are only looking at one half of the picture.

---------------------------------------
You say: "and they should not have the system of support and education set up for them to combat the fact that men keep women down?"

Most certainly NOT given that women keep men down by these very policies such as Affirmative Action and Title IX and earn 60% of college degrees because of them. Also can you demonstrate to me "how men keep women down" ?

I can certainly demonstrate to you how women keep men down and then demand we give them the fruits of our labor anyway...
---------------------------------------
"Women are kept out of the business world"

"Not true...next

"they are kept out of politics"

Women do not run for political office at ANY level of government in the proportions men do and furthermore women overwhemingly vote for men, that's a fact.

"and despite being half the population, they are (except for a handful) excluded from any stereotypically male-dominated or higher echelon positions in life"

No they are not....next
--------------------------------------

No this is a hybrid society or a full blow matriarchy. You cansee this in terms of men's rights especially in relation to marriage.

You have to understand that in no time in our previous history were women objectified and sexualized than they are now in our post feminist sexually liberated society. Female sexuality used to be part of her private married life and now it is public and promiscuous. Sexual availability of unmarried females is now common fact.
--------------------------------------
"professional women receive 75% of the money men do for the same job."

Actually the Raw Wage Gap is a measurement of the disparity in earnings of all men and women in the workforce and not "the same job" Many factors account for a slightly lower female capitol production capacity as a whole of the workforce. Hours worked, industry of employment, full time or part time, maternity leave etc etc etc. Please learn more about the "Raw Wage Gap" of 76 cents to the dollar.

--------------------------------------
"9 out of every 10 cases of sexual assault are against female victims."

For the sake of argument I will assume your statement is true and in that case:

96% of all workplace deaths are males.
85% of the homeless are male
80% of suicides are male
98% of combat deaths are male
40% of college degrees are male

So what is your point, that men should not have equal rights and protections under law? Men should not have advocacy and that the only problems that matter are women's problems? That men are responsible for everyones welfare and women are not? That the pain and suffering in this world is the fault of and responsibility of men to solve?

"No Country for Burly Men" Feminists Divert Stimulus Package

No Country for Burly Men
How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.
by Christina Hoff Sommers
06/29/2009, Volume 014, Issue 39
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp

A "man-cession." That's what some economists are starting to call it. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a "downturn" for women but a "catastrophe" for men.

Men are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis because they predominate in manufacturing and construction, the hardest-hit sectors, which have lost more than 3 million jobs since December 2007. Women, by contrast, are a majority in recession-resistant fields such as education and health care, which gained 588,000 jobs during the same period. Rescuing hundreds of thousands of unemployed crane operators, welders, production line managers, and machine setters was never going to be easy. But the concerted opposition of several powerful women's groups has made it all but impossible. Consider what just happened with the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. He called for a two-year "shovel ready" stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.

Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" and "The Macho Stimulus Plan." A group of "notable feminist economists" circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to "institute apprenticeships" to train women for "at least one third" of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a "heavily male-dominated field" like construction: "We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges." As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE-- Women's Equality Adds Value to the Economy.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, and the National Women's Law Center soon joined the battle against the supposedly sexist bailout of men's jobs. At the suggestion of a staffer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, NOW president Kim Gandy canvassed for a female equivalent of the "testosterone-laden 'shovel-ready' " terminology. ("Apron-ready" was broached but rejected.) Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, "The very first email I got . . . was from a women's group saying 'We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.' "

No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs. The president-elect's original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure that is indispensable for long-term economic growth. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct programs, nor was it a macho plan--the whole idea of economic stimulus is to use government spending to put idle factors of production back to work.

The president-elect responded to the protests by sending Jason Furman, his soon-to-be deputy director at the National Economic Council, along with his senior aides to a meeting organized by Kim Gandy and Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal. Gandy described the scene:

I can't resist saying that this meeting didn't look like the other transition meetings I attended. In addition to the presence of more women, the room actually looked different--because Feminist Majority President Ellie Smeal had asked that the chairs be set in a circle, with no table in the center.

The senior economists listened attentively as Gandy and Smeal and other advocates argued for a stimulus package that would add jobs for nurses, social workers, teachers, and librarians in our crumbling "human infrastructure" (they had found their testosterone-free slogan). Did Furman mention that jobs in the "human infrastructure"--health, education, and government--had increased by more than half a million since December 2007?

One could pardon him for not being argumentative. His boss at the economic council, Lawrence Summers, had become a national symbol of the consequences of offending feminist sensibilities and had been opposed by feminists in his appointment to the top White House post. Gandy and Smeal found their circle partners to be engaged and curious and were delighted that they stayed longer than scheduled: "We left feeling that all our preparation would bear fruit in the form of more inclusion of women's needs, and we were right."

They were right indeed. Our incoming president did what many sensible men do when confronted by a chorus of female complaint: He changed his plan. He added health, education, and other human infrastructure components to the proposal. And he tasked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Joseph Biden's chief economist, with preparing an extraordinary report that calculated not only the number of jobs the plan would likely create, but the gender composition of the various employment sectors and the division of largess between women and men.

Romer and Bernstein delivered "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" on January 10. They estimated that "the total number of created jobs likely to go to women is roughly 42 percent." Lest anyone miss the point, they added that since women had held only 20 percent of the jobs lost in the recession, the stimulus package now "skews job creation somewhat towards women."

In triumph, Gandy, Smeal, and their sister activists turned their attention to Congress. They perfected a special "handshake pitch" for members of Congress to be used when reminding them of the importance of rebuilding our human infrastructure, intoning, "That infrastructure is fragile too." With Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on board, the revised recovery act sailed through Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on February 17.

In her March "Below the Belt" column on the NOW website, Kim Gandy could not contain her elation over "this happily-ever-after 'stimulus story.' " When she and her allies saw the final recovery package, they were amazed to find "over and over" versions of "very specific proposals that we had made." More than that, the programs NOW had proposed had vast sums of money next to them--"numbers that started with a 'B' (as in billion)," Gandy said gleefully. "It's impossible to convey just how many hours we put into this issue during December and early January and how fruitful it really turned out to be."

Right again. It is now four months since the bill was signed into law. A recent Associated Press story reports: "Stimulus Funds Go to Social Programs Over 'Shovel-ready' Projects." A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services. According to Chris Whately, director of the Council of State Governments, "We all talked about 'shovel-ready' since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that's not the case." At the same time, the Labor Department's latest (June 5) employment report shows unemployment rates of 8 percent for women and 10.5 percent for men. "Unprecedented" is what Harvard economist Greg Mankiw called the new 2.5 percentage-point gender gap. "It's the highest male-female jobless rate gap in the history of BLS [Labor Department] data back to 1948," said Mark Perry.

There is great room for debate over the effectiveness of government stimulus programs, and over how much impact a focused "shovel-ready" spending program would have achieved by now. What is not debatable is that changes in the American economy and workforce are favoring service sectors where women are abundant and that the current severe contraction is centered on sectors where men, especially working-class men, predominate. That an emergency economic recovery program should be designed with gender in mind is itself remarkable. That, in current circumstances, it should be designed to "skew" employment further towards women is disturbing and ominous.

Here is a clue to what has happened. The op-ed attacking the "macho stimulus plan" invoked Abigail Adams's famous admonition to her husband to "remember the ladies" at the Constitutional Convention, and concluded, "Obama would be wise to do the same and balance the package." It is, of course, preposterous to think of Abigail Adams, or any of the illustrious feminists of yore, proposing to "balance a package," much less opposing an effort to put unemployed men back to work. The historical allusion is revealing.

Within living memory, the American feminist movement was a valiant, broad-based vehicle for social equality. It achieved historic victories and enjoys continuing, richly deserved prestige for its valor and success. But it has now harnessed that prestige to the ethos and methods of a conventional interest group.

Recall that the Obama administration has taken extraordinary steps to insulate itself from the machinations of organized lobbyists, establishing strict limits and procedures for contacts and communications of every sort. Yet its first major policy initiative was transformed by an orchestrated barrage of emails, op-eds, online petitions, open letters, faxes, phone calls, scripted handshakes, and meetings. And the administration went to great lengths to satisfy its petitioners that their proposals had been adopted directly into law. The administration (and Congress) must have been thinking that groups such as NOW and the Feminist Majority were crusading for social justice, when in fact they were lobbying for their share of the action, to the detriment of urgent necessities.

A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the "happily-ever-after" story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women. Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women. Unless the Obama administration and Congress find the temerity to distance themselves from the new feminist lobby, the "man-cession" will deepen and further mischief will ensue.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of The War Against Boys and editor of The Science on Women and Science, forthcoming from AEI press.

Feminists for Life? Feminist for family?

THE FEMINIST MESSAGE: Women need housing provided for them, daycare to dump their children in, and paid maternity leave or they will be forced to abort their children.
To rely on marriage, family and a husband and father to help with these things in unacceptable to feminists.



College age, independent women need the above and not marriage or a family to provide these things? When will women be responsible for theirselves, their choices and their actions? The same old message isn't it. Abortions are the result of women who are not provided for or protected enough by the system. Motherhood and Family must be socialized, communized or capitalized to provide for the needs of women is the message. We have to do more to meet the needs of independent women so they can support a child with or without a family. So they can do so as a single mother.



NO, it is the result of "independent" women who have not met their OWN needs and that of children and a family. No one, including the government and society is responsible to help women raise their bastard children. Remember 40% of ALL births in the United States are now to single mothers. The message is clear, if only government and society can provide and protect women with entitlements we can raise that 40% even higher.

Wow, Some Social Programing for Men

Hmmm, do we need advertisements like this? This suggests that not enough men are respecting women. Is this true? It might as well say "most men do not respect women" I think we have devolved to an era of mutual disrespect if you ask me. What are feminists trying to accomplish here? Is the growing disconnect between men women family and children all men's fault; feminists want you to believe that it is don't they. Does this advertisement promote the disrespect of men, I certainly think so!

Is respect something that is earned or given by blind deference? Excuse me, are they asking for chivalry??? Noooo they couldn't be, you see, anyone who knows the history of the feminist movement knows that men were told to go away and that chivalry was demeaning to women....remember?? Now the saying goes "chivalry is dead". Indeed chivalry IS DEAD! You see, feminism is a paradoxical self perpetuating ideology. Women are more sexualized than ever before in our history. Feminism divides men and women and creates the very disrespect and consequences of disrespect they say they so revile.

As you will see from the marriage, divorce and single woman birth rates of 40%, If not reveled, honored and respected as wife and mother what has woman become???


To me the add is a masterful work of brainwashing and social programming not unlike what I see other places in the American social culture. It is asking for a blind deference to women. I would love to hear my readers comments. What does this ad mean to you? What is the significance of the boys orange shirt in an urban setting? What association do you think orange clothing has to an urban male?

Here is what the Thesaurus has to say:

Main Entry: respect
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: admiration given by others
Synonyms: account, adoration, appreciation, approbation, awe, consideration, courtesy, deference, dignity, esteem, estimation, favor, fear, homage, honor, obeisance, ovation, recognition, regard, repute, reverence, testimonial, tribute, veneration, worship

Main Entry: respect
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: admire; obey
Synonyms: abide by, adhere to, adore, appreciate, attend, be awed by, be kind to, comply with, defer to, esteem, follow, have good opinion of, have high opinion, heed, honor, look up to, note, notice, observe of, pay attention, recognize, regard, revere, reverence, set store by, show consideration, show courtesy, spare, take into account, think highly of, uphold, value, venerate

After reading the above definitions, do you think women should be given these things by men because of their gender or do you think they need to earn respect first? Do you think men should open doors for women they do not know, protect women they do not know and even die for women they do not know? Are women and girls more valuable than men and boys? What aspects of respect are women asked by society to bestow upon men exactly??? What does society urge women to do for men or to show respect to men???

What about marriage and even after divorce, do women have responsibilities and obligations to men and if so do these responsibilities embody some semblance of respect or obligation to men? Or have divorce and family law made marriage and therefore the contract of divorce superflurious and inconsequential to women?


Would it be possible to tell women along with eating their vegetables and doing their homework that they should respect and obey men? And by the very existence of this ad it presents an authority statement to people that not enough women are respecting men and obeying men as they should. Would this be ok to do?

Does the nature of this advertisement remind anyone of social programming and propaganda distributed by totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and fascists? What effect upon men do you believe ads and messages throughout our culture will have upon them upon being continually exposed to such social programming? What do you believe the real aim of this advertisement is? What is this ad really trying to accomplish? What message does it send about men to others and what does it tell men about themselves? Comments?

Here is another one to ponder: What does it mean when we label little boys as the inevitable abusers of women?

