From Monogamy to Serial Monogamy and Polyandry

It is important to recognize by the other data I've published on my blog that if marriage i.e. monogamy is on the decline what other mating pair bond structures exist in all of known nature to take its place?

The decrease in marriage, the increase in age at first marriage, the increase in divorce which has plateaued into the preferences and prevalence of increasingly loose knit cohabitative relationships, our record high of 40% single woman birth rate and the advent of the "hook up" culture is actually our progression to a state of polyandry and with polyandry is the advent of matriarchy.

Drawing from simularities in monogamous and polyandrous male female pair bonds in nature the one defining factor is whether both sexes are required to provide resources to raise offspring as to whether the species is monogamous or polyandrous. The only other animal societies that demonstrate female polyandry are communistic social groups such as the bonobo apes and chimpanzees. Indeed early human societies have demonstrated polyandry, polygamy and matrilinial, egalitarian social structures in such socialistic communistic groups.

Not until individual monogamous or married family units of male and female were formed, not until competition between individual males through male-male competition and female choice became possible by the advancement of our species and the possibility of autonomous and individually self sustaining couples were possible did freverent competition among males and thus productive incentive among individual males come into full swing. Then and only then did civilization advance through individual male incentive to produce, distinguish ones self and gain status with out obfuscation of ones ability to do so through activities of communal resource acquisition.

Not until the male benefited directly from his labor in mating opportunities and mate quality and the ability to secure and support as much by himself did he do so in such freverency that modern civilization and all that you see around you was produced. Such a model transposed to our larger social construct has also formed capitalism. It is by allowing males to compete and distinguish their sexually selective traits from other males and benefit directly by their own success did we produce and advance as a species.

Such are the premise of both constructs that one can see monogamy and capitalism go hand in hand. Socialism and communistic social structures or those that emulate socialism or communism by the employment of government husbandry welfare and systemic male resource transference through alimony and child support go hand in hand with female polyandry.


In modern times with the advent of female acquisition of resources for herself along with systemic transference of male resources in marriage AND in divorce coupled with government husbandry support to single mothers has given her the opportunity to increase her genetic fitness and genetic diversity to mate and have offspring with multiple males without the consequence of the loss of male resource provision. An incentive is created for marriage, divorce and then remarriage. All while males she mated with in the past are required and forced by law to support her and her offspring in her new marriage. Many women simply cohabitate to keep alimony payments coming.

I can't tell you the sheer amount of women I've seen on my online dating site that state they have never been married but have a child. Indeed the polyandrous construct is evident in modern females. So I've seen first hand the 40% of women who bear children out of marriage. Many of these women as I have witnessed are looking for their next mate. This can continue as long as the female wants but her mate value diminishes at the second or third marriage. Not from lack of resources to raise the children which are forcefully transfered from previous males but her reproductive age and quite frankly male lack of interest in her bastard children from previous matings.

This model is of course deliberately facilitated by feminist institution of no-fault divorce laws to accomplish these ends. Not to mention the promotion of single motherhood as a lifestyle choice. Males are seen and used as isolated resource providers and not seen as valuable as parents by law. It is true that parental rights are not enforced or afforded males yet forced systemic transference of his resources is all that is important. The male has no right to fatherhood. Government husbandry and financial support to single mothers has increased significantly over the last several decades as well.

Drastic increase in welfare spending beginning in 1970:

ABOVE: beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being. Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" -=President Thomas Jefferson=-

Unfortunately President Obama does not share our founding fathers vision when he applauded all the single mothers for a job well done during his father's day speech in 2007 and exclaimed he is here to help. Stating "do you need help!?" raising his voice louder "do you need help!?"


In essence we have reached a state of subsidized polyandry through forced male resource provision outside of the mated pair bond in the form of alimony and child support along with default female custody of the offspring and government husbandry for single mothers (similar to the Soviet Commissariats of Social Welfare.) Support for which in a natural state could only come from small tribal, socialistic or communal social structures. The parallels are striking.



As anyone can tell you a male naturally would not provide to a female who has left him and taken his children. What social construct that previously existed i.e. communistic social groups that made polyandry or polygamy possible now exists by unnatural and synthetic and systemic means of resource provision at the expense of the male. A male who is left isolated, alone and despondent to produce for a family that is not his own, for a woman that is not his mate and a child he is not allowed to have joint custody of but "visitation" of 4 days a month.

Females in nature given the chance will mate with multiple males given the opportunity but the trick in monogamous pair bonds is to trick the male into thinking he is raising his own offspring. This serves to exemplify female propensity toward polyandry if the resource support construct or the ability to trick the male is available.

Causes and effect are evident here. Due to all the provided incentives and mandated resource provision, the destruction of family is female driven as women initiate 70+ percent of all divorce.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Furthermore, It has been found that an astounding 30% of DNA paternity tests when conducted by suspicion have found that the offspring are not in fact the males own.
Even then men are required to pay for children they find out are not their own. Women bear no responsibility or penalty in this situation for paternity fraud.

Where lack of male resource provision is a given should a female leave a male in nature this is not the case in Western Society through the implementation of feminist doctrine. When males in nature find out the offspring is not their own or simply for good measure they commit infanticide where as human males are forced to provide to bastard children. In all regards all aspects of human mating in our society center around females and "their" offspring and the subjugation of men and the self appointed role of government to support them both in and out of marriage.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau a large majority (84 percent) of child-support providers are men.-- www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/004012.html

Even young boys who are raped by adult women are forced to pay child support. When these cases occur it not an isolated practice as one can see from the numerous cases
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0303/mnd030311.htm

The reports of young boys exploited by feminist law doctrine is rampant but here are a few brief examples:

Kentucky: Harlan County prosecutor Alan Wagers said his office would help a 27 year old woman appeal a trial court's denial
of her lawsuit to get the father of her child to pay support. The father was 14 at the time, essentially making him a victim of
statutory rape because he was too young to consent. Rush was never prosecuted. [Bowling Green Daily News-AP, 5-3-96]

Colorado: The Rocky Mountain News reported on August 2, 1996 that Adams County is attempting to recover AFDC payments from a man who was about 12 when he was forced into parenthood, essentially by statutory rape.


Even sperm donors including a case where the male signed a contract agreeing he is not liable to pay child support to the lesbian couple he provided sperm to was forced to pay child support. This has increasingly become common in our current feminist state. The video states that male sperm donors are increasingly being made to pay child support. Here are several cases:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNczYdAVx5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpqjWn7lPq0

It must be made clear that the vast majority of men other than high status males are driven to serve women's needs in a monogamous construct i.e. male-male competition for female sexually selective choice for the best males. There is no instance of female based polyandry in nature, ONLY males with female harems, only male polygamy exists in all non communistic animals. At this, naturally only the most successful males in human society are able to be privileged with male polygamy. HOWEVER, unlike our matriarchal construct, polygamy is outlawed in both religious and political patriarchal infrastructures.

