Should Heterosexual Males Be Given Equal Protection Under Law?

VAWA debate rages on. For the first time men are being considered as an equal class of American citizen.

Debate continues in Washington as to whether every class of human being including illegal immigrants should be given protection under law to the exclusion of one class of American, the heterosexual male. So far VAWA covers gay males, lesbians, American Indian women, illegal immigrants and all women. There are Constitutionalists in government fighting for heterosexual males to be given protection under law. There are no specifications by race or religious class of American just yet. I don't expect there will be. The debate is over whether the heterosexual male class of American should have the same representation as everyone else including non Americans. We will wait and see if the heterosexual male is given equal protection and representation under law.

 "Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, are bringing up an alternative bill in Thursday’s session. One difference is that “our bill covers men,” she said, as it is now known that “men suffer victimization, too.”

For the first time the question of whether men should be considered equal Americans deserving equal protection under the law comes up for debate. The Women's Union along with the associated Democratic party are doing everything they can to prevent heterosexual males from having the right to be covered under the equal protection clause of our Constitution. For the record I do not pick sides in our two party system, I consider myself a sovereign citizen if anything and do not respect either party, our government establishment nor where they are leading the nation. That said: 

This is going on when a friend of mine just informed me that the abuse he suffered at the hands of his former girlfriend had come to bear upon his health....My friend has a history of abuse by females. His mother was also violent and abusive. But.....there is no help for men. How long.....how long until men are viewed as human beings?

"Just a heads up about my incident though, I didn't wanna say anything on my wall due to mutual friends, but my ex Nicole, she's the reason I have the issue. She used to physically kick me down there all the time if I was late coming home. After I left her, she had police come to my door and accused me of beating her, even though she had no marks on her.  "Hydrocele, it's basically an absess on my left testicle. It was also coupled with a non cancerous tumor that was removed as well. Nasty scar, but I'm still able to have kids. I had an awesome surgeon Dr. Ogbolu. Great guy. I'm just peachy, though walking is a bit of a task."

 How long....how long will it be until men like my friend above will be able to call the police and not be scared of being taken to jail for doing so? How long.....until men have equal protection under law under VAWA?! See: Violence Against Men Is Normal



  

Feminsim-Transvaluation & Tyranny

                                                  +


The ultimate goal is to implement the process of transvaluation. The order is as follows:
State>Children>Women>Men

Male Liberation Under Matriarchy The W.O.R.K. Act

Smash Patriarchy At Midnight March 8th United States International Women's Day Poster From 2009

I am reading about the implementation of The "Women's Option To Raise Kids" Act or W.O.R.K

The goal of this law is the implementation of what can be called government husbandry. 

Being that the goal of female "independence" is in fact to make women independent by way of male subjugation under marriage 2.0 laws, government husbandry support etc. it is imperative that as we move toward a matriarchal society that women be communally supported rather than exploiting the bodies of men and extracting the fruits of our labor from it. Marriage as an institution is no longer legitimate given the laws women have changed. In order to make women independent they must become independent from their dependency on the exploitation, lack of rights and resulting disposability of men. This will in turn make men independent. True feminist independence and equality is the advent of mutual independence not just female independence. Mutual independence is another term for mutual dis-need. Mutual dis-need should be the goal if men are going to complete the structure of the Matriarchal Society for which women want built. See: Anatomy of Matriarchy

March 8th. The Soviet Union: International Women's Day Was Created:

  Under Matriarchy, under the true paradigm of actual female independence from men, it is the role of the State to support women and for women to support themselves. Men are not a part of the family and as it is, not a part of the lives of our children. It is only when actual female independence is implemented will men be free from the false female independence brought about by the legalization of the disposability, lack of rights and exploitation of men under matriarchal feminist marriage 2.0 laws. Female nature is communal. Communalism \ Communism, Feminism and Matriarchy go hand in hand. It is the goal of women to create a communal communist feminist matriarchal society. Feminism's primary goal is to direct more resources to women by any means necessary to foster "liberation" "independence" or what is falsely called "equality".

In order for men to attempt to make proper choices for themselves in terms of living a healthy life under the scourge of Feminism it is important for men to understand what women's intentions are as we move forward. Male liberation is what the vile ideologies of Communism \ Feminism promises men. The current implementation of male subjugation is an intermediary step. This is also what women mean when they say Patriarchy harms men to. They purport that when Feminism reaches it's goals it will liberate men as well. In the meantime men must make decisions that will best protect themselves as Feminism charges ahead with it's goals. Men must understand that feminism is not something separate from the modus operandi of female nature. Feminism is the name given to the collective vehicle of inherent female nature and associated agency given to them to enact it.