Are modern day relationships giving men excuses to escape from responsibilities?

Are modern day relationships giving men excuses to escape from responsibilities?

WOW A PLETHORA OF OPINION HERE FROM BOTH MEN AND WOMEN IN AN EXCELLENT FORMAT. DON'T TAKE THE POLL RESULTS AS THE VERDICT AS SOME OF THE ANSWERS WILL SURPRISE YOU.

VERY GOOD READING:

http://www.helium.com/debates/183276-are-modern-day-relationships-giving-men-excuses-to-escape-from-responsibilities

Symbols of Men's and Father's Rights

Every successful movement needs a symbol to rally by. With the growth of the Men's and Father's Rights Movement certain symbols are becoming instantly recognizable. It is of utmost importance, as the movement grows, that what ever symbol eventually takes precedent that it be displayed on cars, on shirts, on flyers and everywhere.
Below are several symbols displayed by several elements of the Movement. I think it is of great importance that a single symbol take precedent that unites us all under one banner, one purpose.

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE:



MGTOW: MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY BANNER


MGTOW: MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY BANNER 2



WORKING IN THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY MYSELF I REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOOGLE DATABASE ALGORITHM RETURNING 52,500,000 RESULTS FOR MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY. THIS IS AN ASTOUNDING NUMBER. GOOGLE HAS A WORLD CLASS DATABASE AND PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS ALGORITHM THAT HAS EVEN BEEN USED TO PREDICT DISEASE SPREAD AND TRACK SUCH VECTORS AND MANY OTHER THINGS. IT DIVIDED DIVORCE INTO SEPARATE RESULTS BY DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THAT CATEGORY BUT WHEN ADDED UP WE HAVE THE BELOW RESULTS.. THE DATABASE SCOURS THE INTERNET AND FORMULATES IT'S BEST PREDICTION ON WHERE IT THINKS MEN ARE GOING OR CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING IN THEIR LIVES FOR THE TERM GOING. GIVEN THE RAW DATA IT COLLECTS. THE QUERY "MEN GOING" BRINGS US THE FOLLOWING PREDICTIONS...

I WAS VERY DELIGHTED AND BLOWN AWAY BY HOW PREDOMINATE THE MOVEMENT IS BECOMING! THE RESULTS DO NOT SUGGEST NECESSARILY THAT MGTOW IS THE TENET OF CENTRAL THOUGHT BEHIND THE MOVEMENT BUT THAT IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND TALKED ABOUT AMONG MEN THROUGHOUT THE MOVEMENT. IT DOES HELP TO QUANTIFY THE GROWTH OR SIZE OF THE MOVEMENT.


#1 GOING THEIR OWN WAY 52,500,000-RELATED TO MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT

#2 THROUGH THE CHANGE 9,860,000-PROBABLY RELATED TO OUR LARGE POPULATION OF BABY BOOMERS

#3 DIVORCE 5,860,000 -THIS IS IN THE TOP RESULTS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS



THESE OTHERS RELATE TO MEN'S FASHION AND THE LAST ONE PERTAINS TO PROPAGANDA THAT MEN ARE GOING TO DIE OFF AND GO EXTINCT.

I've looked into the "men going extinct" and found it benign feminist propaganda that has been used within feminist circles and surprisingly quite widely disseminated into popular culture. It was also published in the New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd's recent book Are Men Necessary?

This propaganda was so widely disseminated as evidenced by the google predictive analysis database algorithms but also Forbes Magazine, a primarily financial and business journal, felt it necessary to interrupt our daily commute with a page or more of top MIT science studies to reassure us men that we are ok and not going extinct. http://www.forbes.com/2005/08/31/male-sex-chromosome-cz_rl_0831male.html

ARTICLES PERTAINING TO "THE END OF MEN" AND "MEN GOING EXTINCT" ARE SIMPLY A PART OF THE MISANDRY AND CONTEMPT EVIDENT IN SOCIETY FOR MEN AND BOYS.

GOING OUT CLOTHS 4,790,000
EXTINCT 2,930,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE!!!

WOW ANOTHER MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST NOTICED THE SAME QUITE SOME TIME AGO IN AUGUST OF 08.

By One Man's Kingdom | Source | August 20, 2008
In Cultural Creep, which I posted in February, I mentioned that I had done a Google search of the term 'MGTOW' and 23,600 results were returned.

A Google search on the same term today returns 41,200 results - an increase of 75% in only 6 months. If only my stocks had done so well.

I've been checking every week or so in the interim, and the growth has been steady over that period. I'd have to say that the climate has already altered since then, with writers like Stephen Baskerville, Steve Moxon and Kathleen Parker getting some serious attention. Comment counts on Glenn Sacks blog have gone astronomical, with some threads attracting over 600. Here in NZ, the incumbent Feminist government looks set to be trounced in the impending October/November election, with the likely conservative opposition party promising to end welfare to single mothers as soon as their youngest goes to school.

The ice is thawing.

Topics: One Man's Kingdom | Comments

ANTI FEMINIST PROTESTS IN MALI

The below news report was taken from Feministing.com, the popular third wave feminist site for young women. Much of third wave feminism incorporates spreading feminism around the world.

"Tens of thousands of people in Mali's capital, Bamako, have been protesting against a new law which gives women equal rights in marriage.
The law, passed earlier this month, also strengthens inheritance rights for women and children born out of wedlock.
Sigh. Perhaps even more depression-inducing is this quote from Hadja Sapiato Dembele of the National Union of Muslim Women's Associations: "A man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband...It's a tiny minority of women here that wants this new law - the intellectuals. The poor and illiterate women of this country - the real Muslims - are against it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MY RESPONSE BELOW that I was unable to post there as for some reason it will not let me register. I am not sure if they blocked my IP or what. I have to post under the guise of a woman there as speech is highly censored on this site. As you may well know comment approval censorship is rampant on feminist sites or videos.

"The law, passed earlier this month, also strengthens inheritance rights for women and children born out of wedlock."


"A man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband"

So the law states by inference that a man is no longer required to protect, provide and make decisions that lead to these ends that the wife is supposed to support in earnest.

This is a real important step toward independence for women there! So the forced transference of inheritance of the man's wealth to a woman that has not married him and to a child that was born out of wedlock in this relationship is a great idea. It reminds me of our no-fault divorce law as well as alimony and child support.

It reminds me of what Vickie said over at thridage.com (http://www.thirdage.com/living-single/why-some-women-will-never-get-married "Vickie of Orlando e-mailed, "I receive a nice alimony check each month, eventually 50 percent of his Social Security, and upon his death, hundreds of thousands in life insurance. So why would I even think of getting married again?"

So since they have passed the law it looks like she does not even have to marry him to get inheritance and has all the rights out of wedlock. We need more laws like this here that help women and their children get support from men in or out of marriage. Here in the U.S. we have to marry first and as long as we don't remarry after divorce and meeting our new suitor and provider we get support from the old one as well. Why should women be forced into any arrangement with men and not be supported by them!!! I think it's a good law and I support the intellectual women there who came up with it. Men and government have the obligation to support independent women. We should not have to commit to men or family in order to support ourselves and our children.

Does the law create a reciprocal obligation that the woman has to do for the man in this arrangement? I think it seems fair on the surface but what does he get? I mean I suppose bearing children for him is something he gets. If she leaves him does she take the children as well like in the U.S. and other western nations? I mean I don't want to offend anyone but I'm just looking at both sides here..

It is no wonder "tens of thousands" of women and people are protesting this. These women value the sacred commitment of marriage and family, they honor and respect their husbands and their family. Give it time though, marriage, family and fatherhood will be destroyed there as well..

It seems to me that feminists are trying to build a culture of mutual disrespect between men and women. Resentment and disrespect is a reciprocal and compounding issue. This law is surely going to build resentment and disrespect toward women who are now able to rape men of their money out of wedlock.

Feministing: One Woman's Experience

Below is a letter a young woman wrote to the popular third wave feminist site Feministing.com. It serves to demonstrate how women are being indoctrinated to view themselves as the victims of men and society, incites the view of relations between men and women as a marxist class struggle and furthermore cultivates misandry, hatred and contempt of men and boys. She is beginning to see "patriarchy" in all her interactions with men. Women have been put through these feminist boot camps for generations. I am thankful that it is finally coming to a head and creating utter destruction.

In fact it is my Women's Studies class that I took in college as well that led to my becoming a Men's and Father's Rights Activist.. Though I hope much differently for the future of the Men's Movement. God help us if we become like our enemy.

http://community.feministing.com/2009/08/feminist-awakenining-decline-o.html#comments

Feminist awakenining = Decline of my relationship?
Hi,

I am almost twenty years old, a soon-to-be sophomore in college, and have been in a monogamous relationship for the past three years (and am now living with my boyfriend). This past year, thanks to the liberal musings of my boyfriend and this lovely blog, I have taken a great interest in breaking down society - especially the representation and treatment of women.

I am currently taking my first women's and gender studies class (Intro.) and have begun to question EVERYTHING. While rendering T.V., magazines, chats with friends, chats with my parents, etc. completely unentertaining (and often unnerving), it is somewhat affecting my relationship. My boyfriend considers himself a feminist, and while he plays into some gender stereotypes (likes when I wear makeup, dress sexy), he cooks meals, cleans dishes/clothes, is extremely giving in bed, and will call out the objectification of/stereotypical attitudes towards women (he was raised by a very strong mother).

Yet, lately I see him as the total enemy, undermining me to hold his power --- I'm not joking. For example, I found an advertisement in GQ that I found particularly offensive and stereotypical and posted it on the fridge door. He told me that I should take it down, that it wasn't even "that good" and that I misunderstood the context. Another example, I told him a project idea for my women's studies class, he immediately launched into how it was a terrible idea and that blah blah blah. Now, I am open to constructive criticism (I think), but I feel like his insensitive remarks are a way to debase my intelligence. It is as if he knows everything, and instead of softening the blow with "oh..that was good, but" he has to criticize every. single. aspect. He has to maintain his power, his authority, his superior intelligence.

I approached him after these events, calmly, and asked what he was thinking, why he opposes my idea, why he chooses to phrase it in a way that makes me feel upset, etc. But he tells me to lower my voice (though it really isn't loud!) and he gives me the shush face (we have roommates). When he talks about our relationship, it is not "talking," when I talk about our relationship, it is "bickering."

I'm sorry if this is a bundle of nonsense, or self-pitying reflection, but I wanted to know the opinions of other feminists on how to deal with this issue.

Thank you in advance!




While reading another article on an MRA blog I noticed I am not alone in my observation. I like the way this fellow MRA explains the social paradigm created in Women's Studies classes:


Patriarchy theory is the harness, the device which draws together all of that otherwise random energy, magnetizes it, points it in a politicized direction, makes it into a coherent cultural undertow, a galvanizing narrative unity. . .

Propagate this narrative among the masses, or even the camouflaged elements of this narrative, and women everywhere will take the idea on board, finding in it a convenient way to conflate their dysfunctional psychic tendencies with what appears to be a transcending rationale—something "bigger than themselves", a Great Excuse From Heaven that parts the clouds and descends to earth like a sparkling column of sunlight. The narrative, once internalized, spawns a multitude of spinoffs, sub-narratives, sub-memes and hybrids, all of which make their way from mind to mind through a variety of channels, dispersing randomly, like a fog, through the mental environment. Soon, it becomes difficult to define the source, or to occupy any kind of external standpoint.

The "personal" becomes the "political", and so every encounter with a male person becomes (potentially) a politicized moment, framed in the rhetoric of power imbalance. This instills women with a vague, almost mystical sense that some manner of recompense is owed them simply because they are female—and traces of this feeling can percolate into the smallest transactions of life.

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/search?q=political+ecology+of+the+NF+sector

Syndication: A Necessary Rant

All the recent discussion on various blogs about the decline of marriage and fatherhood has got me to thinking. Suppose you were on a cruise ship that got sucked into a maelstrom and landed on an island in a parallel universe. While on the island, you notice a odd phenomenon about the natives. All the men insist on only marrying healthy, attractive women. However, they routinely deny women adequate nutrition, exercise, etc. The end result is that most women are not attractive enough for the men. Also, the men routinely ignore some of the women who are partially attractive because the men have such high standards. So many partially attractive women grow old without a husband. Then the men ignore these women even more and accuse these women of having issues. The men also complain about their being "not enough good women to go around."