However, Such cases of polygamy by alpha males who distinguish their selective traits above all other males is evident in nature as well. The difference between humans and animals however is that we are able to build civilization and society around curbing our most base of animal instincts for the betterment of the entire social group.

Otherwise most males are not able to secure a sufficient amount of short term mating opportunities with females as high status males are and defer to long term mating strategy and commitment to one female. This is what Patriarchy is designed to do. For most males quality over quantity becomes the norm, monogamy becomes the incentive. Though incidental and subtle extramarital pairings do take place, monogamy is the primary construct in non communal social structures. Monogamy is the norm in societies that value fatherhood.

It is important to note that males are the variables from which to choose from. Males do not have innate sexually selective traits which are of value as females do. They do not desire to mate with males by default as males do with females. Male purpose is that of utility to such ends as the provision and protection of offspring and the mated pair bond. Weak males are weeded out through male-male competition. The most successful males i.e. the tallest, strongest, most intelligent, resourcefully successful males who provide the best utility garner multiple gamate parings with females i.e. polygamy for only the most successful or desirable males. This is what nature wants. This is what the female is choosing in animals and in humans. Even so, in a properly balanced system both male and female are content to form monogamous pair bonds in a structure which adhears to the natural sexual selection dynamic yet is limited as to how many times this can happen. Under Patriarchy the incentive is created to form only a single mated pair bond. Both female polyandry and male polygamy is curbed from existence for the most part.

We have given all this up in favor of female polyandry and matriarchy.

If male-male competitive structures are nullified i.e. the competition for territory, resources and the intelligent utilization of resources to support life, males will fail to be of utility or purpose to the mated pair bond. In such an instance they will fail to produce, lose incentive to compete and will not submit to multiple males or husbands to one female in the pair bond or even serial monogamy under forced transference of male resource provision by alimony and child support as is now the case. Such is the case now and we will find an increasing amount of men who are unwilling to commit to this.

Men inherently, rightfully and instinctually reject such a dynamic as men are increasingly doing through the Men's Rights Movement. We are quickly reaching a critical mass of ostracized males. Males have always rejected nullification of male purpose but it is finally becoming such a norm that men's voices are starting to be heard. As it continues the ranks of ostracized and nullified males will swell and our voices will become louder. Enfranchisement of men as fathers and husbands is what is needed for a civilization to thrive.

Feminists will tell you that when male-male competition is nullified through the female acquisition of such things as are currently sought after through the male, when females obtain for themselves these things there will no longer be wars or the destruction of resources and the planet. It is said that in matriarchy will rein peace. In lack of male competition for female selective choice for such things there will be peace.

I ask you, where will this leave the male when he is no longer in competition to be dominant over such things for the female. It will leave him nullified and unnecessary and female choice in sexual selection will be whatever she desires males to compete for.

The progressive and natural male competitive structure that has allowed us to advance as a species will be destoryed in favor of the stagnation of communism, polyandry and matriarchy. Full control over reproduction and perversion and control over natural sexually selective traits is the goal of feminism. Only when she becomes "equal" to the male will there be peace. Only when she is "independent" from the need of a male in a mated pair bond will there be peace. This could be no further from the truth. Feminism, socialism, matriarchy and polyandry go hand in hand. Polygamy or multiple gamete pairings that were once natures intention for only the most successful males will now be the province of ALL females through synthetic and forceful means and the subjugation of the human male to herself and her offspring.

Under patriarchy polygamy was outlawed, under matriarchy it is subsidized by male disposability by law.

I ask anyone to ponder what it would be like if men kept the children and females had to pay us support in alimony and child support. Don't you think the divorce rate would change, don't you think males would represent the 70%+ divorce rate that is now the province of females? Equal parental rights, not "visitation" must be established for fathers. Alimony to an independent female is unlawful, child support is unlawful as there should be no primary parent, no female only custody. Shared parenting should be the burden placed upon a broken mated pair bond of a dissolved family and not a get out of marriage free card for women.

Such a socially engineered aboration has and will continue to destroy the competitive dynamic incentive for male production,(one need only look at what production, invention and technology came out of the former Soviet Union, virtually nothing)

The goal is to substitute naturally sexually selective traits sought for in the male with any other competitive structure deemed useful to the female in what I dare say will be in the most wretched of forms and give forth to the expendability of all males to a monogamous pair bond, the destruction of stable relationships and family structure. Please see the rest of my blog for studies demonstrating the detriment of this and the lack of a father to children.

Ployandry rate: The graph below is a little outdated the single women birth rate is now 42% of all births. This is actually the polyandry rate as many if not all of these women continue to seek relationships with men (as I have witnessed on my online dating site where women list themselves as never married but have a child. Many of which state they want another child. It is important to note that this began with second wave feminism and the advent of government husbandry welfare, default female full child custody, no fault divorce and forced male resource provision outside of marriage. (Note: I don't come anywhere near this 42% of women! I don't want anything to do with them or their children that are made bastards by feminist doctrine.) Graph: United States CDC



Below: Divorce (Serial Monogamy) & Transition to non marital cohabitation relationships (which are twice as likely to dissolve. 70+% of dissolution of both are female initiated. Once again the parallel to the rise in both and the attribution to the institution of second wave feminism is evident. Notice the correlation between the date in time of increase of this divorce graph and the welfare spending graph posted earlier in this article and the single mother birth rate above. The correlation to second wave feminism is undeniable to this one point in time 1965-1970's. Please also see my blog post Cohabitation: Divorce Declining, But So Is Marriage: By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

Need Men Or Don't Need Men But Nothing Between

We have two choices in the new world of nullification of the need for a male within a mated pair bond.

Scenario 1: If indeed I am not needed and expendable to the mated pair bond I insist on female independence from me. I will only be needed for reproduction and as such will take NO responsibility for offspring as is done so in nature. I will take no responsibility to provide alimony woman support to a woman that is not my wife. Children will be raised fatherless and solely by the female. Polyandry, rampant wide spread serial monogamy, loose knit cohabitating couples and brief mating or "hook ups" will take place when males and a mated marriage or pair bond is not needed.

Society will have to bear the consequences of fatherless children, marginalization of the lower echelon of males from mating opportunity all together and increased violence and crime among such males. Along with an overall lower production incentive among these beta males which will constitute a large portion of the male population.

Unlike in nature human males are aware of polyandry and instead of increasing and encouraging male-male competition and productivity, it serves to destroy it. I suspect this will manifest itself in lower male achievement and production, college enrollment or degrees, societal obligation and duties, increased crime, suicide rates and depression, alcohol and drug use as well as erratic male behavior and pathologies etc. All of these things have been increasing among males in our society. Should females ever be able to reproduce through scientific means without a male, in no way should this be legal. If made so rape should not be legalized or of little penalty but rather government funded prostitution provided to offset male marginalization, nullification and its consequences.