It is important for us as a culture to understand that women are the source and cause of the destruction of family and the advent of fatherless children. Once we understand this on a societal level we will be able to address it as a culture. However, I do not expect women to make a concession to this. I think the MRM has done a great job of placing the culpability where it needs to be while also serving to protect men from making the mistake of forming a feminist family and feminist marriage with a woman. All marriage as defined by law is feminist marriage. Men in the MRM have done a fantastic job of helping younger men understand the position we face. To learn more about the historical roots and ideology of Feminism please see: Feminism and The Communist Revolution 

Shared Parenting Up For Debate

Shared Parenting is up for debate in the Minnesota senate. The Women's Union, associated Democratic Party, Lawyers and Divorce Industry are vehemently against right to fatherhood. We will see where this ends up. With shared parenting men can be fathers rather than $$$$. The states and private business also get a cut along with subsidy from the federal government for every man they rape. There is vested interest in destroying fathers and the lives of children for profit. Someone once told me...."if you want to know why something occurs....follow the money" Women are against it because they will not be able to rape men either. We will see how things like this go. Odds are against us.



 When women lobbied for and created no-fault divorce, default mother-right custody of children and associated default right to men's bodies and the fruits of it's labor we have witnessed the most unprecedented destruction of family in this nations history.

a woman in her 20s who is a child of divorce testified emotionally that she had virtually no relationship with her father until recently, because of the existing law.

Women literally destroyed any aspect of mutual obligation in marriage. Until men earn our rights feminist marriage 2.0 is something men should avoid. The decline of divorce you see at the peak post women's revolution is attributed to the decline of marriage as an institution. Women specifically stated that marriage was oppression and wished to see it destroyed Men should avoid such relationships with women and avoid the idea of fatherhood along with a close emotional bond with their children. Men should also protect their assets from being raped by women.

What women were and are now acting out comes from the impulses of their animal primordial hind brain to increase their genetic fitness, to spread their seed so to speak and to do so at the expense of everyone and everything else including children. To learn more about the base impulses that were unleashed when women were given such political agency to do so please see the post entitled Anatomy of Matriarchy to understand exactly what type of society women wish to build.

MRM EMERGENCY ACTION MESSAGE TO ALL MRA

THE-SPEARHEAD got hit with some malware. The users of anyone who has it linked up on their site or blog will get the following message. Though there is no danger to your site or blog itself I unfortunately recommend taking down your spearhead link to keep traffic to MRM sites flowing for the time being until this issue is resolved. The-Spearhead is an important MRM site so please be sure to do your part to put the link back up when the issue is resolved and the malware exploit is removed from the-spearhead. This issue is being addressed at this time.

Anatomy of Matriarchy

I was reading an article about the Haitian family and wish to clearly identify the construct of Matriarchy.

‎"In Haiti, 47% of single parent families are headed by women. Often these women have, on average, six children with two or three different fathers. Over 80% of unions in Haiti are common-law or plasaj.".

All matriarchies are structured this way....this is the female ideal. Women's biological propensity, their goal and that of their political union is to obtain this ideal. Much of the impetus behind feminism is in fact female biological programming at work i.e. the female organisms desire for maximized genetic fitness. This comes by way of directing available resources to women and subsequently the conception of not only number of children but the genetic diversity given of children by different fathers.

In the biological sciences these two above elements are the definition of increasing ones genetic fitness. This is something all organisms are driven to do. However, civilization came to be by understanding these impulses and creating restraints and associated moral foundation to enforce these constraints for the betterment of the whole. This intelligence, this awareness of our animal natures is what differentiates us from animals. It is also what differentiates patriarchy from matriarchy.

Unlike under patriarchy where polygamy is outlawed, the central tenet of matriarchy is the avocation for and the resulting advent of polyandry. Only under extreme patriarchies has polygamy existed. These extreme patriarchies also serve to marginalize a significant number of males from mating opportunity, enough so that these societies typically have social conflicts and fractures along the lines of the resulting delineated violence and consequently extreme vagina guarding morays resulting in the repression of women.