How would you feel about these men? How should one feel? You know where I am going with this, don't you? Yep, let's turn the tables. Now you know just how despicable many women are. There is a systemic problem with female expectations in this society. Let's face the facts: Men have been betrayed by women. When many of us were growing up in the shadow of feminism, we were told that women wanted equality. Did that mean true equality? Men were promised that they could be sensitive and they didn't have to be success objects. Men were led to believe that social dominance wasn't not as important as a man's character. Men were led to believe that women would love them for who they were and not for the roles people expected men to fulfill. It's all been a lie.

Too many women are not interested in equality as they are in "eekwalitee" (having their cake and eating it, too). Women are the choosier sex and often express a preference for socially dominant males (men who are confident, ambitious, resilient, industrious, and who have social assets - whether that be looks, wealth, intelligence, or whatever suits the whim of women for that given moment). After all, we are told that women need to pick wisely in order to maximize the benefit for their offspring.

And yet what have we seen?

1. Men being socially disenfranchised as women compete with them for social, legal, and economic power. Men are left scratching their heads. How can women expect men to provide something that women are taking away in the first place?

2. Men have been psychologically beaten down by an anti-male society. From an early age onward, they receive little or no affirmation or encouragement. They encounter very few positive male role models and they receive no real mentoring. Mostly it's blame, recrimination, ridicule, vilification, and neglect they receive at the hands of others and the hands of culture as a whole. The end result is that these men either don't have self-confidence or don't have any ambition (traits women find attractive in men). How could the men have these traits? How could they feel that they have a stake in a society that repeatedly demonstrates indifference, distrust, or outright hostility towards them? Again, how can anyone expect men to possess something that is being taken away in the first place?

The bottom line is that men are having an increasingly difficult time being what women want them to be. And what's even more disconcerting is that many women don't even seem to be bothered by that. It's make one wonder if women have just seen men as a means to an end: genetic material and resources for the offspring. Now that women can receive much of what they want without men, look how many of them act. Women in the mainstream media revel about the demise of men. If these women said similar things about blacks or Jews, they would be dismissed as mentally unhinged. Indeed, they are mentally unhinged, but very few people challenge these women on their sick, mindless, androphobic drivel.

Don't you dare tell me it's "the way women are" and that I need to deal with it. If we place social constraints on the behavior of men, then corresponding constraints need to be placed on women. Churches rant and rave about male promiscuity, the "male gaze", and men "being hung up on looks." Where are the church sermons that address the problem women have in objectifying men as success objects? Have you heard any lately? In the animal kingdom, a lot of female organisms work to accumulate resources for themselves and their offspring with little or no regard for others. Male organisms are reduced to a disposable resource. What are faith communities doing to challenge women to move beyond such a base mode of existence? We talk about a "Christian worldview" but I think a lot of conservative women act like Darwinists in their relationship with men. We are hypocritical when we suggest that masculinity and the male sex drive are sinfully disordered (a result of the Fall, or whatever), but the behavior of women is just "something natural" and the "way they were designed." Excuse me, but I have a difficult time believing the Creator designed women to treat men like tools, or worse, like garbage.

A lot of women are being incredibly foolish if they think society can move on just fine without being concerned about the welfare of men. Readers should take note of this: Women have no power unless men consent to it. That even goes for sexual power. If men don't have a personal stake in the welfare of future generations, then there won't be any future generations. If a critical mass of men start caring more about video games than about impregnating women and parenting the resultant offspring, then this society will fall flat on its face (or it will be replaced by something more rooted in reality). The future is not independent-minded white women. The future is traditionalist, brown-skinned women of an "ancient and enduring" people "whose language you do not know."

Women can't expect to play "top dog" and yet be married to the "top dog." There can only be one "top dog." Embracing gender equality means ditching the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm). Embracing the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm) means ditching gender equality. Remember what I said about the New Gender Deal. Women can't have it both ways.

People also need to start showing genuine compassion, concern, and respect for men as human beings; they need stop acting like men need to earn these things. Otherwise, an increasing amount of men are going to get the idea that nobody genuinely and honestly cares about their inherent worth as people. When men start believing that, they are not going to show much care and concern in return. I think that lies at the heart of much of the crimes men commit.

In short, if nothing changes, then women are going to destroy this society. It's going to be a classic case of the Tragedy of Commons. You don't like me talking about women? Too bad. There's going to be little or no real progress for men and women until women get their act together and rethink their behavior. We can blame the government, the liberals, the New World Order, technology, chivalrous men, genes, or whatever, but here's the indisputable truth: A critical mass of women are primarily responsible for the mess that has come about. Someone needs to point this out. When women constantly belittle, demean, and marginalize men at every turn, someone needs to say something. When women try to have their "eekwalitee" cake and eat it too, giving men the shaft in the process, someone needs to say something. Otherwise, the whole mess is going to explode in the face of women, and they will have no one to cry to.

http://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/07/necessary-rant.html

Hypergamy, Polyandry and Discussion

I was on NovaSeekers blog and found an interesting article. As we all know the family i.e. man, woman and child is dying. Fathers are dying and men being able to have a family is dying as well. It all does not look well. So here is my take on it. I wonder what you all have to say. I'd love to hear comments. I find the death of men husbands and fathers in our society very interesting, particularly since many of the sociological and judicial law changes that have taken place is second wave feminist or female driven. 70% of divorce is initiated by women as well along with our 40% single woman birth rate. The destruction of family, particularly our fatherless epidemic is very interesting.

I find it interesting that of all the rest of divorces which are initiated by men (30%) only a fraction of those relationships involve children. In many cases men only initiate divorce when they have no children.

According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

My father is a dedicated, kind and loving man that would sneak up to see me every chance he got. He would drive an hour each way to visit me during Summer break from school while my mother was at work and I was home alone for the Summer. During the late 80's and 90's sociologist gave a name for these children, "latch key kids". I had to keep my fathers involvement in my life a secret from my mother though. I remember how special it was to see him and how I was kinda scared he would get caught being a father to me. The court says that only women can have children and fathers should only get "visitation" of 4 days a month. The law says that men must support a woman financially no matter what, even if she leaves you and takes your children. Should a man loose his job or is unable to pay he will face jail or interest payments payed directly to the woman as punishment when he is able to support her again. It was that way with my dad as well. I would visit him at his house 4 days a month (every other weekend). I remember how empty his apartment was and how little money he had. Most of it went to my mother and the mortgage on the house she took from him. I love my mother. He never once said anything bad about my mother. He spent quality time with me. I remember making a tent out of bed sheets.

There is an effort now to try and bring men back into the family, not by women but by government. I don't think the government knows all the causes. For now I guess we will just have to blame men for all this as the U.S. ad council does. It was not always like this. Our families were not always like this.
Men used to have families, children used to have fathers.

Ok on to the article:
Novaseeker says:


So here it is:

Age at first marriage:


Marriage Rates: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/marriage.html


Divorce Rate:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html
This one is interesting as you can see where divorce plateaued and appeared to decline but this was the critical mass point at which the decline of marriage started to catch up and illustrates the impact of hypergamy and and increasing preference for loose knit cohabitation and single woman births rather than marriage. I've always found the skyrocketing divorce rate and it's correlation with the date and time of second wave feminism and second wave feminist divorce laws very interesting.
PLEASE READ, DIVORCE DECLINING BUT SO IS MARRIAGE BY 50% IN FACT.
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/03/divorce-declining-but-so-is-marriage-by.html


This is where men are going now. A 400% percent increase in incarceration rates.
A GOOD READ: http://www.boysproject.net/papers/The_State_of_American_Manhood.pdf


Female headed households single mother fatherless children: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/hhrace.html

I'm not sure if everyone knows so I have to repeat stats throughout my blog but single parent families in the U.S. is synonymous with fatherless families as 90% of men loose their children in divorce.


Single woman birth rate: This one is also very interesting. 1 in 4 women now carry a disease that is sexually transmitted. HPV and cervical cancer is on the rise. They have created a vaccine for certain types but disease among women is a major problem and part of our new family structure or rather a lack there of.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/fertunm.html


This graph is slightly dated, the single mother birth rate is now 40% of all births.
Feminists know that this is the result of their agenda. I believe that is why they are making more calculated implementation of laws in other countries that give women rights to male resources out of wedlock see: Anti Feminist Protests in Mali a few blog posts up:http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/08/anit-feminist-protests-in-mali.html


I like what the other commenter said:

"Pre-marital sex screwed up many things. It allowed the top 10-15% of men to lead on the top 50% of women, and the top 30% of men to lead on the top 70% of women. Porn, romance novels/chick flicks/prostitutes fill in the gaps so the existence isn't so unbearable and the years keep on flying by."

"Getting to have sex with men in the top 20% of attractiveness would be drug-like for a gal who is in only the top 40-50% of attractiveness, and it makes it hard for her to settle for a man who merely is like herself, right in the middle of the attractiveness scale."



So I think what we are looking at here is an artificially created sexual selective dynamic which has a tight threshold of males able to mate or females that will mate with them. The only place I've seen such a threshold is in nature where the male is not needed to provide resources and multiple females are able to mate with the alpha male as in deer and many other animals.

The one defining factor is the lack of need for a male to a mated pair bond to provide resources. We humans have created this systemically as we have extremely long gestation periods for our offspring and in actuality a male is needed to stay in the pair bond to ensure survival. The difference being is that we do this through alimony, child support, government husbandry and president placed on female independence and resource acquisition by herself.

With the male nullified I see it is increasingly the case that we will have fatherless children and many men who will not be able to have a family. Those that do are subject to forced systemic resource transference outside the mated pair bond after divorce. The female is also able to increase her genetic fitness in this model as she is able to mate again after divorce where as the males are left without a family and rights to their own resources to start another family or support another family.

I imagine this dynamic will create quite a few men who do not find incentive to produce and will increasingly become more predatory upon society rather than provisionary.

The current dynamic aligns with all the male health indicators. Male suicide has tippled since 1970, particularly among boys and men ages 15-27. Some of these boys have decided to kill others before killing themselves. School shootings, mass shootings and murder suicides began to present itself among men and boys in the 1990's. Those of you old enough to remember know that men and boys did not always kill themselves and others in such proportions in the past it was unheard of. Males have been dropping out of colleges and now only acquire 40% of all degrees. This does not include the policies enacted to force males out of college such as Title IX, Affirmative Action and women only loans and scholarships. The decline of men from the public sphere and the effect on the forced marginalization of men and boys is evident. In 1964, 72 percent of men voted for president, while that number today has dropped to 53 percent today.

The effect is compounded by female privileged laws designed to accelerate and facilitate this as well as no-fault divorce that feminists successfully tied to default awards of alimony, child support and default female child custody.

I think the key for feminists would be to close the raw wage gap or surpass the aggregate of male monetary productive capacity at all costs. I think this is why they are speaking of extending Title IX to all science, technical and engineering departments. At this point females have a 60% of college degrees. I think the goal is to get them to 70-100% of college degrees. This is important as it will serve to marginalize men out of the family as planned. See the below study extract:

-- Education and Hypergamy, and the “Success Gap” by Prof. Elaina Rose * Department of Economics University of Washington contact email erose@u.washington.edu
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2005/0109_1300_0701.pdf

Here: The more educated or "independent" a female is, the less likely she will find a mate she sees as adequate and the less likely she will mate and have children.





The reverse it true for men: The more education and resources the man has the more likely he will find a mate. This is hypergamy in action. I think perhaps that hypergamy is female driven and the dissolution of family is exacerbated by female instinct for "successful" males. The more educated and independent a woman is, the more resourcefully successful she is, the less adequate the males around her seem to be.





Though at all levels men are increasingly turning away from marriage. Some sociologists refer to this as the "marriage strike" among men. Perhaps it is because men don't have any rights in marriage. Perhaps it is because sex is widely and easily available to men out side marriage and with many different women. Perhaps hypergamous preferences in females slow down female mate selection as females become more educated. I suspect all three factors.
A GOOD READ: http://www.boysproject.net/papers/The_State_of_American_Manhood.pdf


In her report Prof. Rose states:

"“Hypergamy” is the tendency for women to marry up with respect to education or other characteristics associated with economic well-being. For a given level of hypergamy, an increase in the education of women relative to men will tend to increase the “success gap” (i.e., the disadvantage faced by successful women in the marriage market). I track the success gap with U.S. Census data and find that the success gap declined between 1980 and 2000 – when women’s education increased with respect to men’s. This is because hypergamy was not constant – it also declined. Similarly, we would expect marriage rates to fall for men at the bottom of the distribution. This was consistent with the data. The decline in hypergamy was concentrated at the top of the distribution. Over the period, hypergamy increased at the bottom of the distribution. (The author is demonstrating the increased marginalization of males from mating, marriage and the opportunity to have a family leading to an over all decline of marriage) She states "Changes in family policy such as the
liberalization of divorce laws, as well as shifts in social norms, have reinforced these trends."