Children will be raised by corporate child care facilities paid for by women alone as females will now have higher capital production than men in the workforce. Or government will bear the collective burden of supporting new mothers by paid maternity leave which will come from maternity taxes applied to all female workers.

True equality will only be possible when females loose no capitalist productive capacity in the workforce by having children. As such it is possible that maternity leave should not be available and the child turned over to a child care facility from birth or very shortly thereafter. The cost of such facilities will distributed to maternity taxes paid by women in the workforce.

Affirmative action, women only grants, loans, scholarships, and enforced Title IX gender parity in all occupations and in academia should be mandated as is currently and increasingly happening. Though through these polices male and female will eventually reach equal productive capacity and the raw wage gap of 78cents to the male dollar will no longer exist, overall free market principals and productivity output will have to take second stage to achieve this as is currently the case.

Scenario 2: I will take part in the raising of offspring but demand equal rights of joint custody and the right to be a father to my children should the the marriage dissolve, equal paternity leave as women are afforded and equal property rights to the home and other assets should the marriage dissolve as well as the abolition of alimony and child support as the woman is indeed "independent" and the child shared.

As no primary parent exists child support is not viable or proper in such an arrangement. As the woman is independent from male resource provision alimony is not viable or proper. If I produce more income and a higher standard of living than the women or vice versa neither party will have the right to offset this through alimony or child support for the sake consistency in the standard of living of the child but in fact bear the natural consequences of such disparity if any party chooses to divorce.

Title XI gender parity law to be expanded to science departments

For those of you who do not know Title IX is the federal mandate that men and women's programs within academia be supplied equal funding and towards the ends of gender parity about 50 50 representation not only in college but all occupations in society. Once again this is not a matter of equal opportunity for women but the expectation and implementation of policies to force equal outcome. All this so that women can be "equal" to men. Title IX extension into science technical and engineering departments will further serve to ostracize men from colleges even more. Women now obtain 60% of all college degrees. I expect them to obtain between 70% to 100% with further discrimination against men.

Women are heavily represented in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences and education due to their own choices. Meanwhile, men retain majorities in fields such as physics, computer science and engineering.

Women's groups have alerted their followers that American science education is "hostile" to women. Soon there were conferences, retreats, summits, a massive "Left Out, Left Behind" letter-writing campaign, dozens of studies and a series of congressional hearings. Their first public victim? Larry Summers, who was forced to resign as president of Harvard University in 2006 after he dared to question the groups' assumptions and drew a correlation between the number of women in the sciences and gender differences implied in math and science test data as well as innate gender physiological dimorphisms not to mention individual preferences of women for different fields of study.

The problem currently witnessed in sports programs is that the Title IX policy did not account for the fact that more men are interested in sports and seek to join college athletics. The result was disastrous and has led to many empty female locker rooms and program rosters. As a result and in effort to maintain parity universities began to shut down men's sports programs to maintain parity with the amount of women who entered sports programs. Men's sports programs were and continue to be shut down so that funding parity is achievable.

The United States government in conjunction with The Feminist Party and women's groups are preparing for phase two. Phase two is simply the extension of Title IX to science, technical and engineering departments across the nation. Gender parity will then take priority over all other factors including individual applicant aptitude, merit and talent. The results will be disastrous for The United States as this will come at a great cost to the advancement of science in the name of "gender equality" and "women's rights".

Here Christina Hoff Sommers explains the utter destruction of Title IX policy and the devastation that is to come to America's science base.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR2009041302119.html?sub=AR

further stating: “Colleges already practice affirmative action for women in science, but now they’ll be so intimidated by the Title IX legal hammer that they may institute quota systems,” Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Times. “In sports, they had to eliminate a lot of male teams to achieve Title IX parity. It’ll be devastating to American science if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women’s level of interest.”

I also like this woman's pointed expression on the matter: "What a disaster it would be to apply Title IX to college programs in the sciences. We want the best qualified applicants, not the politically correct ones. Title IX has indeed helped women get more scholarships to college, but at the cost of many, many athletics programs for men. Colleges have had to cut out men's sports teams in order to balance out the money going to each gender. Women argue that that is only fair. But would we want qualified men to lose out on opportunities to study science because women were admitted instead. Since women are already welcome to such programs and qualified female applicants can receive all sorts of pluses already as they apply to these technical fields and discrimination is already illegal, who are the females who will be admitted into science programs under Title IX? Will they be as qualified as the male applicants who get turned down in order to make room for more females? Is that what we really want as we try to prepare the next generation of the nation's scientists? Should gender parity trump ability? Is that the optimal scientific result?" http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2009/04/applying-title-ix-to-sciences.html

I have hope that the newest generation of women will rebuke feminist doctrine and bring back equality not only with laws such as Title IX but all aspects of society. The fine ladies at Kutztown College have put together this video in tribute to the once co-ed swim team. According to the video below in early April At 11 A.M. the boys were gathered into the locker room and told as of 11:01 A.M. all boys are to clear out their lockers and vacate the premises to maintain Title IX gender parity and that the boys team was canceled effective immediately. In the video one boys speaks of transferring from college to college because boys teams are continually shut down. I am so glad that the women of this team felt so much shame from the feminist doctrine that they put together this tribute to the boys.
http://www.floswimming.org/videos/play/171144-save-kutztown-swimming-one-team-one-fight

by Allison Kasic
April 14, 2009, 1:17pm


The latest victims of gender equity appear to be men's soccer and swimming at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. The school announced at the end of March that it would be cutting both sports effective at the end of this season. Like many other schools who have announced cuts recently, Kutztown claimed that the cuts were merely a cost-cutting measure that would save the university up to $150,000 annually. Funny then that the coaches weren't notified of the cuts until the day they were announced -- giving them no chance to attempt to raise funds to save the programs. If it all came down to cost, attempting private fundraising would be a reasonable place to start. And, as our friends over at Texas Swimming point out, the school hasn't been very forthcoming with information on the cost savings.

More likely, other factors were at play. Readers of this blog will know that Title IX is chief among those factors. The "gender equity" law guides school's program decisions through its rigid proportionality requirements (aka gender quotas). For background on Title IX's demands, read this as a starting point. And, low and behold, after students, parents, and coaches started asking questions about Title IX, the school admitted that many factors, including Title IX were taken into consideration.

Fortunately, the athletic community at Kutztown is rallying behind the cut teams. Led by members of the women's swim team, a rally is in the works to protest the cuts on April 21st. If you're in the Kutztown area and want to show your support for these athletes, the rally is scheduled at 5pm outside of Keystone Hall. http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/21392.html?success=1#lastpost

Wow, a startling look at the feminist party agenda straight from the feminist roundtable conference in the White House. The feminists discuss their new agenda called S.T.E.M. or Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics. If you know anything about what Title IX has done to male sports programs this will surely exterminate the last of males from our colleges. Males only acquire 40% of college degrees. Policies like Title IX will surly make it 30% or less!