To further expound upon matriarchy, it must be noted that men are not members of the family. They are more closely associated with their mother's family, and invest and fatherhood like behavior and dedication to the matriliene and offspring of female relatives. These offspring are the only children they are sure they are related to. Matriarchies are all piss poor and males are generally loutish. This is the dynamic women are now and continue to build in the United States. It is the biological drive and ideal of the female organism. Unlike our former patriarchy that once existed in the United States there are no limits or laws upon women to restrain or constrain them to maintain monogamous pair bonds as men implemented upon ourselves under patriarchy. Under our prior patriarchy and the resulting conscious rejection of human animal nature in favor of higher reasoning, the central tenets of matriarchy are to remove all aspects of this structure in favor of human animal female nature. The differentiating factors that has led to our current matriarchy are as follows:

-Legalization of the transference of male resources to females outside the pair bond

-The implementation of no-fault divorce while maintaining default awards to receive the prior listed element.

-The revocation of father-right custody of children and implementation of mother-right custody.

-The advent of government husbandry resource and child care support to women

-The advent of female economic and educational competition against males by various female favor laws such as women only loans, women only scholarships, women only educational advancement support, organizations and funding, Title IX, Affirmative Action, restructured educational models to suit female learning style and needs etc.

The effects of the above are compounded by the resulting performance and success differentials exhibited by boys from single mother homes and furthermore in comparison to girls from the same single mother home. The result further exacerbates the marginalization of men and boys in society and the family.



When the girl above states she is looking for a non committed man we need to read further into female biological behavior to understand what she is really saying. Under matriarchy female sexuality is not private and monogamous but public and promiscuous. Under the construct of unrestrained female hypergamy females typically copulate with males that are above their station i.e. non committed men. Given the resource support construct is available, what is important to women is not necessarily commitment and marriage but prized genes.

What she is looking for is not necessarily non committed men but is driven to sacrifice marriage or a committed male for the exemplary genes non committed men have. With the matriarchal laws that women implemented she is entitled to what she would have previously only been entitled to through commitment and resulting enfranchisement of men within the family through marriage...resources.

Again, given the resource constructs are available this is what females are driven to act out and to do so with multiple different males.....this is matriarchy.

Like all matriarchies, marriage is no longer a mutual ends created by mutual reciprocal commitment and obligation. Like all matriarchies pair bonds between men and women are increasingly loose knit and at most cohabitation based and often times fleeting and temporary relationships. What remains of marriage on the path toward our matriarchal society becomes a serial polyandrous affair with most families being divorced and dissolved by the female before moving to the next male(as is currently the case). Like all matriarchies men are not members of the family and fatherhood is non existent. THIS men is matriarchy.....THIS is feminism.

After watching the video one can subsequently conclude that innate female hypoagency creates a paradox when women are allowed a relationship with State. It becomes female hyperagency to the ends of not only tyranny but the disenfranchisement of men and the destruction of the very structure that supports women in the first place. Female hyperagency through the State leads to the inevitable ends of matriarchy.

HERE is an example of a matriarchy. In order for Men's Rights to move forward, it is important for men to understand exactly what it is that women wish to build our society into. Single mother birth rates by all births and by age group:



The following article outlines women's desire to create a matriarchal society. Understand clearly that this is what women want. This is what they meant by liberation and independence. Complimentary Article to the above post: Why Men Are Slackers and Women are Single
http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/291473/why-men-are-slackers-and-women-are-single/suzanne-venker

--------------------------------------------------
Complimentary article:  Boys raised by traditional families 'do better at school'

What must be made known is the disproportionate detrimental effect that Matriarchy has upon the long term
health and performance metrics of boys from single mother fatherless homes compared to girls from the same single mother home. Matriarchy and the marginalization of the male from society and the family takes place from a young age when he is raised in a single mother home and into adulthood where he is again marginalized from the matriarchal family when he becomes a father. The compounding detrimental effects of male marginalization and lack of enfranchisement propagates to the society at large. We must ask ourselves, what type of men are we creating when men have no real stake in society nor any reason to maintain a contribution to it.

Feminist Marriage 2.0 laws must be changed in order to facilitate the maintenance of the family. Women must, in at least one or more ways, have some type of obligation and liability not to give way to their desire to increase their genetic fitness. This is to say that with commitment should come obligation and liability, as it is the case that currently....women are bound to none. I propose this be done by enacting default shared parenting i.e. shared custody of children after divorce and as a result the abolition of child support and alimony men are currently made to pay to finance their own disposability. Enfranchised fatherhood IS child support. What is perfectly clear is that the current terms of feminist enacted marriage 2.0 must be amended.   

Why Media Portrays Men As Morons

Women control 60% of the nations wealth and make 80% of all consumer purchases. This is also why nearly every store and every possible space you see in consumer or shopping real estate is designed for female consumption. Women by nature are rampant consumers of resources. This is why female political agency is so focused toward diverting resources to the female herd. In essence women always want more.