"Patterns in education have changed considerably as well. Overall, the population of both men and women in the U.S. has become more educated, and women have become more educated relative to men."

"Marriage has changed substantially in the last several decades. The most notable change is the overall decline. At any given age, individuals are less likely to be, or have ever been, married. According to Becker’s [1977] work, the decline can be explained by the increase in women’s labor supply and market human capital which has reduced the gains from specialization and exchange in marriage. Other explanations include the improvement in birth control technology (Akerloff et al [1995] and Goldin and Katz [2002]) and the increase in welfare generosity (government husbandry taking the place of husbands and fathers for resource provision to the family) (Murray, 1984) 1 . Grossbard-Schechtman [1993] relates the decline in women’s propensity to marry"

(I note that: Further more the tendency for women to not stay married and initiate divorce do to feminist implementation of no fault divorce, default female child custody and forced male resource provision while remaining in isolation from the female and child with alimony and child support further exacerbates the problem. Divorce is 70% female initiated and the out of wedlock birth rate of 40% of all births is female driven.

"If women tend to marry up with respect to, say, education, and if education is
distributed similarly by sex, (which it is not as women earn 60% of all college degrees which further exacerbates the issue) women at the top of the distribution will have more limited options,and a negative relationship between education and marriage will emerge."

However the author states that though net hypergamy has declined it has only done so at the top of the educational distribution. In other words when the most highly of educated women do marry, there is little disparity between a top producing career woman and a top producing career man. Overall though becoming a highly educated career woman comes at a cost as seen in the rapid decline in the probability of marriage for these women as well as the probability of having children as is evidenced by the graphs above.

Anyway, I'm quite interested in the sociology of the black community because they have surpassed 70% single woman birth rates and their fatherless rate is very high along with educational disparity between black men and women. Net hypergamy has also decreased for black women. Though the author did not publish that data for black "% mothers" I suspect that it is incorporated in graph above though the author did not specify. The black community is an interesting model to demonstrate where we are headed with the increase in the hypergamic indicators noted above. So I think white males and the rest of society will see a clear decline in the majority of male place in society and male behavior.. Increase in crime, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, lower educational achievement, fatherless families etc etc etc. The black community serves as a perfect construct to illustrate the changes that are to come given the same variables present in their community.

In fact all of these indicators are increasing in males in our society at the moment and sociological behavior of males in society by enlarge is starting to align with male behavior under the same factors as black males have been exposed to. I don't see a stop to it any time soon. All health indicators for males point to a severe decline and I am concerned about the family structure as the graphs I've pointed out above show significant momentum. I don't think they will decline anytime soon...Too many single mothers has created a legacy of young men without the knowledge of how to be fathers as fathers are increasingly pushed out of their homes and from the lives of their children. Even the young fathers who are present often have little knowledge of fathering, having been denied the benefit of a father themselves.
I think people are starting to realize what is happening but I think it is to late to fix it and it will take a lot of time to repair.

The only solution AS THE LAWS CURRENTLY STAND and as men are not valued or needed as fathers and husbands men should not be required to support a female and child with alimony and child support. When males are not needed in nature and monogamous pair bonds are not formed the males mate and go their own way... In my mind anything less than complete independence for men is unacceptable. Males must withdraw completely. Men must become "independent" as women have. Female "independence" as it is called is actually another name for "not needing a man" as a husband or a father to children. Men need to respond to this accordingly. I think it is the men who want a family, a wife and child the most that are most passionate and resentful of our current situation.

Chivalry and other elements of male connection to women and "their" children needs to decline. Men have increasingly dissconnected from commitment, protection, provision and chivalry to women but it needs to continue. Black males have adapted well and I admire their response of independence. I believe men and women are indeed going our separate ways as women wanted but the last of male ties to protection and provision to women MUST BE ELIMINATED for equality to exists as women want. We must not have mutual dependence, need or obligation to one another or to a family. The collective statement of women as is seen from the graphs above, is the divorce of males in general at a societal level. Now that this is occurring it is important we arbitrate the terms of the death of marriage and family.. Men should not be left with nothing while footing the bill as is currently the case. Make no mistake, WOMEN WANT "INDEPENDENCE" and we must free ourselves from them as well. We have no choice now...

I want men to have families though, I want men to have children...I don't want this to happen to us but it is, and as such, at an alarming rate.... There is no turning back men, you must fight for your rights in this new order! Stand together and fight for Men's and Father's Rights! If not your dignity or rights to your own working labor and forced servitude to financially support a woman that divorced you, AT LEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE LIFE OF YOUR CHILDREN, TO BE A FATHER. It is a hard and uphill battle. I don't blame you from withdrawing from commitment to women, marriage and to your estranged children. I respect your decision of independence from your disposability and the hypocrisy you face.

A good read:
http://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/08/delay-of-marriage-men-are-not-problem.html

Excerpts: The Cinderella Paradox

"I've blogged about this one, and it's related to the "Cosmo Complex." Women tend to be hypergamous. The "Paradox" is that as women increase their social status, the ability of men to be desirable mates for these women decreases. The pyramid narrows at the top, but don't tell this to the modern woman. She has conned herself into believing that their are enough men of high status to go around who are, at the same time, serious about marriage."

"We can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, tell women to stop seeking prestigious jobs, or tell them to get back into the kitchen and bake some pie. But the doesn't stop many so-called liberated women from confining men to the old, stereotyped role of being "the main earner" does it? The reason there is a delay in marriages is because a critical mass of women show they are clueless about this matter."

Sooo, will women change, will they allow men to be freed from our oppressive role as provider now that women are independent? Or will they continue to be our foes, or competitors and demonstrate the hypocrisy of feminism. Will they continue to blame men for this?

Men, I to am becoming a hardened shell unto myself. I desire a wife, a child a family but I know in an instant, if she decides, it can all be taken away from me. I will never marry in the legal sense and am afraid of being a heartless shadow in the life of my child as I know that at any moment a woman can take my child away from me. I am afraid to commit to a woman or get to close to my prospectful children.

In exploring my feelings I found the below:

"Sonja Hastings of Fathers-4-Equality says that “no matter how decent, hardworking, and caring you may be as a father, that in the event of separation, you will more than likely not get custody of your child, you will lose up to 80% of all of your assets, you will have to pay up to five times the cost of raising a child, (in alimony and child support) and most importantly you could never see your child again.” In Britain a fathers’ rights group tours university campuses warning young men not to start families. Even one attorney writes a book concluding that the only effective protection for men to avoid losing their children is not to start a family in the first place."

As a young man in college, I was red in the face at what they were telling me in my Women's Studies class. So I sought out resources to understand what is happening and how I can adapt accordingly. At this point it seems I need to think about disconnecting from paternal investment in my offspring or support of a family in marriage and move on to something that allows me independence. I don't want to get my cell phone bill, electric bill, child support bill and woman support bill and have that be my existence. I think detaching from women and fatherhood is a rather smart strategy.

Novaseeker has written an excellent paper which Men's Rights groups are discussing to figure out where the movement needs to go. The paper helps young men understand the new mating model and to help them adapt accordingly. The rise of the "hook up" culture, "The Game" and PUA's or "pick up artists" and the "playa" or "player" is a growing phenomenon as well. Courtship towards the ends of marriage is not so much the case or an ideal and healthy choice for men. These adaptations have rightfully spread from the ostracized males of the black community to the rest of society. Women and feminists seek such ends (perhaps unknown to themselves) as to the wide spread sexualization and devaluation of women as something to commit to.

Males are adapting to optimize for little commitment and short term mating opportunities that females now present to them. Sex is now widely available from women as well as rampant disease (1 in 4 women carry a disease that is sexually transmitted)Sex being as separated from reproduction has opened the door to a new mating dynamic that has assisted, along with other feminist laws to destroy the monogamous pair bond structure of marriage.

Novaseeker
http://novaresources.blogspot.com/2009/04/general-theory-of-human-mating.html

Be A Father??? Yea Right

The below video would be seen as something from a science fiction film by our grandparents and generations past. A dystopian reality where men are no longer part of a family or the lives of their children has come to be reality in the year 2009. This change in the American family began 40 years prior. They would never have thought that the President of The United States would one day have to address the entire nation on the lack of a father in the home and in the lives of children. They never would have thought it would come to this point. Such a civilization and it's social culture are certainly worse off by this. Surely such a culture is destined for a continual decline. Indeed I am concerned about the future of my country, a country which is suffering a collapse of it's infrastructure in all realms, including the family.



I've got a proposal Mr. President, how about you allow men to be fathers! How about you support shared parenting and equal divorce law so that men don't loose their homes, their children and rights to their working labor supporting a woman who left them through no fault divorce and a child that has been taken away from him. No father should be a "visitor" of 4 days a month in a child's life. 90% of men loose their children in divorce. 70% of all divorce is initiated by women. I ask you Mr. President who is it really that is abandoning their families? Maybe the same people who entitled themselves to gain alimony and child support even in no-fault divorce,, The Women's Party the Feminists! Maybe the same people who lobbied to create no-fault divorce, The Women's Party, the Feminists. Of the 30% of all divorces that are initiated by men many if not most are of relationships where the man and woman did not have children.

So again Mr. President, according to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

How dare you speak to men in such a condescending way. "Take your kid to the zoo, play catch etc etc... How dare you act as if we need to teach men to love their children. How dare you... I have never been married and am not a father but I know the forces I face for Men's and Father's Rights in my country. Men have been cast out of the family structure in the largest proportions in history and now you are trying to tell men it's their fault, that fatherhood is in crisis and it's men who need to man up and solve the issue!!!? Men are fighting EVERYDAY to be fathers. The Men's and Father's Rights Movement is growing. I urge you Mr. President to go to ACFC.org and sign the shared parenting petition.

FIX FAMILY LAW AND STOP YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS BLAMING MEN FOR AMERICA'S RECORD RATE OF DISSOLVED FAMILIES, OUR 40% SINGLE WOMAN BIRTH RATE, OUR 50% DIVORCE RATE, OUR 70%+ FEMALE INITIATED DIVORCE RATE AND FATHERLESSNESS..... YOU FEMINIST, YOU ASSHOLE, HOW DARE YOU BLAME MEN AND PUT ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THIS ON OUR SHOULDERS!.........
FATHERS ARE DISPOSABLE WHILE FORCED TO SUPPORT WOMEN AND THEIR ESTRANGED CHILDREN REMEMBER? MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT A MALE DRIVEN PROBLEM. INCREASINGLY SO, MEN ARE RESPONDING ACCORDINGLY TO THEIR DISPOSABLITLY.



Is this so! Why don't you do something about it!
With all due respect Mr. President I just graduated college several years ago and young boys and girls are taught not only in my Women's Studies class but even in my philosophy class that men are not necessary as husbands and fathers. You see we were all taught that all that is necessary for the development of children is the extended family of grandparents, uncles and aunts and the myriad of men that come in and out of the homes of single mothers and "their" children or simply a loving gay or lesbian couple. Even I fell for it. It was only my Women's Studies class that made me realize that it was all a lie. You see, they say single motherhood is a lifestyle choice remember? What do you think brings me here to create my blog? My Women's Studies class you idiot. I was so angry at what they were teaching in my college my mother was worried about me. I came home red in the face my president. Think real hard about the changes in our culture in the last 35-40 years. Take a good hard look at feminism. You know, the people you surround yourself with and convinced you to create the Council on Women and Girls only. Those people!!!



PLEASE WRITE THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY HERE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ope/contact/

Sperm Banks Men for Sale

MAN SHOPPING MADE EASY....MEN ARE FOR SALE SILLY! ACT NOW AND PURCHASE A BLONE HAIRED, TALL DOCTOR FOR 10% OFF!



Just have your doctor sign the quick and easy A1 form and our exclusive collection of males await your choice! Why waste your time with no-fault divorce, alimony woman support and child support! Yes women get custody of children by default, yes the man is forced to support you outside of marriage but we cut to the chase. With all the government benefits to single mothers and the rise of the independent woman, you to can have the male genes of your dreams without the hassle! Act now!



oooooooh! how much is male number 03409? I can't wait to come in and see his mug shot in the male albums they set at the coffee table. Let's see 03409....ohhhh wow he's a looker!


http://www.cryobank.com/ Your one stop source for the best male genes! Order yours today, no man necessary, no father needed! Act now, opening an account with us is easy! http://www.cryobank.com/How-It-Works/Opening-an-Account/

Once registered we will ship your male genes next day air! It's that easy!
You can even select your male genes by what Hollywood celebrity the male looks like.
Single motherhood and the best gene quality has never been easier!