Matriarchal and egalitarian societies

Matriarchal and egalitarian societies.

It is my belief that feminism has perverted the definition of patriarchy and matriarchy to mean the balance and struggle for power between men and women and not a dichotomy of and function of the social structure. To indeed create conflict between the sexes, the "battle of the sexes" as it is said. A type of collective hierarchical and solely male system designed to oppress women is said to be in place at this very moment.


During the 19th century, scholars such as Johann Jakob Bachofen advanced the idea that matriarchy represented an early stage in the development of human society. According to Bachofen, humans originally lived in a state of sexual liberation, where descent was traced exclusively through maternal lineage. This view, however, is now largely discredited, and both anthropologists and sociologists generally agree that there has never been a human society where women competed for and acquired territory, resources, committed crime and warfare for such and focused on utilization of resources in equal proportions to men nor provided the fruits of their labor in such respect to men in courtship, marriage or divorce. It is speculated that a primary element of this dynamic stems from male-male competition and female choice in sexual selection. That male contribution to the human mated pair bond is more heavily weighted in external utility. It is speculated that male utility to provide and protect a mated pair bond is an intrinsic element of sexual selection in humans.

It is speculated that such physical characteristics of male design such as muscles are attractive to females by the implication of employment of the action and utility of them and internal characteristics of male design and propensities of male utility and behavior yielded more mating opportunites for such males. As such conclusive DNA evidence shows that about 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. That modern day human gene expression represents 40% of the total male population over time. That predominantly "successful" male gene expression through reproduction has represented itself exponentially to create this selective disparity among males that is evident to this day. Such pressures has created dimorphic disparity among males that skews above and below the median average between male and between males and females. Such dimorphic disparity was what Lawrence Summers the former president of Harvard University mentioned that caused such a controversy that he was forced to resign as mentioning such empirical data was in violation of feminist doctrine and political correctness i.e. equality.

(He was then summarily replaced by former Women's Studies Department head and feminist Drew Faust (a woman though her name conforms to the feminist "gender queer" ambiguous equal being archetype)


This fact illustrates the intense selective pressures that are placed on male through male male competition and female choice. Furthermore as female choice in sexual selection is evident in the mating dynamic of humans, more selective variables and pressures are placed on the male and as such are expressed in competitive and aggressive male-male competition toward and between males for utility in such respects as provision and protection of the pair bond and competition to acquire territory, resources and propensities within the male to utilize resources intelligently.

Men have a unique interest in the design and function of resources as well as interest and aptitude to build and fix them. This may be why men are disproportionately represented in such fields and the technical and engineering occupations as is evident by such minutia of social behavior such as a magazine subscription to popular mechanics magazine etc and other male behavior or male hobbies or pass times. Walk into any R/C hobby store and you will find a myriad of metal parts, gears, raw electronic circuitry and not surprisingly an almost exclusive male customer base.

The preoccupation of the human male for territory and resources is evident in that all lines between countries are drawn in the blood of men. The theory of male oppression of the female is nullified in this model as indeed males are in actuality performing such actions for the benefit and sexually selective choice of the female and is in fact doing such things for females and the benefit of a mated pair bond. Nevertheless, there is variation in the role that gender plays in human societies. Although there are no known examples of matriarchal cultures,there are a number of societies that have been shown to be matrilinear or matrilocal, especially among indigenous tribal groups. In addition, some gatherer-hunter groups have been characterized as largely egalitarian. These however were close knit communal or communistic groups which were quite different from the single autonomous family units of only male and female that exist in Western societies. Child care and tribal groups were a communal affair though gender roles then as now were naturally inclined to a differing roles of men and women. In these groups families were not autonomous and isolated from the rest of the community as in Western culture. Men were not ostracized into fatherlessness, financial devestation and isolated resource producing males for women that were not their wives and children they could only see 4 days a month.

Though case in point, modern anthropologists and sociologist agree that there is no evidence that a matriarchal society has ever existed: Seemingly it appears that there is a reason for having two sexes in order to perform differing and complimentary roles to the mated pair bond. That indeed perhaps each sex plays an equally needed yet different and valued role to the selective reproduction and propagation of our species contradicting all known feminist theory that gender roles and differences are socialized and not innate, natural and in their historical application, disproportionately a larger burden to the female. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#cite_note-9

China Has To Many Men

Authorities and sociologists are worried that the Chinese families preference for males has caused a dangerous imbalance. The abortion of females having led to 32 million more Chinese men will likely cause an ultra harsh competitive advantage structure. Mate competition among males will become freverent as more males resort to crime to gather territory and resources. Most crime including organized crime is related to male male competition and ultimately many forms of crime relate to acquiring resources or are the product of male male competition as well as innate male biology for such propensities. Crime in such respects is a primarily male behavior. Under such conditions male behavior through incentive for mate access and thus territory and resource acquisition is likely to become very aggressive.

Much of China is rural and agrarian and males are prefered as working resources for family capital accumulation through male labor. The issue is two fold in that the more males a family has the more resourcefully successful and the more resourcefully successful the better the chances of a family to secure a valued wife for their sons.

Ultimately such social engineering has led to an increase in male incentive for productivity and capitol accumulation but the side affects of such preference for males is ultimately detrimental, unnatural and an injustice to men, women and family.

Traditionally it is seen that a home with more males has more income and security and as such it is custom for a young man's family to build or purchase a home for the brides family. A custom which originates as an extension of male provisionary ability and to females. In Western Culture this preference is reduced to individual female mate preference for resourcefully successful males where as in China these sexually selective traits become familial, socialistic, communistic or communally expressed. As housing prices increase in modernized cities many Chinese prefer a girl. Ultimately the use of abortion and the one child per family policy has had adverse affects on social stability.


Topic: Children and Family
Source: Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune
China has 32 million more young men than young women -- a gender gap that could lead to increasing crime, according to a study released Friday that blamed the nation's strict one-child policy and Chinese parents' practice of aborting female fetuses to have sons. The imbalance is expected to steadily worsen among people of childbearing age over the next two decades and could trigger a slew of social problems, including a possible spike in crime by young men unable to find female partners, said an author of the report, published in the BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal.

WIKIPEDIA Getting The Word Out: Sexist

I've made edits to the previously one sided Wikipedia article - Sexist
DO YOUR PART AND RAISE YOUR VOICES TO BE HEARD. THE BIGGEST MISTAKE ANYONE CAN MAKE IS TO DO NOTHING BECAUSE ONE CAN DO ONLY A LITTLE. EVERY MAN AND WOMAN COUNTS IN OUR EFFORTS. BE HEARD!!!