Almost all commercials are geared toward female hypergamy and their natural critical\choosy nature. These commercials are designed to make the product the better hypergamous decision than the men in the picture. The alpha product is the more adequate solution to men. The ads are designed to exemplify lack of male utility or usefulness...all of whom are portrayed as beta or exhibit inadequacy to create hypergamous contrast to the adequacy of the product. The commercials are this way because they work, they sell to women. This tells us much about women. 

Young women also make on average 8% more than young men and are also more willing to incur debt obligations to make consumer purchases. Women are a huge segment of the consumer market, they essentially are the market. On occasion when you see a commercial directed at men that degrades men, it is in contrast to another male. In this instance the other male, the one making the proper decision is the man who the consumer is supposed to identify with. It is intended to contrast a beta male decision with the proper alpha male decision made by the man who is portrayed as alpha. This is because males are in competition with each other for external aspects of biological value and appeal for adequacy. As we know, men are not inherently valued or even considered a man without male use and utility, often to the point of being exploited for the use and disposability to women and culture. A man is not something you are inherently by default but rather something to be, one must "be" a man. In fact one can say that it is the epitome of male adequacy to in fact be willing to go to these ends.

Women as a group see other women as part of the same identity group, team woman if you will. In contrast to men, women have a same group preference. This is also why they act so freverently and ubiquitously through identity politics. One can say that the group politic of women is gynocentric and self focused. They are also not in competition for external aspects of value in term of adequacy in use or utility.

Women are inherently valued and inherently considered worthy of the title woman for the simple fact that they exist. Women have a commonality of identity in this way. They see themselves as valuable which extends to their identity group. Though women are in competition for internal and inherent value such as body and beauty, commercials showing women degrading another woman to create contrast do not exist because of the herd like same group preference women embody. Women are a type of gynocentric union. Any commercials focusing on inherent female biological value such as aspects of body and beauty will instead show complete focus on a single woman rather than contrast her inadequacy with another woman in the ad. Women's entire focus on the subjective self is contrasted to or made to identify with the woman in the advertisement and not in contrast to other women within in the ad.

Women's entire locus of thought and action emanates first from the subjective focus on self. Female reasoning is also markedly subjective and not externally objective. This is why men have been so discriminated against and as a class have been harmed by female political agency. Female thought and action in all realms is not put forth with the precipitating function of what men call reason and logic, a process which leads to understanding of objective morality, a type of understanding of cause and effect further beyond the platitudes of self. It is in this difference I believe that female morality is subjective in nature and therefore exists in the relative realm, relative to self and is encapsulated and strongly influenced by gynocentricity.

Male Suicide Rates And Feminism

MRA Barbarossaaaa posted a video referencing my blog. I'd like to honor and thank him by posting the video here.




In the video he explains what variables came into play at the precise point in time that the Feminist Revolution took place in America. It was at this point in time that male suicide which prior to this point almost exactly mirrored with symmetry the rate of women's had separated into it's own increasing trend trajectory.

Something that was not mentioned in the video is the reset of the upward trend momentum in 1995. This was the point where the psychological community declared suicide an epidemic. Those of you old enough to remember may recall the public service announcements and suicide hotlines that opened up. Though the attention of the psychological health community has helped men and boys it can not and has not solved the underlying causes of male marginalization in society and the family.

His Youtube Channel can be found HERE

Why Are Women Increasingly Raping Boys

I saw yet another story the other day regarding yet another female teacher who preyed upon and raped her boy student. I understand that this has been on the increase in recent years and have to wonder why...why do women increasingly rape young boys? What is the cause of this seemingly new phenomena in our culture?

Well, basing my premise on what I've observed of female behavior I surmise these boys meet biological requisites that fulfill something that base female animal nature must seek out. I thought to myself that this seems very atypical given what females are driven to secure from a man before reproducing...well it isn't now adays if you think about it.

What the female animal wants is genes, good genes and resources. If she can secure offspring from multiple males while retaining the necessary resource requisites even better. Well, if the resource requisites are met by their own employment along with any government husbandry needed and of course the raped boy himself to fill in the gap, where else to find prized genes than young vulnerable boys? You see, these intelligent, tall, handsome young boys have something that these women could not obtain from older, established men with the same qualities. Why seek these qualities from a man when you can get them from a boy, a boy whom when mature and grows to be an intelligent, tall, handsome and successful man would not give her the time of day nor perhaps even have sex with her.

Whether these women conceive a child or have protected or non protected sex does not matter. To the female animal hind brain it's a turn on to copulate with these fine young specimens given the resource requisites are met. However, many times the goal is to conceive. And why not, young raped boys are made to pay child support : )

In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.