One woman's view in reply to a woman who decided to buy sperm and become a single mother THIS IS HOW MODERN WOMEN ARE TAUGHT TO THINK. THIS IS FEMINISM. THIS GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW MEN ARE VIEWED IN OUR SOCIETY. THAT NO LAWS PROTECT AGAINST THIS AND OTHER EXPLOITATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS OF MEN IS BEYOND ME. THIS IS HOW WOMEN SPEAK OF US EVERYWHERE I LOOK. PAY ATTENTION, IT IS MORE WIDE SPREAD BELIEF THAN YOU THINK. BELOW IS THE GOAL OF FEMINISM:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think that women who want to get married and have children, may have to compromise on the GENE QUALITY of the man for his ability to financially support the child.
however women who have stable careers and think they can support the child alone, are in a unique position to get the BEST GENES for their children if they are willing to be single mothers. Single motherhood is increasingly becoming an option for women."

"Most women may not be able to marry the tall, attractive, guy with good proportions and health and have his kids, but having such a guy to donate his sperm may be easier. for this reason, young Nordic and Mediterranean men are in great demand"

(and their sperm goes for a decent price -added exemplification).

"The point is that if you have decided to raise the child alone and dont bother that the biological father is legally absolved of the responsiblity then why not choose the genes of best quality for your child?"

"Just imagine how good it will be for women if we had more state benefits for child support, if only we had a system where the state was responsible for bringing up the kids and women would not have to chase after men to marry them and share the burden of supporting and in the process compromising on genetic quality, choosing ugly, fat, bald, short unattractive men only because they were willing to be good supporters.
this is not FREEDOM of choice for women. women are forced to choose these men."

(The law says that men have to support us but they don't always send us all the money they are supposed to even when they are sent to jail or pay interest payments to us for punishment. The problem is that we only get more money from men the more they feel involved in their child's life. -added exemplification)

The stats:
90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.

(The fact is that women now have complete control over conception and all the reproductive rights. Men don't even have paternity fraud laws to protect them much less abortion or even the right to custody of their own children. Men are to be taken or left out and we still get supported by them. -exemplification)

"In the ideal society i talk about where there is 100% state child support, women would be free to choose the men they really want to conceive from and the genes they really think would create the healthy, beautiful babies they want."

(Single motherhood is your choice and every independent woman's choice, this is the reason we fought for equality, so that we won't need men or to keep or commit to men anymore as husbands or fathers. Men don't really have any vital importance anymore nor are they necessary to be happy. That's what equality is all about to give us choices and freedoms -added exemplification).

http://www.doublex.com/blog/yourcomeback/why-40-something-choosing-use-sperm-donor
---------------------------------------------------------



EXTRACT: TIME MAGAZINE FRONT PAGE ARTICLE "ARE HUSBANDS NECESSARY?
"
"Meanwhile, more single women--especially those watching their biological clocks run down--are resorting to solo pregnancies, sperm donors or adoption agencies. While the birthrate has fallen among teenagers, it has climbed 15% among UNmarried thirtysomethings since 1990. In the TIME/CNN poll, fully 61% of single women ages 18 to 49 answered yes when asked whether they would consider rearing a child on their own." (The single woman birth rate is at an all time high of 40% of all births)

"The four lead characters on TV's Sex and the City, single women who live the supafly life and discard men quicker than last season's bag and shoes--and look damn good doing it. All of them, nevertheless, are part of a major societal shift: single women, once treated as virtual outcasts, have moved to the center of our social and cultural life. Unattached females--wisecracking, gutsy gals, not pathetic saps--are the heroine du jour in fiction, from Melissa Bank's collection of stories, The Girls' Guide to Hunting and Fishing, to Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones's Diary, the publishing juggernaut that has spawned one sequel and will soon be a movie. The single woman is TV's It Girl as well, not just on Sex and the City, the smash HBO series in the midst of its third buzz-producing season, but also on a growing number of network shows focused on strong, career-minded single women, such as Judging Amy and Providence."

EXEMPLIFICATION SECTION WITH REAL EXAMPLES TO WOMEN'S COMMENTS:

(We don't really need men for anything. I'm looking for a soul mate, a man that can make me happy. I've worked to hard to have this type of freedom and am not going to compromise that. I've worked to hard to get to where I am, to be independent. Women today can have a man in or out of marriage and it's not a big deal, he still has to send us alimony and child support. With the rise of affordable, quality child care and even the prospect of paid maternity leave I'm able to pursue true individual freedom. Being a single women or a single mother is a choice and it's empowering to women, it's men's job to help us do it, not that we need their money anyway, but it's nice to have the extra income.

Men must know that we don't need them and that they must compete amongst each other for something else now, namely how they can please us and make us happy. Women can have offspring and reproduce anytime we want and in many different ways, with men or without them. It's men who have to have something to offer us, now a days this can be anything we want. Men are intimidated by successful women for a reason, we are competing for and taking away the things we demand they offer us. I'm sure it's humiliating but I require that they still pay for my food and drinks and other entertainment on dates. If I feel like it I'll throw in a token offer to pay something but they always know the safer bet is to pay up and they always do...LOL.

If I wanted to be married and let a man commit and propose to me I would. I've actually turned down several men. Today, men are panderers and useless as husbands or fathers. Don't you see, the whole point of "independence" is to not need a man and the whole point of not needing a man is to make them want and need us more than we need them.

If I do have kids it will be later on. I'm not going to get off this ride for a while. Besides I am never short of a date and men "know how to treat a woman" when their courting us to be a good suitor. My advise is to wait until about 30 years old. Men are so marginalized they go for older women now. I think the best insurance for a woman when she decides to do so is to get married, divorce, find another guy but stay single. That way I can enjoy the benefits of my new man while still receiving alimony from the old one.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLE FROM: (http://www.thirdage.com/living-single/why-some-women-will-never-get-married

"Vickie of Orlando e-mailed, "I receive a nice alimony check each month, eventually 50 percent of his Social Security, and upon his death, hundreds of thousands in life insurance. So why would I even think of getting married again?"

Women today have all the choices and this is what equality for women is all about. We don't need men and are independent but they still have to support us and even pay for us on dates, in marriage and most importantly after we leave them in no-fault divorce. Men are always there for us to lean on, lol. Feminist divorce laws implemented in the 70's or what these Men's Rights MRA freaks call "MARRIAGE 2.0" has done wonders for women's equality. Women initiate 70+% of all divorce for a reason and this does not include the growing number of women who decide to leave the increasing amount of cohabitant relationships. If a man does not make me happy I take the home, his money and his children and force him to support me. It's really that simple and yes it's really that empowering.

Think about it, Marsha, we earn 60% of ALL college degrees, and still have Affirmative Action, Title IX, women only loans, women only full scholarships etc. Competitive learning has been banned from our schools in favor of cooperative learning. Just put the boys on drugs like Ritalin and give it some name like Attention Deficit HyperActivity Disorder or ADHD. Boys aren't even allowed to play dodge ball anymore. Teach them that they have a disease where they can't pay attention and are hyperactive and make everyone think boys just have this disease. Just tell them to shut up or go to detention.

Women have been earning more bachelor’s degrees than men since 1982, and more master’s degrees than men since 1981. In 2006, women earned 57% of all bachelor’s degrees, 58% of all master’s, and 47% of all doctorates and first professional degrees. But guess what women are projected to EXCEED 50% of enrollment for doctorates and first professional degrees for the first time in 2006. Who will these women marry, I don't really care but I can tell you one thing, not a man less successful and educated than I am, but I'm sure we will find a use for them, they won't like it but they really will have no other choice ; )

By 2016 women are projected to receive over 60% of bachelor degrees, 61% of master’s degrees and over 53% of all doctorate and first professional degrees We live 7 years longer AND have 7 federal offices for women's health, men have not 1 though they suffer from all health aliments more than we do, are 80% of all suicides and 85% of the homeless, 96% of workplace deaths and combat deaths. All this and the president just opened up The Council on Women and Girls to help us even more. Men just won't stop being chivalrous, protecting and providing for us, what pansies they are.

Listen, women make 80% of all consumer purchases in this country and by 2010 will have 60% of the nations wealth. Think about it, women don't get paid less for the same job, we get paid less as a whole of the population because we don't have the same obligations men do and make different choices, we are not forced by law to support them. The wage gap of 22 cents (78 cents to the dollar) is the Raw Wage Gap or adding up how much men and women make in the entire work force. Besides where do you think government money and men's money goes anyway...you guessed it, right into our pocket in government entitlements and forced male labor to support us which more than makes up for those 22 cents.

We don't have to defend the country, can have a man removed from the home or his child and thrown in jail by word alone and best of all men don't have any rights in divorce. I remember a time when I got pissed at my boyfriend, threw plates at him, broke glasses, slapped and hit him and then called the police to take him to jail, lol. All I have to do is call the big strong police men to help protect me..lol..men are so stupid. That's why we have the Violence Against Women Act : ) Do you think we will ever replace "women's shelters" with counseling centers for families? Men don't even have assault laws to protect them nor domestic violence services, heck boys of 12 years of age or older can't even enter a shelter. That's why we put these ads up in order to show little boys as criminals and little girls as victims. It's our way of saying that family violence is always the fault of men and is always perpetrated by men and we like it that way.




We are able to cast men out of the home and family and there is nothing he can do about it. That's the big trick, even though women hold 54% percent of the vote, if you look at the voting numbers at all levels of government we still vote for men, why, because men will provide, protect and die for us into their own oblivion, they always have, it's their instinct.

They won't put up a fight, male suicide has tripled since 1970 so they will just kill themselves off. We've got them between a rock and a hard place and there is nothing they will do about it! In 1964, 72 percent of men voted for president, while that number today has dropped to 53 percent today. Add men's retreat from the public sphere and our 54% voting majority and there you have it, a country run by women and our needs and the men who serve them! Do you think were going to open up an office on men's health or give them anything like shared custody of our children, hell no, we still have a long way to go and are still oppressed by men who insist on providing for us and protecting us even though we are independent. We've fought long and hard to be independent and not need men for anything and we are not about to give that up. We can have our cake and eat it to! ; ) Men are simply being shut out and dropping out of society. Look at their labor force participation not to mention their only 40% of earned college degrees and falling.



They won't save themselves from this and women of course will not save them either, the end game has been played and of course as always, men provided and protected us without a fight. I don't feel a bit of pity for them, that's what men are for, to provide and protect us while being expendable and disposable and they know their place in society and what happens in marriage if the do not please me....bye bye provider man, provide from an empty apartment for now on, oh and I hope you miss your children.... LOL ; ). We as women have managed to create so many law, rights and privileges for ourselves we are now a separate class away from men and family. Class warfare with men is evident. Men know they have a lot of pleasing to do or else, the stupid dotes don't have any rights, just look at the link below....LOL -exemplification)

------------BELOW:----------A FEMINIST TELLS THE TRUTH-------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below: A feminist writes.....
http://messages.yahoo.com/Cultures_%26_Community/Groups/Women/threadview?m=tm&bn=18943567&tid=1560&mid=1560&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

OK. Time to put men out of your misery. Feminism was and is the biggest con in history. We talked endlessly about "equality" yet that was the last thing we wanted. You men have yet to realise that women never say what we mean. It is always shrouded in hyperbole and imagery.

So now, we are so close to having our cake and eating it. Here are just a few examples.

1) We can take you to the cleaners in divorce. No suggestion of equality there. We can have affairs and divorce you and we STILL get the house and maintenance for as long as we need. There is now absolutely no risk in a woman filing for divorce. You men don't even have the right to shag us any more. More and more women are making their husbands live celebate lives in marriage. Once we have that ring on our finger we rule! I am only 27. I have been married three times. Each one I stayed with for three years and then took for every penny I could get. You see, we only have to convince a judge of "irretreivable breakdown" of the relationship. And how is that determined? Easy. When ONE party does not wish the relationship to continue. My current husband needs another year I would say. The business he has built up is not quite where I need it to be yet. When it is, he will go the same way as the others. The house is already mine "for tazx reasons". At least thats what he thinks. I "allowed" my name to be put on the deeds, but he will find come the day that this just means the house is mine already. I tend to go for cash settlements with regard to maintenance which leaves me free to start again. Not that I need to now. By the time I have ditched this poor sap, I will have more than enough to live a very good lifestyle with for the rest of my life. Even if money starts to run short I can always do it again. It's not as if I have to have sex much either. I pick men who are on the way up building their buisnesses. The hours they put in mean they are usually too tired and if they have affairs with their secretaries, well, that just makes it easier for me.