Popular Policy and Culture

Men are forbidden to sit next to children on Qantas and British Airways airlines as it is company policy to assume that all men are potential threats to children.[44]

It is much apart of western culture that men are less valued than women as the mantra of "women first" still exists to the extent at which men are expected to die for their favor. In January 2009 a US Airways Airbus A320 flight 1549 with 120 passengers on board crashed into the Hudson River. Upon describing the incident and what ensued a passenger stated "At first chaos, but everyone was kind of orderly, man. You know after a while everyone, we just, I just kept saying relax relax, women and children first. And then it just started filling with water, quick." Heading toward the forward exits, and then standing on the wings, the passengers developed their pecking order. Women and children went first into the rafts, then people who had fallen into the river and been plucked out.[45]

Men at 18 years of age in the United States are required to register for military conscription to be drafted to war or military service. Women hold no obligation to serve their country in any fashion should they be required in any reguard.[44]

Though women acquire 60% of college degrees in the United States women are granted affirmative action in some states such as Colorado as well as women only loans, scholarships, grants, funding and outreach initiatives. There are no such opportunities for men only.

In the United States, boys sports teams in colleges have been shut down in order to maintain gender parity with the amount of women who enter sports on campus through Title IX gender equality policy. [44] Young ladies at some campuses have shown solidarity against the ostrasization of boys by creating videos to bring attention to the issue.[45] The Obama administration is investigating the implementation of forced gender parity through Title IX to science, technical and engineering departments in colleges as well. Some organizations have expressed concern to the further denigration for opportunities for boys. [46]

Statistics are widely disseminated purporting that 1 in 4 or 1 in 6 women are brutally raped in the United States.[46] Campaigns such as Take Back The Night give the impression that rape is a very real possibility for women when walking down the street at night.[citation needed] It is well known that the majority of men do not commit nor are they capable of violent rape as an erection is unobtainable by most all men by attacking and hurting a woman.[citation needed] Normal and healthy male biology does not find this sexually arousing.[citation needed]The majority of rape cases take place in the home, are under the influence of alcohol and or drugs by one or both parties, is by someone the person is close to, and is non violent or forceful.[citation needed] Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum describes how the 1 in 4 statistic came to be [47]

It is widely purported that men commit the majority of intimate partner violence when in actuality the vast majority of these accusations take place by intimate couples that are classified as separated.[48] Under VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) the privilege is available to a woman to enact a restraining order if she feels threatened, like wise the intimate partner violence statistics reflect the abhorrent spike in cases for couples listed as separated. Because of the ease of obtainment of a restraining order, domestic violence allegations have become a more common process of a break up or divorce. Reputable sources such as the U.S. CDC and American Psychiatric Association have found that women commit 50.3% of intimate partner violence (See Domestic Violence Below).

Men, specifically husbands and fathers are portrayed in the media as animals or parts of animals such as a horses ass, donkeys or (jack asses) and dogs[49][citation needed] Sexist T-shirts are sold to girls depicting boys as stupid and disposable[50] while commercials in mainstream media further fortify the denigration of men and boys by depicting female power in relation to male disposability[51]

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. [52]

In the United States it is popular and lawful conception that men are not meant to have a parental role with their children and as such custody of children in divorce is often rewarded to the mother. "As late as 1971, the Minnesota State Bar Association's handbook advised lawyers and judges that: "except in very rare cases, the father should not have custody of the minor children. He is usually unqualified psychologically and emotionally."[53]

In dating and courtship men are still expected to pay expenses in many or all regards. Men most often bear the responsibility to support a woman who has left him through divorce by way of alimony. Women in the United States initiate 70% of all divorces. Men loose custody of their children 90% of the time which relegates them to virtual childlessness as well as the child to fatherlessness as "visitation" to their own children is the norm. Men are also expected to pay child support for children they are not allowed to see on a regular basis.
The United States has created the Cabinet Level advisory Council of Women and Girls to oversee all governmental policy and functions of all Cabinet Level offices as to how they affect the needs of women and girls. There is no such high level council for men or boys. Excerpt from a lobbying letter by N.O.W: "This Office on Women should seek new ways to foster the full potential of tens of millions of women and girls of all races and from all walks of life -- through policies, budgeting, inter-agency coordination and special initiatives." [54]

In the United States men by law can not have a full or equal decision making part in the responsibility for conception in the act of procreation. As such men have no right to abort financial responsibility or parental rights on their own accord. Women however are able to exercise the right to abort responsibility of conception by aborting an unborn fetus despite the wishes, religious beliefs or personal life planning and health wishes of the father. Unequal protection under law to reach the same ends (abort responsibility for conception is not afforded to men) The proposition for each sex to make mutually exclusive decisions to abort and for the female to decide to abort or not abort accordingly is not afforded. By implication it is men who are responsible for conception and as such it is therefore something a man does to a woman and is not seen as a mutual act. For a full discussion on this matter, see Male abortion.

Anthropologist Helen Fisher states in her book Anatomy of Love, "The mating game is powerful and primitive. There's a great deal that both sexes need to learn about that. But unfortunately right now all the blame is on men. Sexual harassment is an issue that has been controlled by women."[citation needed] Dr. Fisher is referring to passive female solicitation of male sexual response by exposure of their bodies. Though passive in nature female way of dress has to potential to be overtly sexual without direct action. Female way of dress is not just something men see but feel as well. As such female way of dress has the potential to be sexual harrasment of men. It is common conception that women should have no responsibility for the cloths they wear and how it makes men feel or how it affects men personally, emotionally or sexually. Though actions of men that are direct or indirect and affect women likewise is classified as harassment.

Domestic violence

The U.S. Center for Disease control in conjunction with the American Psychiatric Association found that of heterosexual relationships involving violence, 50.3% involve non-reciprocal violence, and of that 50.3%, women were the instigators 70.7% of the time, although "physical injury was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal."[52] Men have no laws such as VAWA or Violence Against Women Act that afford them equal protection under law. Men are often turned away from shelters and services for domestic violence victims.[citation needed] Boys of 12 years of age and older are often not allowed to accompany their mother to domestic violence shelters.[citation needed] Linda Kelly states in her thesis, DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE in the Florida State University Law Review that domestic violence is equally the province of women. [53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexist

Daughter of Famous Feminist Alice Walker Speaks Out

How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart
By REBECCA WALKER



She's revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women's rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter, Rebecca, 38.

Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises - a mother.

The other day I was vacuuming when my son came bounding into the room. 'Mummy, Mummy, let me help,' he cried. His little hands were grabbing me around the knees and his huge brown eyes were looking up at me. I was overwhelmed by a huge surge of happiness.