California is not the only state where this is the case. Kansas, Texas, Ohio, and other states also force rape victims to pay child support to their rapists.

In Kentucky, a prosecutor stated that he would help a woman collect child support from a man who was 14 at the time she raped him while neglecting to charge the woman with statutory rape. The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman.

In this culture, it really doesn't matter where women get their genes from. It can be from a boy, from paternity fraud, adultery and cuckolding,from a sperm bank over the internet according to what Hollywood celebrity the male specimen looks like to a duped man who thought his trusted someone was on birth control. There have even been cases where women retain sperm after giving a blow job and impregnate themselves with it. Yes...a man, a nice successful doctor was made liable for it as well..isn't that nice! Even sperm donors have been pursued for child support and of course it's given! It really doesn't matter because there is no accountability when it comes to women, what matters is that they get the genes they want.

This list has not been maintained and kept up to date AT ALL but here is an expose, a list showing some of the growing number of female pedophile rapists
http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/39783/


[1] Child Abuse Effects, Male victims of child abuse. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/male-victims-of-sexual-abuse.html

[2] Divorce Source. Its ten o’clock: Do you know where your sperm are? Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml

[3] Dorais, M. (2002). Don’t tell: The sexual abuse of boys. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

[4] Troup-Leasure, Karyl and Snyder, Howard N. Statutory rape known to law enforcement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, August 2005. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208803.pdf

[5] Wikipedia. Statutory Rape. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=child+support+rape+victim&d=4680324777181235&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=cb25fe37,dc60d545

Equal Pay and Socialized Wages

Just reading about the socialist \ communist bills women seek to pass
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/mitt-romney-women_n_1418414.html

For one, any laws of the land that are passed must include men. If this is not the case then a discrimination case against the United States government must be pursued. Second, it has to be recognized that the Raw Wage Gap of 78 cents to the male dollar is not measured by the same job. Third, let it be known that when we actually do look at the same job, men get paid less for the same job as well, we all do in varying degrees.

For me, I've been paid up to 22% less than my co-workers. This was because I was either unable to negotiate a better wage (I also used to tell them what I made at my last job..not a good idea.) or they were willing to bring me on at the market efficient rate for my skill set. Though my skill set fit the criteria and I was doing the same job, the experience I brought to the table left a larger learning curve to bring me to efficiency. Was a raise ultimately in order...yes. That's the incentive of the free market and capitalism. If they do not, the free market of capitalism dictates I have a very good chance to market my skills somewhere else. This free market liability creates incentive for them to pay me a free market wage or risk net loss of their competitive market talent.

Either way if the socialist bills pass I see employers simply stratifying the labor force in two tiers, one that is hired and in house and the other outsourced to a contract and temp company in order to keep the free market alive and maintain market wage difference in efficiencies. However if they are not wise enough to do this I will be suing anyone who attempts to apply free market capitalist principals to my pay in the future should men in fact be given equal protection under law by these bills. I will go straight for their throat for a piece of the socialist pie. I expect women will do the same.

The goal of these bills is not to "fight discrimination" they are to eliminate free market capitalism, eliminate market wage based productivity and related return for worker output in favor of socializing wages. Differences in workers actual market value are eliminated. We must remember that women are promoting these bills because they are communal and communist by nature. They are also subjective, relative and nebulous thinkers. Nothing I've witnessed from them comes from objective reason and logical understanding outside of their subjective layer of cognition.

If women pass these laws the productivity and efficiency model of a capitalist free market will be destroyed. Passing these socialist bills will slow economic efficiency, make us less competitive and less productive because "fairness" "equality" are not market efficient externalities that can be factored into economics in any way and neither should the concept of sharing. Again, all products of female subjective reasoning. They don't think of the larger picture, the objective effect but rather "me", and how to divert more resources to the gynocentric subjective self. All matter of their reason seems to emanate from this. It's as if they are unable to extrapolate reason to the objective and functional realm, this goes from anything such as how car mechanics work or any objective and functional system for that matter and this includes economic functions. These are things women have to learn. Unfortunately, women are the majority vote and control the destiny of our nation...scary isn't it. I see a very different America being created from women's dominance..a more socialist \ communist one given their nature.

The concepts of "equality" and "fairness" are also nothing that can be quantified. Differences in wages does not equate to "discrimination". Differences in wages is a sign of free market efficiencies at work. We must not look at what the purported reason is, we must look at what the bills will actually do...they will socialize wages. Being that I believe the bills are and will be written by gender class, they will simply create the same effect exept male wages will be confiscated and then split up and socialized among women.