2) We get far less severe prison sentences for the same crimes. We can even murder our new born children and it is written off as Post Natal Depression. Women's groups all over the world are working for the day when no woman will ever be sent to prison for any crime. ANd trust me, that day will come. Take a look..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6444961.stm

(British home secretary Baroness Corston has proposed that all women's prisons should be shut down and converted to prisons for men. If adopted by the home secretary, Baroness Corston's approach would see Holloway and about 14 other all-female prisons in England and Wales shut down or converted into jails for men.)



3) In the work place not only do we get paid for taking time off to have children, but now we even get pay rises while we are off, an absolute right in law to return to the job we left and in some cases now, we even get promoted while we are on leave. Employers have to invest in our training, but we are free to screw them over by taking all the training and qualifications we can get of of them and then leaving.

4) We now have senior politicians who advocate "positive descrimination" . In other words, if you are a white male, you are where you belong. At the bottom of the heap. Women are eased into top jobs and ministerial positions in Government. The Sisterhood is alive and well and working beautifully. The Labour Government, always breathtakingly stupid has actually gone as far as prohibiting the selection of male candidates in some wards. Fantastic.

And you poor men. What can one say? All you need is a little show of panty now and then and you are putty in our hands. You and you alone have allowed us to take this supremecy and you have done so without a whimper. When I joined the feminist movement, I didnt really buy into the more vitriolic mantras of "all men are pigs" and "the only good man is a doormat", but now I see you for what you are. A means of providing what I want.

(You are the servant sex, the male-male competition for female sexually selective choice universal to all the animal kingdom, the protectors and providers to your own demise and death, now suffering in health, dying to protect us, competing amongst each other, easily manipulated, you are expendable, disposable, worthless and killing yourself for us, just the way we planned it. Look now, behold all the sniveling dribbling metrosexual feminized men pandering for mating opportunity, desperately trying to find a way now to be of some use to us when we've taken everything you try to provide to us for ourselves. The further we advance the further you will be subjugated to women, the females servant to our own increasingly powerful instituted and ordained entitlements.

We now rule politics, education, healthcare, have all the rights in divorce, conception, reproduction, the justice system you name it. All because you can't help but to provide and protect us to your own demise. The more you resist the more men will restrain other men and create more laws and be rewarded by gaining political power to those that serve females. Yes, that's right we have the voting majority. Men think they are in power when they are simply doing our bidding for us, the work horses for the growing matriarchy. The gates of male subjugation to the female sex are open and not even females ourselves can stop it now! Your plight is hopeless and you don't even know it, victims of your own purpose of utility to the female, your brainless instinct of servitude! Your simply not valued as much and value yourselves less than us. That's why you elect to die to save us and die you will. In our promise of equality to you we have convinced you to eat the apple once again but this time I hope you choke on it. No matter how independent we get, we will always seek out the same things we always have from you and with ever mounting competition with your new and most formidable competitor, not other males but females. We will compete against you for the very things we demand from you until you die.

Look at our big man, our mommas boy, breed with sole female authority. Stand back and watch what happens next.

SHARED PARENTING PETITION ! SIGN NOW !

SIGN THE PETITION!!!! SPREAD THE WORD!! WE ARE ALMOST THERE!!

http://acfc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=ssp&pw_id=1521


SOON MEN WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE FATHERS!!!!

DON'T GIVE UP, KEEP HOPE, CHANGE IS ON THE HORIZON!!!

There is currently a proposition within the Responsible Father's and Healthy Families Act of 2009 WHICH SEEKS TO CREATE THE NATIONS FIRST OFFICE OF MEN'S HEALTH!! The above petition is a part of this bill! WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

WOMEN HAVE CREATED 7 FEDERAL OFFICES FOR THEIR HEALTH though men suffer from poorer health, are 85% of the homeless, 80% of suicides which has increased 3x since 1970. Male health has been on the decline in all realms.

The shared parenting petition seeks to presume that men should have equal and shared custody of their children and are not left childless by default full custody given to the woman. Currently it is the case that 90% of men loose their children in divorce and are only able to see them 4 days a month. There are only two hurdles that we need to remove.

1: There is a profit driven model from the federal government to the states based on how many men they can separate from their children. Once there is a parent\visitor model the visitor (usually the father) is made to pay child support. Federal rewards are given to states based on how much money is collected from men and how many men they have collected money from. As of late the primary opposition from state legislatures has been "if we pass shared parenting laws we will loose revenue from the government" "shared parenting is just not profitable" Thus we must keep the profit driven model. There is another way!

2: Women's groups claim that men are more of a danger to women and children when they are in to close or to frequent contact with the father. They claim the benefits of allowing men to have children do not outweigh the risk to both women and children.
It is said that most men are just to violent and harmful to women and children. There is another way! We must show that men are good and second we are human beings who have the right to have the blessings of being a father.

Why are there no conferences, petitions, workshops, congressional hearings, or presidential councils to help men close the education gap, the health care gap, the insurance gap, the job-loss gap, the death gap, the homeless gap, the suicide gap, the workplace fatality gap, the divorce law and child custody gap? Because, unlike women, men do not have hundreds of men's studies departments, research institutes, policy centers, and lobby groups working tirelessly to promote their challenges as political causes."

MEN, WE ARE ALL ALONE, WE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN BUT WE MUST FORM RANKS NOW. IF YOU DO NOT STAND UP AND FIGHT YOU WILL LOSE. Women do not spend much time worrying about the well-being of men. Their natural inclination is to let men look after themselves and take their chances in life. At the same time, they count on men to shield them from the harsher aspects of reality, and become extremely indignant at any men who fail to do so. In other words, women are naturally inclined to assume that men must take responsibility for everyone, while they are only responsible for themselves and "their" children. INCREASINGLY THOUGH WE ARE STICKING TOGETHER, ORGANIZING AND MAKING A VOICE FOR OURSELVES AND GOING OUR OWN WAY AS WELL. SUCH IS THE MODO OF THE "MGTOW" FACTION OF THE MOVEMENT. THERE IS A GROWING PRESENCE OF MEN ON YOUTUBE, YAHOO ANSWERS GENDER FORUMS AND THE BLOGOSPHERE. CREATE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BLOGS AND SHARE LINKS TO OTHERS BLOGS ON YOURS.

!!!!!! THE MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS GROWING BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!!!

MEN: THINK, READ, EDUCATE YOURSELVES ON THIS SUBJECT, SHARE OUR EXPERIENCES WITH EACH OTHER, FORM RANKS, GROUPS, THINK MORE, SPEAK OUT, ACT!!! YOU ARE NOT ALONE, FIGHT NOW AND NEVER LEAVE OTHER MEN BEHIND. WE CAN DO IT!!!

WOMEN HAVE NO FEELINGS TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR YOU. YOU WILL BE LEFT TO ROT AND DIE IN THE STREETS LIKE THE OTHER 85% OF THE HOMELESS THAT ARE MEN.. UNFORTUNATELY IT IS WOMEN WHO HOLD THE VOTE AND SWAY IN POLITICS. PERHAPS WE DON'T HAVE A CHANCE IN HELL BUT WE MUST FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS!!!!

According to a conference I attended with the ACFC.org there are three major sources of feminist opposition and funding of the anit-shared parenting lobby and these are as follows:

VAWA or Violence Against Women Act
EMILY'S LIST
THE FEMINIST MAJORITY


WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHOULD MEN BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CONTACT WITH CHILDREN AFTER A DIVORCE? ARE MEN BAD AND MORE HARMFUL TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN THAN GOOD? PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION, WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! SPREAD THE WORD. 35% OF THE AMERICAN COALITION FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE WOMEN! THIS IS A GOOD SIGN!! AS ALWAYS I LOVE TO HEAR MY READERS COMMENTS.

Counter Feminist Women's Groups

Here is a list of women's groups to follow. These women seem to be counter feminists
that want harmony between men and women and seem to believe more so toward equality. It seems anyway that these women are interested in the health and maintenance of our social fabric as a whole!?! They even mention the health of men and boys sometimes as if they see men and women as having mutual interests toward a common end and not just women or what benefits women and at others expense?!? Though I am skeptical and distrustful they give me a little hope..

It's always a good thing to get a woman's perspective on just about anything, especially since they are 50% of the battle in the problems we face. If women are not involved with Men's and Father's Rights NOTHING will get accomplished.

These women seem to identify with a more moderate faction known as individual feminism or individualist feminist. Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers define individualist feminism in opposition to what they call political or gender feminism. Scholars and critics have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism.[4][5] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminism


Independent Women's Forum (http://www.iwf.org/) --recommended
ifeminists.net ------------recommended

AUTHOR INTERVIEW: Kathleen Parker in her new book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care. http://gg2000.cachefly.net/pjm/audio/glenn_and_helen/20080620-Parker.mp3

DR. HELEN
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Ask_Dr_Helen/Happy_Father's_Day!_How_The_Traditional_Family_Became_an_Alternative_Lifestyle/2049/

Harvard University: Lawrence Summers Replacement

I am sure everyone knows the fate of the former President of Harvard University when he discussed human gender dimorphisms in an Academic Conference. I'd like to present his replacement a Women's Studies Department Head, Feminist and new President of Harvard University, Drew Faust. Summers was forced to resign, and Harvard has pledged $50,000,000 to the promotion of women only.



"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"
-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

All open discourse in the highest chambers of academia, freedom of opinion and speech that contradicts feminist doctrine will not and is not tolerated. All that express differently have and will be socially executed by the order of the Feminist Party.

Below: Unofficial Transcript of Lawrence Summers actual speech that lead to his exile
Neither exact transcripts nor the tape recording of Summers' comments have been released. For some reason, the records have been sealed to public or private inquiry. Harvard and its president Drew Faust have allowed the following to be hosted on the Harvard website.

"The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society"
-=President John F. Kennedy=-

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php

WOW, A woman who understands Dr. Summers Presentation of data:
HELENA CRONIN: Philosopher, London School of Economics; director and founder Darwin@LSE; author, The Ant and the Peacock
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin



More dumbbells but more Nobels: Why men are at the top

What gives rise to the most salient, contested and misunderstood of sex differences… differences that see men persistently walk off with the top positions and prizes, whether influence or income, whether heads of state or CEOs… differences that infuriate feminists, preoccupy policy-makers, galvanize legislators and spawn 'diversity' committees and degrees in gender studies?

I used to think that these patterns of sex differences resulted mainly from average differences between men and women in innate talents, tastes and temperaments. After all, in talents men are on average more mathematical, more technically minded, women more verbal; in tastes, men are more interested in things, women in people; in temperaments, men are more competitive, risk-taking, single-minded, status-conscious, women far less so. And therefore, even where such differences are modest, the distribution of these 3 Ts among males will necessarily be different from that among females — and so will give rise to notable differences between the two groups. Add to this some bias and barriers — a sexist attitude here, a lack of child-care there. And the sex differences are explained. Or so I thought.

But I have now changed my mind. Talents, tastes and temperaments play fundamental roles. But they alone don't fully explain the differences. It is a fourth T that most decisively shapes the distinctive structure of male — female differences. That T is Tails — the tails of these statistical distributions. Females are much of a muchness, clustering round the mean. But, among males, the variance — the difference between the most and the least, the best and the worst — can be vast. So males are almost bound to be over-represented both at the bottom and at the top. I think of this as 'more dumbbells but more Nobels'.

Consider the mathematics sections in the USA's National Academy of Sciences: 95% male. Which contributes most to this predominance — higher means or larger variance? One calculation yields the following answer. If the sex difference between the means was obliterated but the variance was left intact, male membership would drop modestly to 91%. But if the means were left intact but the difference in the variance was obliterated, male membership would plummet to 64%. The overwhelming male predominance stems largely from greater variance.

Similarly, consider the most intellectually gifted of the USA population, an elite 1%. The difference between their bottom and top quartiles is so wide that it encompasses one-third of the entire ability range in the American population, from IQs above 137 to IQs beyond 200. And who's overwhelmingly in the top quartile? Males. Look, for instance, at the boy:girl ratios among adolescents for scores in mathematical-reasoning tests: scores of at least 500, 2:1; scores of at least 600, 4:1; scores of at least 700, 13.1.

Admittedly, those examples are writ large — exceptionally high aptitude and a talent that strongly favours males and with a notably long right-hand tail. Nevertheless, the same combined causes — the forces of natural selection and the facts of statistical distribution — ensure that this is the default template for male-female differences.