Maternal rift: Rebecca Walker, whose mother was the feminist author of The Color Purple - who thought motherhood a form of servitude, is now proud to be a mother herself

I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: 'Mummy, Mummy.'

It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.


Family love? A young Rebecca with her parents

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from 'enslaving' me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late - I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

My mother's feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

I love my mother very much, but I haven't seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son - her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology.

Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world - goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it's time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.

My parents met and fell in love in Mississippi during the civil rights movement. Dad [Mel Leventhal], was the brilliant lawyer son of a Jewish family who had fled the Holocaust. Mum was the impoverished eighth child of sharecroppers from Georgia. When they married in 1967, inter-racial weddings were still illegal in some states.

My early childhood was very happy although my parents were terribly busy, encouraging me to grow up fast. I was only one when I was sent off to nursery school. I'm told they even made me walk down the street to the school.


Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter

When I was eight, my parents divorced. From then on I was shuttled between two worlds - my father's very conservative, traditional, wealthy, white suburban community in New York, and my mother's avant garde multi-racial community in California. I spent two years with each parent - a bizarre way of doing things.

Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa - offering herself up as a mother figure.

But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities - after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.

My mother would always do what she wanted - for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?

I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me - a 'delightful distraction', but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting.

According to the strident feminist ideology of the Seventies, women were sisters first, and my mother chose to see me as a sister rather than a daughter. From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio - some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.

Sisters together
A neighbour, not much older than me, was deputised to look after me. I never complained. I saw it as my job to protect my mother and never distract her from her writing. It never crossed my mind to say that I needed some time and attention from her.

When I was beaten up at school - accused of being a snob because I had lighter skin than my black classmates - I always told my mother that everything was fine, that I had won the fight. I didn't want to worry her.

But the truth was I was very lonely and, with my mother's knowledge, started having sex at 13. I guess it was a relief for my mother as it meant I was less demanding. And she felt that being sexually active was empowering for me because it meant I was in control of my body.

Now I simply cannot understand how she could have been so permissive. I barely want my son to leave the house on a play-date, let alone start sleeping around while barely out of junior school.

A good mother is attentive, sets boundaries and makes the world safe for her child. But my mother did none of those things.

Although I was on the Pill - something I had arranged at 13, visiting the doctor with my best friend - I fell pregnant at 14. I organised an abortion myself. Now I shudder at the memory. I was only a little girl. I don't remember my mother being shocked or upset. She tried to be supportive, accompanying me with her boyfriend.

Although I believe that an abortion was the right decision for me then, the aftermath haunted me for decades. It ate away at my self-confidence and, until I had Tenzin, I was terrified that I'd never be able to have a baby because of what I had done to the child I had destroyed. For feminists to say that abortion carries no consequences is simply wrong.

As a child, I was terribly confused, because while I was being fed a strong feminist message, I actually yearned for a traditional mother. My father's second wife, Judy, was a loving, maternal homemaker with five children she doted on.

There was always food in the fridge and she did all the things my mother didn't, such as attending their school events, taking endless photos and telling her children at every opportunity how wonderful they were.


Alice Walker's iconic book was made in to a film in 1985, and starred Whoopi Goldberg and Margaret Avery (pictured)

My mother was the polar opposite. She never came to a single school event, she didn't buy me any clothes, she didn't even help me buy my first bra - a friend was paid to go shopping with me. If I needed help with homework I asked my boyfriend's mother.

Moving between the two homes was terrible. At my father's home I felt much more taken care of. But, if I told my mother that I'd had a good time with Judy, she'd look bereft - making me feel I was choosing this white, privileged woman above her. I was made to feel that I had to choose one set of ideals above the other.

When I hit my 20s and first felt a longing to be a mother, I was totally confused. I could feel my biological clock ticking, but I felt if I listened to it, I would be betraying my mother and all she had taught me.

I tried to push it to the back of my mind, but over the next ten years the longing became more intense, and when I met Glen, a teacher, at a seminar five years ago, I knew I had found the man I wanted to have a baby with. Gentle, kind and hugely supportive, he is, as I knew he would be, the most wonderful father.

Although I knew what my mother felt about babies, I still hoped that when I told her I was pregnant, she would be excited for me.

'Mum, I'm pregnant'
Instead, when I called her one morning in the spring of 2004, while I was at one of her homes housesitting, and told her my news and that I'd never been happier, she went very quiet. All she could say was that she was shocked. Then she asked if I could check on her garden. I put the phone down and sobbed - she had deliberately withheld her approval with the intention of hurting me. What loving mother would do that?

Worse was to follow. My mother took umbrage at an interview in which I'd mentioned that my parents didn't protect or look out for me. She sent me an e-mail, threatening to undermine my reputation as a writer. I couldn't believe she could be so hurtful - particularly when I was pregnant.

Devastated, I asked her to apologise and acknowledge how much she'd hurt me over the years with neglect, withholding affection and resenting me for things I had no control over - the fact that I am mixed-race, that I have a wealthy, white, professional father and that I was born at all.

But she wouldn't back down. Instead, she wrote me a letter saying that our relationship had been inconsequential for years and that she was no longer interested in being my mother. She even signed the letter with her first name, rather than 'Mom'.

That was a month before Tenzin's birth in December 2004, and I have had no contact with my mother since. She didn't even get in touch when he was rushed into the special care baby unit after he was born suffering breathing difficulties.

And I have since heard that my mother has cut me out of her will in favour of one of my cousins. I feel terribly sad - my mother is missing such a great opportunity to be close to her family. But I'm also relieved. Unlike most mothers, mine has never taken any pride in my achievements. She has always had a strange competitiveness that led her to undermine me at almost every turn.

When I got into Yale - a huge achievement - she asked why on earth I wanted to be educated at such a male bastion. Whenever I published anything, she wanted to write her version - trying to eclipse mine. When I wrote my memoir, Black, White And Jewish, my mother insisted on publishing her version. She finds it impossible to step out of the limelight, which is extremely ironic in light of her view that all women are sisters and should support one another.

It's been almost four years since I have had any contact with my mother, but it's for the best - not only for my self-protection but for my son's well-being. I've done all I can to be a loyal, loving daughter, but I can no longer have this poisonous relationship destroy my life.

I know many women are shocked by my views. They expect the daughter of Alice Walker to deliver a very different message. Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It's helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems it's caused for my contemporaries?

What about the children?
The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn't take into account the toll on children. That's all part of the unfinished business of feminism.

Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: 'I'd like a child. If it happens, it happens.' I tell them: 'Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.' As I know only too well.

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They've missed the opportunity and they're bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women's movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I don't want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother's.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters - a happy family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

Indepenence on equal terms, is it possible?