Again however, if equal protection under law is afforded other classes of people including males, I will be suing any employer who does not wish to give me my part of the socialized pie if they fail to be wise enough to outsource me. More than likely however, we will all simply be pushed into a market stratification model by outsourcing in order to mitigate employer liability. This will allow them not to socialize wages and maintain an efficient free market. Unfortunately, jobs that did not have the market propensity to be outsourced before, now will be. Ultimately these bills are better for business and corporate profit because of this. Labor will be marginalized under the same roof. A larger labor pool under control of one roof i.e. the outsource temp and contract companies = lower wages : ) Market inefficiencies must be vetted out somewhere....they will be vetted from all of our wages...

Facebook C.O.O. Sheryl Sandberg Says Lesbianism Is The Future Of Feminism

Sheryl Sandberg: 'There's No Such Thing As Work-Life Balance'


"If you can marry a woman, that's better because the split between two women in the home is pretty even, the data shows."

Hmmmm so what women want at home is a wife and mother? Kinda makes sense. I guess someones got to do it aye.

"So there's no such thing as work-life balance. There's work, and there's life, and there's no balance," said Sandberg in an interview for the Makers series from PBS and AOL, The Huffington Post's parent company. Sandberg described pumping breast milk while on conference calls at the office during her time at Google."

"Women face two key challenges men do not, Sandberg argued: they experience guilt for working full time, and the more they succeed, the less they're liked."

Less liked by men? Or do you mean that the lower earning and less successful men around you are no longer attractive to you? Maybe they aren't attracted to you as well. Kinda creates a diametric opposition doesn't it. That female hypergamy is a bitch aye.

"I feel guilty when my son says, 'Mommy, put down the BlackBerry, talk to me' and that happens far too much. I think all women feel guilty. I think what's interesting is I don't know many men who feel guilty," Sandberg said. "I don't know a lot of men who feel guilty for working full time, it's expected that they'll work full time...I wonder if there were more shared responsibility if more men would feel guilty too and women would feel less of it."

Um who knows, first the nations women who are more successful than the men around them need to allow men to be "oppressed" by giving us the support we need to care for our children and family first. Granted, we both work harder than ever before but without female willingness to take on the male role in full stride you're going to have a problem. Lowly less successful men have to have some use in our feminized economy \ society you know.

"Sandberg noted that for years she's left work at 5:30 PM so she could be home for dinner with her children, but has only recently started saying so publicly. Her hope, she said, is that discussing it openly will encourage others to feel comfortable doing the same."

Well, if you would allow men to be oppressed maybe a nice hot meal would be ready when you got home : )

Let me make my position clear. There is nothing more beneficial to men than taking on women's traditional role. If we play our cards right we can slip right into being oppressed before they realize they just took on the male role. Furthermore, if we ever tire of them we can use the no-fault divorce laws women lobbied to pass, divorce them, take their children and home then force them to support us with alimony and child support : )

What women are doing to us through the feminist marriage 2.0 laws we will be able to do to them. What has led to so much male suicide and incarceration will now be their fate for not supporting us. Whatever happens men should not let women back out of what they have done. The only way forward is male liberation through disengagement from what women have made to be the ACTUAL oppression of men through marriage, the family and fatherhood or we take on their traditional role. There is no going back to the way women had it. The ultimatum is simple, male liberation is a must for men as we move forward into women's feminist society.

“A world where men ran half our homes and women ran half our institutions, would be just a much better world.” -Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg

Hmmm....doesn't seem like you have even been able to accomplish your own aspirations for the world in your own life Sheryl, maybe you should start there...A little passive aggressive against men are we? Someone seems a little overworked. Why don't you go marry a woman as you suggested. Maybe that's what you need....Of course unlike most families your kids have a nanny at home. Personally I'd really like to see men stay at home. This is the "equality" men need : )Of course I still expect children should be breastfed and in that case we need to make sure women bring their breast pumps to work and pump in the evening after work as well.