Let's look at those causes. The legacy of natural selection is twofold: mean differences in the 3 Ts and males generally being more variable; these two features hold for most sex differences in our species and, as Darwin noted, greater male variance is ubiquitous across the entire animal kingdom. As to the facts of statistical distribution, they are three-fold … and watch what happens at the end of the right tail: first, for overlapping bell-curves, even with only a small difference in the means, the ratios become more inflated as one goes further out along the tail; second, where there's greater variance, there's likely to be a dumbbells-and-Nobels effect; and third, when one group has both greater mean and greater variance, that group becomes even more over-represented at the far end of the right tail.

The upshot? When we're dealing with evolved sex differences, we should expect that the further out we go along the right curve, the more we will find men predominating. So there we are: whether or not there are more male dumbbells, there will certainly be — both figuratively and actually — more male Nobels.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the prevailing perspective in current debates, particularly where policy is concerned. On the contrary, discussions standardly zoom in on the means and blithely ignore the tails. So sex differences are judged to be small. And thus it seems that there's a gaping discrepancy: if women are as good on average as men, why are men overwhelmingly at the top? The answer must be systematic unfairness — bias and barriers. Therefore, so the argument runs, it is to bias and barriers that policy should be directed. And so the results of straightforward facts of statistical distribution get treated as political problems — as 'evidence' of bias and barriers that keep women back and sweep men to the top. (Though how this explains the men at the bottom is an unacknowledged mystery.)

But science has given us biological insights, statistical rules and empirical findings … surely sufficient reason to change one's mind about men at the top.

Here is my take on it below: PLEASE COMMENT AND SHOW SOLIDARITY OR LEAVE AN OBJECTIVE ARGUMENT I DON'T WANT MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS TO BE A ONE WAY CONVERSATION!

---Above was her response to the exile of Dr. Lawrence Summers the former president of Harvard University, his subsequent replacement with Drew Faust, Women's Studies Dept head, Feminist and new president of Harvard , the dedication of $50,000,000 to promote women only and the Obama administrations plan to enact forced women only affirmative action and Title IX in all science, technical, computer and engineering departments nation wide.

Ultimately the goal is to destroy the American science, technical, computer and engineering base in the name of equality and political correctness. To enforce not equal opportunity but equal outcome between men and women by unequal means. The goal of these initiatives is to enact sanctioned discrimination against men so that women may take their place. Dr Roy Baumeister points out "Research using DNA shows that todays human population is decendend from twice as many women as men." "This difference is the single most under appreciated fact about gender" "About 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced" or more specifically our DNA composition shows that only the most successful males mated, supported and sired the most offspring and disseminated their genetic fitness over less apt males. Indeed that sexual selection, male-male competition for female selective choice is not only an element of the animal world but in humans as well. (Link at bottom)

Such selective pressures have not only created dimorphisms and differences between males and females but more specifically between males as is evident by male representation at extreeme ends of the selective trait performance spectrum. Given the selective pressure upon males and their biological value to the mated pair bond is more heavily weighted in external utility, males are represented at the top and bottom of the mesurable trait spectrum. The theory correlates correctly, if females are the constant and males the variables from which to choose one could speculate that males will have a propensity to mate with almost any willing female. It makes sense that male specific selective traits choosen by the female compound upon themselves and are carried through and amplified in succeeding generations of males and over time an extreme dichotomy and disparity of these traits will be represented in the male.

Although he did not go into detail when he presented such knowledge
I believe Dr. Summers assumed people namely women in academia would be open to the idea of gender differences or even preferences given the data, g factors and dimorphic curve information that is known to science. Instead he was forced to resign...

"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free." -=President Thomas Jefferson=-

MEN ARE REPRESENTED AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE IQ CURVE
GREATER MALE VARIANCE IS UBIQUITOUS THROUGHOUT THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
IT IS FEMALE HYPERGAMOUS PREFERENCES FOR MALES AND SEXUAL SELECTION
THAT HAVE CREATED THE DIMORPHIC DISPARITY THAT FEMINISTS SO LOATH AND SEEK TO DESTROY.


I believe the above distribution is responsible for girls performing well in the median average and making better grades per capita in general. There are two variable offsets within the median average that equalize the performance disparity or make for "gender equality" within this range. That is, contrary to popular belief instituted by feminists, males and females have gender specific aptitudes and deficientcies in specific subjects. Females consistently perform better at reading, writing and language while boys consistently perform better at math.

Over all boys are represented at the bottom of performance relative to girls but this is offset by males predominating the upper end of intelligence and performance.

So within the median range gender deficiencies are offset by unique proficientcies of each sex in different subjects. Females will predominate the higher aggregate of median performance or grade average in general but males will predominate in the highest percentiles of grade performance as well as the lowest. When the bottom performing boys and top performing boys grade performance is weighted however OVERALL performance of boys and girls shows very little if any disparity.

Feminists use the weighted average to argue that there are not differences between males and females and that representation in all fields of study should reflect likewise, that representation in the upper areas of performance should reflect likewise. It is argued the reason this is not so is a result of blatant discrimination against females.

Feminists seek to remove males from representation and employment of this upper range performance in all science, technical and engineering departments in colleges which will extend to the removal of upper performing males from the employment in these fields in the workforce.

When gender specific interests or aptitudes are employed by males, feminist claim that females are discriminated against in these subjects such as auto mechanics, computer science, architectural, structural, mechanical engineering,electricians, avionics, electronic technicians and the list goes on....

MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE DANGER OF TITLE IX BEING EXTENDED TO THESE AREAS OF OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS REAL. WE MUST DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEN AND BOYS. I URGE YOU ALL TO RESEARCH WHAT TITLE IX HAS DONE TO BOYS SPORTS PROGRAMS.

Interesting read. The general paper is also somewhat related to the creation of dimorphic disparity evidenced by DNA expressions:
Dr. Roy F. Baumeister: Is There Anything Good About Men?
Written in response to the forced exile of Dr. Lawrence Summers.
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

End Of Men Discovered Feminists Rejoice

-End Of Men Discovered, Feminists Rejoice. Why Do Women Feel This Way? Why is it acceptable and politically correct to speak of men this way? Notice this is the scientific technology Professor Laurie French is referring to in the article "Who Needs Men?" several blog posts down entitled "Article: The Cronicle of Higher Education" which was actually published in this prominent academic newspaper.

Men’s rights and fathers’ rights advocates identify a wide range
of injustices and harms suffered by men. Males have been displaced
from the labour market, schools and universities, deprived of their
role as fathers, and are now regarded only as ‘gene pool and cash
machines’. Men are subject to discrimination in health and
government policy, boys are marginalised in a feminised schooling
system, and ‘misandrist’ (man-hating) depictions are rife in popular
culture. There has been a "battle of the sexes" taking place for the
last 30 years. The results are in while the attack against men and boys
is still underway. It is time to counter attack. Thus the rise of the
Men's and Father's Rights Movement.





Prominent New York Times Columnist Mareen Dowds politically correct book:
Are Men Necessary:



Time Magazine:


Sony Cybershot Commercial Christmas 2008: Father and husband at parent teacher conference shown as filthy horses ass.



Roomba Robotic Vacuum Commercial: Depicting husband and father as useless ignorant and filthy jack ass.



Trojan Condom Commercial: Depicting men as filthy unevolved animal pigs



T-Shirt sold to little girls:


Credit card sold to adult women:



"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."
-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

What do the above advertisements reveal about our culture in relation to the truth regarding our view of men? Since these ads are trying to sell something to women, what wide demographical, what aggregate truth of women's perception of men are they trying to appeal to?

Female empowerment through male denigration, unequal rights and special privledges:

The feminist movement has spearheaded the cultural acceptance of the routine disrespect of men. Instead of equitably quashing and discouraging misandry and working toward true mutual understanding and respect between the sexes, the feminist movement has succeeded in cheerleading a misandry that palpably permeates the culture. Jokes, television commercials, magazine advertisements and even greeting cards often put down men in a way that would be condemned as sexist if directed toward women. As men, become less needed as fathers and husbands, by forced servitude of resources to the female after leaving a cohabitant relationship, divorce or by simply living with a male long enough to mandate Common Law Marriage, default loss of the right to be a father, modern reproductive technology and government husbandry welfare men are increasingly disrespected by women. The goal is not to abolish marriage as earlier feminists postulated but to make men expendable and disposable.

Ironically, by reducing men's general status vis a vis women, women find to their disappointment fewer available men, especially in successive generations who can meet their high expectations for a potential husband and father of her children. The battle between the sexes is not an evolutionary paradox that we have reached but is systemically subsidized. Men and boys are under attack in all elements of society. Inherently it seems women resent the mutual dependence of a mated pair bond and any dependence on what men want to provide to them and what women need from men. What men need from women i.e mother, nurturer and fertile health is inherent and can not be taken away from them where as what women need from men can be taken by force and indeed it is. Now, by laws instituted by feminsits, male resources, male working labor and monetary capitol production is the property of women, children are the property of women and indeed complete control over reproduction and reproductive choice is the sole right, choice and property of women and women alone. The goal
is to allow women choices and men the responsibility to support those choices whether he like it or not.

Unfortunately, men are so predisposed to protect women, and protect what feminists say women's interests are, that men ignore their own interests as a group to their own peril. On a social level, several nascent men's movements have sputtered, and then sadly faded. Not until the early 2000's did the grass roots movements start to unite and being to form a more formidable voice for men. Apparently men's instincts to protect women are generally greater than their inclination to protect themselves. Innate male biology is inclined to put "women first" which has created a "women can have their cake and eat it to" dichotomy in our social order. Such has been the force used against men in our own subjugation to women.

On a more personal level, when a man finds himself unable to provide income than a woman can obtain via welfare and single mother government husbandry (or that she can provide through her own career), or through forced male resource provision after divorce, when he cannot have equal choices and equal control in conception of a child , when he is ordered to financially support a child that he never wanted (or even one that is not genetically his own), when he is not granted equal custody or parental authority for his children after a divorce, when he loses a job, promotion, a work contract or college admission to a less qualified woman due to affirmative action policies, when women reject him because they prefer a partner who has a higher status, he feels, at best, frustrated, despondent and alone. He knows something is a miss with feminist rhetoric about "equality," but he may have difficulty articulating it. Men today are befuddled -- they don't understand how equality for women came to result in sexual, reproductive, parental, legal and social inequality and a disrespect for men. It hurts him deeply to know that he is told everywhere he looks that men are not needed, are disposable and an accessory to independent women and "their" children.

The idea that reproduction, conception and parenting is a decision jointly made by both partners no longer exists. Examined more closely, it is clear that the choice of woman is always a prerequisite yet the consent or choice of the man is superfluous and disregarded. His sole existence now is bound by servitude, exploitation and expendability to the mated pair bond, as a supportive husband, and indeed his expendability, need and value as a father.

The one saving grace, as the statistics on fatherless children show is that children don't fare well without a father and men don't fare well without a family, wife and child. Eventually nature has a way of correcting imbalances. As the value of male contributions to reproduction, marriage and parenting have diminished by institution of a misandry in social culture, unequal property rights, unequal divorce and family law, and unequal civil liberties of "choice", protections, provisions and lack of privileges afforded to men in favor of women, so too has the general level of male status in society.

I am afraid though that if we do not act we must continue to move toward a state of destruction and critical mass to resolve this epidemic. Notice the abhorrent rise in divorce rates and the increase of not only age at first marriage but the decline of marriage itself in the graphs I've provided throughout my blog. NOTICE the time and date these changes occurred and their relation to the second wave feminist movement and the institution of feminist divorce laws.

Article: The Cronicle of Higher Education

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a newspaper that presents news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators. The Chronicle of Higher Education is the major news service in the United States academic world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education

Who Needs Men?
By Prof. Laurie Fendrich
Professor of Arts: Hofstra University
Hofstra University is the largest private college on Long Island



No sooner did I digest the news that 40 percent of American babies are now born out of wedlock (the fathers are now quaintly known in newspaper announcements as “fiancés”) than along comes an article by Sandra Tsing Loh in the current Atlantic revealing that she’s getting divorced. It turns out she’s unhappy with her otherwise happy marriage because of her sex life. With a hefty dose of pissed-offedness, the author excoriates the institution of marriage for failing to sustain romantic and sexual love. (Ultimately, to mix metaphors, she had to go off the ranch to get her ashes properly hauled.) Ms. Tsing Loh offers what she considers the stunning insight that traditional marriage is outdated and tells the rest of us—in considerably more words than Dorothy Parker needed to convey the same message—never to get married.

Whoa! Them’s big conclusions to draw from one particular divorce. But her musings got me thinking. Sandra Tsing Loh’s conclusion isn’t big enough. The real problem is, very simply, the existence of men. What the hell do we need them for anyway?