I hope that as women now earn 60% of college degrees that they will not only reach parity with men but surpass us in earnings power and dedication to work in general. Continued affirmative action for women in college admissions and jobs (Women have affirmative action in Colorado) along with women only scholarships and loans as well as education policy and curriculum designed to advance girls only will hopefully push women from the current 60% to 70+ or even 100% of college degrees. The complete destruction of equal opportunity for men will force the cards on the table in the gender war.

When women out earn us it is men who will get to stay home with our newborn children as it makes no sense to remove the higher wage earner from the workforce. I also know that when they do this they will be required to support men outside of marriage in divorce through alimony. The last and only step needed for equality then will be equal joint custody of the children while child support will be paid to the man as again she earns more. Unlike women I am fair in this regard and see that a child has the right to both parents and it is also a god given right to be a mother and father. Men will be so glad to be "oppressed" as women are and have such choices. Men will gain abortion rights in this new order as only women have the right to abort responsibility after conception.

It is then the woman who will support us in and out of marriage. It is the woman who bares the consequence of being successful in the acquisition of resources. It will then be the women who bares all the risk, obligation and consequences of marriage and divorce. I only hope then that as women earn as much or more than men they will pay for our drinks and food in courtship and display their dedication to providing to us and potential to do so in a mated pair bond and in marriage. I hope they will evolve not to look for tall, strong, high status, intelligent, resourcefully successful males but good nurtures, fathers and child rearing abilities. Of course if we want to work we can work and our wives will be required to support this choice of ours as well. The ability to institutionalize our newborn infant in child care would be ideal. Unfortunately I see the denigration of the male will ultimately lead to low marriage rates, high divorce rates and an increase in loose knit cohabitation which are twice as likely to end up dissolved as well. Oh wait this is already happening. Ok then, I expect it to get worse then.

Hmmmm will women ever court us and display willingness for resource provision to men. Will women doctors even marry male nurses? Will women pilots marry male stewards. Will women resteraunt owners marry waiters and women business owners their male office clerk? So far women marry men that are on par or earn more than themselves.

I wonder if they will ever rise to the challenge and marry men for our nurturing and fatherly qualities where resource potential simply is not as important to them as is the case with men. I wonder if women would gladly be our providers and protect the family. I wonder if they will be "equal" in all regards and take responsibility to defend our nation by force of the draft as well. I wonder if they will ever be independent from male resource provision and protection. Or perhaps men will remain an underclass and the workhorses for resource producing women and society on "unequal" terms. I only wish women were taught in my Women's Studies class and in society that men and women compliment each other.

We are supposed to function as one. That we do indeed have complimentary roles to a mated pair bond that are necessitated by biology, real physical, physiological and psychological differences. That there is a purpose to having two sexes that are in my opinion virtually opposites in our makeup. That it is not about any one individual when you have a family but mutual sacrifice and servitude to a common purpose. That women do indeed seek male utility for provision and protection when selecting a mate. That men don't oppress women but that they are willing benefactors of male propensity to provide resources and protection to the women, children and the mated pair bond.

Women as comedians and musicians and other creative artists.

I wonder why women often say they like a guy that makes them laugh. I wonder why men never ask for the same. I wonder why men constitute the majority representation of all comedians, chefs, musicians and artists. I've seen women claim they are oppressed in the arts, are they? I wonder why women don't seem to play poker in nearly the proportions men do. Are women oppressed in poker? I wonder why as they complain that they are discriminated against in the sciences, technical and engineering fields yet they don't seem to populate the lower orders of these fields such as car mechanics, electricians, plumbers, construction etc. Are women oppressed here as well? If anyone has any comments, I'd love to hear them..

I believe comedy is a male "display" behavior and comedy can and is used by men to elevate status, diffuse conflict and attract mates. Comedy is an adaptive trait and an asset to which intelligence is correlated with as well. Women like men who are funny and can make them laugh. I believe perhaps that the selective and adaptive pressure for such traits weigh more heavily upon men. One must remember that men don't have inherent biological value as women do. Men must "be", they must "produce" and have qualities that are external that are useful to the pair bond and offspring. Can someone please tell me why the male has muscles? Can someone please tell me if the male is not valued for production and utility to provide and protect the mated pair bond what is attractive to females about muscles? Does female attraction to male utility extend beyond the physical?

Males to the chromosomal level are infact the variable of which is subject to change and of which to choose from. Everyone knows that there is much more selective pressure and more competition among men. Not to say that women don't compete for mates but that males do so under the pressure of many more variables, many more external variables included.

I suspect males are more driven toward expression of all externalities that are directly or indirectly of biological value. In essence men have inherent incentive to "produce". Would male cheerleaders at the sidelines of a woman's sports game have the same effect or purpose? Would they inspire the females in the same respect? Would all male cheerleaders at the sidelines of males competing have the same effect on males that female cheerleaders do?

Can one not see that women inspire us to compete and that by competing against men and acquiring for themselves the very things they seek in us they no longer inspire us? We loose incentive really. Men don't often "marry up" as women do, why is this?
Why are men more attracted to women of health, youth, symmetry (beauty) and nurturing qualities than a woman's resource potential?? Could it be that women have innate value and simply are not required to in order to garner mating opportunity? If so I would imagine that sex for women would be easy to come by with such innate biological value.

Many say men are intimidated by women of higher resource potential but I pefer the words "not attracted to" rather than ascribe it to "the fragile male ego" as this only serves to demean men and misses something very important that goes much deeper than calling men weak.

I can only wonder how many mating opportunities comedians, musicians and other men such as the President must get for producing so well. Women who produce simply don't get the same reward. Women who produce don't have the same effect on men. Women don't have the same incentive that men do.

One can say that we as men in real terms are paid more or have more incentive for such behavior in monetary capitol, status and mating opportunities for such production and expressions. Production and all that comes with it is of reward to men through the entire echelon. It makes sense that these pressures and propensities of the male will be represented in our social construct and gender roles, indeed they are. Indeed the needs and selective pressures of the female are represented through male production. The female in fact created men through selection of male variables from the beginning of our species existence. We are in fact what the female needed us to be.

One must understand that selective pressures are a major motivator for men. Look around you and you will see that everything around you was built by men and the essential materials derived directly from male labor.

I wonder if women are telling the truth when the Feminist Party that represents the voice of all women tells us they would support men entirely with their labor while we stay home with children. I wonder if women will ever protect and provide for us to though we can protect and provide for ourselves as they aspire. I wonder if they will ever buy us food and drink, protect and provide for us and display such utility and protective gestures by opening doors for us. I wonder why they ask us to support women's need not to need men and that men must contribute the extra work load it takes for them to do so in more housework and child care. I wonder if men are inherently resistive to these demands. It would make sense that they would be. I wonder why women believe they should do this. I wonder why they want to "produce" like we do when there is simply not as much incentive for them to do so. Why do they complain that they have not or can not do so and that we must get women to compete and produce on par with men? I wonder why they think that men do all this for ourselves. I wonder why they attack us as they have. I wonder why they find no value in themselves otherwise but more so in being "independent" i.e. becoming what men have always contributed to the pair bond i.e. to become in the respects they have needed us most for, to become "what men are".