Behind Every Great Woman:
http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/qt/podcasts/cover_stories/12_02_seg_4_cover_behind.mp3

"At-home moms have snubbed him at arts and crafts classes and on playgrounds. “Men, even those of us pushing strollers, are perceived as dangerous,” Schneider says."
(Of course he is. We all know how much men love to fuck and molest infants and young children. We all know how dangerous men are to children.)http://www.businessweek.com/printer/magazine/behind-every-great-woman-01042012.html

The good news is that these socio-economic trends are not just at the top but increasingly necessary in all other socio-economic classes. This is the future of the family. Women will continue to break pace with men in our feminist economy \ society. The way I see it, in the families where men are included as members, our greatest wish for feminism couldn't go any better for us....we get to be "oppressed"! If anything goes wrong or we grow discontent with the marriage we simply do what women have done, we divorce them, take their home, their children and force them to support us anyway. If not, we send them to jail as punishment...Oh and no shared parenting....men should get sole custody as women have done! As the "oppressed" I want to see men use and destroy women as women do now.

Female Rape Fantasies

Agreed, women have rape fantasies because it validates her sexual power. As we all know women are attracted to male use and utility to meet their own ends. Such extreme male desire enacted through male violence is seen by women as an instrument of extension to their own power. This is why the worlds most notoriously violent men have veritable harems of women vying for their attention and affection that would put the rest of us to shame by comparison.... particularly those that are violent rapists and murderers.

We must understand that women are as much or more violent than men are. They are implicitly so through men whenever possible and have shown themselves to be explicitly so given that rates of intimate partner violence are not only equal but women actually surpass men in measurements of intimate partner violence in certain categories. They are more likely to initiate violence with their male partner.

After all, what more is the nature of men than the product of eons of cumulative average desires of women. If you ever hear women shaming men for aspects of male nature tell them to check their female privilege and desire to have access to said violence at the door because as far as you're concerned they don't deserve to have it. Don't let them get away with playing innocent with a smile on their face...they are anything but.

"It is intriguing that huge numbers of women are eagerly consuming myriad and disparate fantasies of submission at a moment when women are ascendant in the workplace, when they make up almost 60 percent of college students, when they are close to surpassing men as breadwinners, with four in 10 working women now outearning their husbands, when the majority of women under 30 are having and supporting children on their own" -Newsweek Link: HERE

"in hard economic terms—women are less dependent or subjugated than before." (*more equal than men are in all realms, even the family for which men are no longer members of)

"It is probably no coincidence that, as more books like The Richer Sex by Liza Mundy and Hanna Rosin’s forthcoming The End of Men appear, there is a renewed popular interest in the stylized theater of female powerlessness. This is not to mention a spate of articles on choosing not to be married or the steep rise in young women choosing single motherhood"

"In the realm of private fantasy, the allure of sexual submission, even in its extremes, is remarkably widespread. An analysis of 20 studies published in Psychology Today estimates that between 31 percent and 57 percent of women entertain fantasies where they are forced to have sex."

Now, when we are done banging this nations women if we can only get them to take care of their own bastard fatherless children. The days of expecting men to support all these "independent" women and their bastard children are over. As women's union has repeatedly advocated, this should be the governments job. Though unfortunately they still demand men support them as well. It's well past time to demand women actually become independent. I think men are making this lack of commitment to women, family, marriage and women's children in our own lives. THIS, is male liberation and independence. Remember, mutual independence is another word for mutual dis-need. Men must compliment women's wish for the creation of a communal \ communist State supported matriarchy by creating our own independence.

Fempocalypse!!

The only partially tenable way our matriarchy can sustain itself is to at very least declare women independent and therefore able to have a job and support themselves...children will be shared 50/50. In order to sustain production capacity in a feminist or post feminist system children will need to be handed over to government or corporate run child care facilities as the Soviets had done. Any communal support funds women\men still require should be provided through the tax base. If children are not shared I can see perhaps including men in this tax base if the downside of supporting women for men as individuals through the new defunct feminist marriage contract is of greater burden and liability (and it is) than socializing the expenditure to support women. The only other solution is to declare men as members of the family again.

Remember also under patriarchy men outlawed their own potential for polygamy. Unlike patriarchy, matriarchy gives license to the equivalent of female polygamy i.e. serial polyandry while the resources of previous males are forcibly transferred to her to maintain this while any excess support needs are transferred from the tax base to women through government husbandry (of which who's coffers are kept filled by the dwindling and increasingly marginalized male production base along with the increasingly lowered incentive for males to produce in the first place). All this is what the primordial female hind brain calls "liberation" "independence" and "equality". I concur with the author of the video that our matriarchal system is unsustainable.
WARNING TO MEN: This is what women will do to you if you don't give them and their bastard fatherless kid your money. Women will strip you of your dignity, the fruits of your labor, your freedom, your property and your fatherhood. Remember marriage and fatherhood means nothing....nothing at all. THIS is what women meant by "liberation". THIS is their "independence".