Granted, men are already here in the billions, and eradicating them would be a logistical challenge. And granted, civilization thus far was built mostly by male brainpower and testosterone. Now, building civilization was no mean feat, but it was accompanied by an awful lot of rape, pillage, beheadings, spearings, burnings-at-the-stake, you name it. Not many of those good deeds were performed by women.

But the building phase of civilization is by now more or less complete. (Nation-states? Check. Constitution? Check. Airliners? Check. Cable TV? Check? Internet? Check. Diet Coke? Check.) We’ve moved firmly into the maintenance and improvement phase, and it’s time for women to take over. They’ve proved themselves superb at keeping things going whenever men went marching off to kill each other. There’s no reason they can’t now be handed the reins of civilization itself. They already hog more than half the educational pie here in America, and are, when all is said and done, the smarter of the sexes.

By cutting to the chase, and getting rid of men entirely, women could care for and improve civilization very nicely by themselves, thank you. OK, a few male geniuses won’t get born. But who needs them at this point? All they’d do is discover some new thing that would make even more pollution or superweapons and end up making us even more miserable than we already are. And we’ve already loaded Mozart onto our i-Pods.

If we did away with men, we wouldn’t have to worry about women like Ms. Tsing Loh being unhappy in marriage. Why, there’d be no more marriage! No more self-absorbed loutish husbands, no more men who can’t sexually satisfy their wives, no more men who won’t take out the garbage or do the dishes or make the kids’ school lunches (like Mom does before she goes off to her 9-to-5 job). And, outside the issue of marriage, there’d be no need for highly-paid male statistician-nerds to track divorce rates, or wimpy education consultants to do studies on wiggly boys in junior high, or philandering politicians to defend the sanctity of marriage. Children (nice, orderly, studious female children, that is) would be happier, too. They’d never again be made miserable by the desertion of a father. And there’d be a reduction in the murder rate of approximately 93 percent.

Men may protest. They’ll say that they’re indispensable to the running of the world. Wrong. Male bodies aren’t necessary. We’ve still got water buffalo for the heavy hauling and robots for more complex tasks (men might have invented them, but women will be great at keeping them oiled). True, no more NFL or NBA, but only men watch that stuff, so it’s two birds with one stone there. Anyway, Candace Parker can dunk. Male minds? A no-brainer (pun intended.)

To perpetuate the species, only women are necessary. Sperm you can harvest now and freeze for later, storing it in big vats in Hackensack, New Jersey. And the Brits are about whip up an artificial (we’ll stop saying “man-made” right now) version. Women could order sperm online, and with the help of their female gynos, could give birth to only female babies. In a generation or two, the few remaining males on the planet could be rounded up and put into petting zoos. As for sex, that’s what all those toy stores in Greenwich Village are for: a couple of “D” batteries, and away you go! For those heterosexual women whose sexual tastes run to the nostalgic, maybe a few men could be kept on a Viagra drip in brothels.

Think of this wonderful new world! No more war, rape or pillage! No more “The Man Show,” Spike TV or Jerry Bruckheimer movies! No more women getting blamed for men getting lost when it’s a man driving. No more computer crashes due to hard drives clogged with porn. No more wide receiver touchdown dances. Five out of six prisons turned into hospitals or community colleges. No more commercials for Extenze, Hair Club for Men, or beer for men with no sense of touch who need the can to turn blue to know that it’s cold. Sure, women would still have hissy-fits and bad hair days, and there’d be the rise of the occasional threatening woman—a Sarah Palin or a Hillary Clinton. But since women—even studies conducted by males prove—are by nature more cooperative, caring, loving and nurturing than men, it’d all end in a big hugfest on Oprah.

Sorry, men, but the writing’s on the wall, right above the urinal: The world no longer needs you.

http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/fendrich/who-needs-men

Only women are allowed to speak this way in our colleges. I don't even think men have ever spoken this way about women. Misandry and open anti-male hate is ok. This woman spoke in such a manner with a feeling of impunity and with no reservation. Men if they ever did want to speak like this risk loosing their jobs and worse. If a man even so much as speaks about anything in relation to women he looses his job even when speaking of science data and gender dimorphisms or even gender preferences as Dr. Lawrence Summers did.

Destroy White Males

One man's story: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/decline-of-the-american-male.html#more

I was unable to get a job in the fortune 500 or Government service since I graduated summacum laude from a top university. I am a white male.

I had a friend that ran a recruiter agency and he was able to get the answer to why I was always getting to the final interviews but failed to be hired.

He would call the human resource people that were not allowed to tell me my why because they were afraid of being sued.

In every company the answer was the same; “we need a minority your guy scored the highest but we need a woman or a minority or both”. They apologized profusely to him but said corporate has told us we need to beef up our numbers.

Have any of you looked at the faces in companies today, they are becoming devoid of males and white males are becoming extinct.

I finally gave up. For people that think this is a bunch of bull, here is a link with the facts just in the US Government which are too common in the corporate world as well:
http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2006/default.htm

The fact that discrimination is illegal and it can be documented that it is occurring does not seem to bother some people as evidenced by some of the comments. I was lucky enough to start my own business and survive the blatant reverse and illegal discrimination.

The EEOC refused to take a complaint from me btw with no reason given for the rejection. The Federal Government is the biggest offender of white male discrimination.

With all the white males that are unemployed there just may be a powder keg that is about to explode. Can you blame them when discrimination so blatant exists in the workplace?

Where is the ACLU and all the grievance groups when you need them.

Affirmative Action is in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We can not discriminate by race, religion, gender or age. Discrimination against white males is against our founding principals as a nation.

The Mancession: Women (Women's Party) Divert Stimulus Package To Themselves

In either case I really don't care what they do to avert another great depression by spending 10 Trillion. I think we are delaying the inevitable and the end of America as we know it. We are flat broke but I don't really give a shit anymore.

Women have diverted the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 09 funds to women and the health and education fields for some reason all though these sectors have been growing and added 588,000 jobs, something about making sure the money didn't go to "burly men" as women's groups put it and "white male construction workers" as Robert Reich put it. Our leaders are sexist bitch boys with no back bone. The idea was to create what Obama called "shovel ready" projects to stave off the "mancession" as economist have been calling it as 80% of job losses have been to men.

"Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Energy Projects? Construction? Manufacturing?!!!!!!!! Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" and "The Macho Stimulus Plan." A group of "notable feminist economists" circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to "institute apprenticeships" to train women for "at least one third" of the infrastructure jobs. (Though we have trained men ready to build) At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a "heavily male-dominated field" like construction: "We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges." As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE-- Women's Equality Adds Value to the Economy." >
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?pg=1

Upon bearing the brunt of the chorus of feminist opposition, President Obama backed down and changed his plan to cover non affected and growing industries where women predominate. Indeed we are a country fractured by race and gender. What is good for men is not good for women and so we go our separate ways as feminsts desire.

Knowing women hold the vote he placated to gender feminists. After rewritting the plan he then tasked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Joseph Biden's chief economist, with preparing an extraordinary report that calculated not only the number of jobs the plan would likely create, but the gender composition of the various employment sectors and the division of largess between women and men. Romer and Bernstein delivered "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" on January 10.

The result: Although 80% of job loss occured in manufacturing and construction and 5 million men are out of work the report concluded "the stimulus package now "skews job creation somewhat towards women"

The feminist's who unfortunatly represent all women have won, the feminists who run our country delighted. When told women are not being protected and provided for government and men respond, diverting the stimulus bill strategy toward women and growth industries.

The provision and protection of women has become the priority to the detriment of our nation. Such it is that men have always felt inclined to provide and protect women and children and now it will destroy us, our muscles bleed dry, our weary unemployed men will soon be wandering aimlessly in the streets with the rest of the 85% of the homeless that are men.

Women that are stay at home mothers and children are entitled to the labors of men but when women are given direct access to the coffers of government it is women's inate sense of entitlement that will destroy our nation. Or men, our leaders, are spineless bitch boys. Our president a momma's boy with no father raised with sole female authority surrounded by his new "Council on Women and Girls" and placating balllessly to radical gender feminists from the 60's and 70's now in power.

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King It is my hope that males will "one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Not by their gender but by their potential for contribution to family, our people and our nation.

What a joke...What a matrilinial, matriarchial gynocracy we live in today where dire economic decissions are made on what will benefit women as a separate class away from men and families. The restructuring of our economic stimulus investment based on gender and not economics. What will benefit women in the short term but cause the very downfall of a once great and mighty empire...A land rife with class conflict, division and dominated by gender secular ideology, a people no longer united but divided.

God save my country....god save my country...Prepare me to fight for myself, my future and my people. Give me safe bastion to rely on and survive by myself and myself alone, my nation has forsaken us all. Give me the strength to survive by the bounty you have given us, the bounty we ignore as my people have lost sight of what we could have been, what we can become when we see things as indivisible, under one nation, one people.....

Early Feminist Rally Photos and Buttons

Since it's beginnings the Feminist's have polished their image and public perception of their agenda. Throughout my blog I will illustrate how indeed feminism has destroyed marriage and it's relation to socialist and communist theory; how the laws they have successfully lobbied to create have been instituted as law.

As I've experienced in my Women's Studies class ("The Psychology of Women") in college in 2002, the feminists have not gone away but are stronger and more influential and relevant than ever. The "battle of the sexes", the war between men and women is not over. More and more it has been a clean sweeping victory for feminists and the women who benefit from such entitlements.

As a young man in my culture I have taken a stand among the growing ranks of men who identify as MRA's or Men's Rights Activists. I know that someday men will be treated as equals and have the same rights as women. I hope that someday we can end this war. I hope to have a wife someday, I hope to have a baby child. I am afraid of marriage as I know I stand to loose my children, my home, my property and will be forced to support my ex wife through alimony and child support. I have seen what has happened to my brother, my father, my friends and other men.

This new phenomenon of explaining away the problem with pop cultural propaganda against men will not help. The precipitous decline in marriage is explained as "Men are afraid of commitment". I will tell the world one thing about men and what I know about myself as a man, the one thing the human male is not lacking in is his ability, strength, mental resilience and fortitude to commit to something he desires or believes in.

The endless movies (Failure to Launch, 40 year old virgin, Old School, Knocked Up, etc) portraying men as grown up children unwilling or
incapable of taking on the responsibilities of husband, father and family will not help mend men, women and the family back together.

"Don't Cook Dinner, Starve a Rat Today!"
"End Human Sacrifice, Don't Get Married"



"Vote Socialist Workers in '70". Recognize the symbol on the button? This was the beginning of the Feminist Majority an extremely powerful feminist organization in the United States at the moment and one of the primary opponents to the shared parenting bill that allows men to be fathers. They are also the creators of the "This is what a feminist looks like" campaign.

Initially, many feminist leaders spoke openly about their Marxist Communist and Socialist intentions. Though it became recognized that as classical, open advocation of Marxism could not be implemented in American culture a focus on introducing Cultural Marxism and subversion of the culture to Marxist ideas became the focus. Indeed this is still the focus of the Feminist Majority and feminism today.



Perhaps I should post the divorce rate graph here again but as you can see from the graph I've posted on my other articles, it all began here, with the above. It began with second wave feminism and change of divorce law that took away all of men's rights to their children, their property, their home and rights to his own working labor by forced alimony and child support. Why women were able to do this without a fight is astonishing to me. I think when women scream they are not provided or protected for enough men and government respond to help. Perhaps chivalry is a factor here, male instinct perhaps was used against men. They say chivalry is dead now. I think it is alive and well in the political and judicial sphere though but mainly dead from what sociologists are calling our "hook up" culture.

Girl Power, Princesses and Female Socialization

What do the below photo's tell you of female socialization in our culture?

While walking through a parking lot the other day I noticed a boy laying back in this car with the drivers seat reclined. I gave the car a long look and unabashedly walked my way around it observing the writings some girls had written on his car. I found so much significance in them that after returning to my car and the boy got out and left inside the store, I returned to take these photos. On each side of the car is written a different boy that the girl or girls love. What does this tell us in the way these girls view themselves? What connection do they seem to illustrate between power and love? What sense of entitlement and power is embodied in the word "princess". I have often seen "princess" displayed autonomously and independently of an individual girls relationship with males as has been displayed on bumper stickers, shirts etc that girls in our culture present. How do they see themselves and define their relationships with males? Is a princess someone who gives to or receives things from others?

What are girls taught about themselves and are these things true?

Would a boy displaying or writting "prince" or "king" and inscribing "male power" on a car have the same meaning? Is the message of female underprivlege used to give girls and women more rights, choices, protections and benefits in society than men? Is it used to give them less responsibility and obligations?

----
GIRL POWER

----

"I LOVE JEFFERSON" PRINCESS STROUSE