I don't understand how they can become what they seek in us and then do not willingly give over the fruits of their labor to us as we have to them in courtship and in a mated pair bond. They have shed the "oppression" of their role as mother and nurturer in favor of the male oppressive role of resource provision yet they display no such willingness as men have to provide dedication of these resources to us. Instead they simply seek to nullify the need of a man all together, to become independent.

It stands to my reason that we should "depend" on eachother, is that not what a mated pair bond does? Is not that the reason we have two sexes that are virtual opposites? Don't we have or are meant to have different contributions to a mated pair bond? If so one could speculate what those contributions are by understanding what men and women look for in a mate.

Males that are present today are products of the variables females selected for in us. Why then do they shame us when of course we are designed by and for their benefit. In selective terms they asked us to be this way. Why be "independent" from the benefits of men? Is marriage and a mated pair bond between men and women oppression? Is not mutual need, dependence, devotion, trust and obligation the whole idea?

I wonder what happens when men start wanting to be "independent" from women? Can anyone see the potential detriment of this proposition were it to take place as females have done? Indeed in many respects Men's Rights is growing to fight for male independence from the female. To in fact not only not need her but to stop her demand for our resources in courtship, marriage and divorce. If women do not need us we sincerely would like them to stop needing us and furthermore to continue to force us to do so outside of a married relationship.

It makes no sense to produce for females that are now "independent" and produce for themselves. It makes no sense to dedicate to presenting, displaying, offering and strutting our "male variables" and willingness for dedication of such to females when they don't want them. To expect men to court women through resource provision is degrading to men. To support a woman that is not his wife is degrading to men. To support children he is not allowed to have joint custody of is degrading to the essential rights of a father and to men.

I am afraid that as marriage becomes more rare and divorce stays as prevalent and even more common than today and as cohabitation increasingly becomes the norm government will increasingly subsidize the dissolution of family through the ever growing government husbandry to support single mothers and enforce the resource provision by men while increasing the state of fatherlessness.

To have economic equality and self suffiecientcy in society yet look for such inequality in mate selection of males is hipocracy and creates inherent resentment in men. If women don't need us I'd rather sit around and watch sports, not attend college, drink beer, play video games and not commit to women or marriage but rather simply get laid. I'd rather not produce very much... With no sovereign territory or family of my own, no future in this respect and a perpetual single lifestyle I will have no obligations, nothing to loose. Are single wifeless and childless men more volatile and commit more crime and violence? After all what is there left to define yourself for or against but yourself and anything that gets in your way. He has no responsibility to anyone but himself.

Why do men produce and are represented in so many areas that women claim they are oppressed in, because even though by feminist doctrine instituted as law we are no longer needed for anything other than sperm and as an isolated resource provider after divorce, we produce because we are still required to by female selective pressures. I've asked many women that are friends of mine about paying for women on dates and they always reply that I have to pay. They can't explain why but that it is important that I pay. Women have an innate sense of entitlement to male resource provision. If I am dedicated to her as a mate I am expected to provide. In any other time this would be ok but now women have their cake and can eat it to. Men are now here to take or leave at the will of females, to court and to be of utility or none, to provide or not provide, to give her all the more choices. We are clearly at most an expendable accessory. Indeed as is evident by custody law, men are seen as no use to children as a father as well.

In order for men to no longer be oppressed by women we must withdraw from women as they have from us, namely through the requirement of resource provision in all aspects of our interaction with women in courtship, marriage and divorce. To in fact allow women to truly be "independent" women and to allow men to be independent from subservience to this modern female that does not need men but is glad to take. We must call her on her decision to be independent and force her to take responsibility, to be truly independent. Again anything less is hypocracy. We have clearly created a hybrid of polyandry and monogamy which presents itself in the current 40% single woman birth rate and serial monogamy. This institution is no doubt in the female favor from courtship to divorce.

The drastic decline in marriage and increase in cohabitation is not enough. We need this to continue to bring it to a head. Thankfully it is getting worse. This modern female that refuses to provide to us the fruits of her labor as we do and are willing to do for her in all aspects of our relationship to the female is unacceptable. I am quite aware I am no longer needed and so I demand to no longer be expected to provide in courtship and forced to provide in divorce..I will no longer be subject to military draft to defend the territory or resources for which she now competes for and acquires monetary capitol in. She must do so as well to be my equal. I demand reciprocation and responsibility from women.

I demand to have benefits without risk or obligation and choice to shed all roles that subjugate men to women or to male obligation to family or society as well as the burdens of responsibility of sexual reproduction as women now make and have such choices for themselves. I demand choice for all these things as well. I demand to be independent from women as they are to us.

I am tired of the female entitlement of what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine in courtship and outside of a mated pair bond. I demand not the same but simply what is mine is mine. I demand responsibility from women. Women can not have "choices" for choices sake alone. It is responsibility that gives power which gives forth to obligation and risk and then choices. This is something men have always known and abide by. Women need to realize that equality does not mean choices that fall on the shoulders of men. Women need to realize that to transfer risk and obligation defeats the purpose of the responsibility and power dynamic that men abide by. This is something men have and always will strive to do given proper respect. To provide and protect our mated female and offspring. Unfortunately women can take us or leave us devastated and they know it. Women have all the power, we have nothing. Fortunately but unfortunately men are responding to this accordingly and I can only hope we continue to withdraw from commitment to women, marriage, children and family.

I see no other way to correct the faults of "equality" but to exemplify the utter inequality that men face.

To continue the destruction of family, increase the single woman birth rate of 40%, continue no fault divorce, encourage single motherhood as a lifestyle choice,increase fatherless children, show men and useless idiots and fools in media and commercials, continue the current decline in marriage toward cohabitation, maintain marriage as nothing but an obligation and risk to all men, continue affirmative action, VAWA and special grants and scholarships to women. She must completely become on par in capital productive capacity in work as well. Title IX and affirmative action are doing well at this. Institute paid maternity leave for single mothers as well as benefits and welfare to single mothers.

Though he is quite crass I do enjoy Mark Rudov's approach on U.S. national news channels and his YouTube videos on doing away with male courtship through resource provision. To respect women's wishes of independence men must force them to take responsibility for such a request as to do otherwise makes men oppressed by women. I wish it was not this way... Mark Rudov's national acclaim and as a voice for men in my country is an important part of the Men's Rights Movement. He is forcing the gender war cards on the table. To make us think if we want to continue toward mutual independence or move back toward dependence and devotion to one another and to rebuild the dissolved American family. Mark is forcing women to think hard what they are pushing us toward and the consequences of their choices.