Thinking further into the end results of feminism we must also postulate the idea that feminism may very well be intentionally implemented to first transfer power to State and working industry with the end goal of moving toward a transition to global governance. In this respect it is important for men to watch the actions of the U.N. and global conglomerates very closely. From my observations this does seem to be the case. Something for which I would like to write a post upon in the future.

More Girlwriteswhat videos can be found HERE

President Winks and Courts The Female Herd At White House Forum

Watch closely, when he says "that is almost guaranteed" near the end of the video. Watch him wink at his communal, communist, self centered female herd. So what does he plan to do to carry women on a pedestal to these top positions in companies and to give them seats in congress though women are already the majority vote and decide the elections to begin with???

No one knows what he plans to do but I'm sure it has something to do with opening the avenue for massive litigation and lawsuits against any company women as a class or as individuals plan to attack. I also see Affirmative Action that requires men to give up their seats to women in congress. However I'm hoping he is just courting women for their vote. In order to get women's vote you have to promise to provide to them and protect them from something...you have to make something up and be their knight in shining armor. Women are already swooning for him. He's up by 18 percentage points in the polls among women.



While the President seeks power through the innate self centered focus of female nature and the communal communist leaning female herd, I'd like to present to you your male workforce participation...the graph is a little dated, it ends in 2005....you should see it now.


Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 men, approximately 25% of the male population has no job, no work. The graph ends at the beginning of our current economic recession\depression through the year of 2008. The bread lines this time around, as opposed to the last economic depression come by way of debit cards filled by borrowed money from our government. The job lines this time around are virtual, they are over the internet.






Mr. President, you mention women only loans for education and business. Sir, women acquire 60% of college degrees and the majority of advanced degrees. Is it possible that men may be given loans also?

Mr. President, the term "my better half" is meant to be a gender neutral compliment a man or woman can say to honor their partner and not that women are better. I get it though, Mika's co-host Joe is a conservative and he is also a man. Your joke kills two birds with one stone.

You complained that your grandmother did not get her college paid for like your grandfather through the G.I. Bill even though she had worked on a bomber assembly line for employment. You said she had a high school education yet made it to be the Vice President of a bank but "hit the glass ceiling" because a colleague of hers that was a man was given the position of President instead of her. Mr. President I think you are very misguided in your thinking.

Mr. President I do think women could have been drafted or even required to register for selective service. They could have had the opportunity for the G.I. bill but they seem to suffer from extreme cowardice and desertion. We had a big problem with it in the Iraq War and in Afganistan. They would abandon their countrymen and would seek to get pregnant and did so. This cost good men their lives. Women's leaders sought to exempt them. I say they be dishonorably discharged. As we know pregnancy and conception to term is 100% a woman's choice

Also sir, please be advised that men need domestic violence counseling as well. Why aren't men covered for this under your healthcare bill like women are? The Centers for Disease Control found that 28.5 percent of men—over 40 million men—experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. Those men, unlike women, will first have to ask for help and then pay out of pocket to receive it.

VAWA is a great way to get full custody of children through a false accusation. Lawyers call it "the silver bullet" in divorce. I read Biden's interview in Glamor magazine. He wants to give women a fresh line of credit and clear her of all debt obligations. VAWA is a great way to get a clean slate financially should a woman be interested in making a free fresh financial start. The reason Republicans were against the new VAWA authorization is that it expanded the law to immigrants. All one has to do to gain citizenship and asylum is make a claim against a man.

You mention women get free preventative healthcare but why not men? Mr. President, why are men denied preventative health services under your healthcare bill? Why don't we get HIV counseling for free like women or HPV tests for free like women?

Mr. President. The 78 cents to the male dollar wage gap is what is known as "the raw wage gap" or the disparity in earnings between all men and women in the workforce and not the same job. Be advised sir that this is caused by women's choices. Young unmarried women without children earn on average 8% more than young men. They out earn young men in every major city in the United States. You should really look at the numbers.


Men have absolutely been devastated by the effects of globalization and were around 80% of those who lost their jobs in this recession yet you devoted the Stimulus Package to women upon the lobbying of the Women's Feminist Party....why?..why have you done this? Many of my countrymen are deeply suffering. Many of them, if unable to find work are therefore unable give the fruits of their labor and money to the woman who divorced them and took their children. They know well that if they can not find work they will go to jail.

At a time like this, the President gloats that women earn the majority of advanced degrees and his goal is to catapult them to seats in congress and within the top ranks of companies. At a time like this.......

The nations men are deeply suffering and you should know....you don't matter. However, you matter to me and the MRM. The MRM is the only collective voice men have....and we are growing. You matter to your brothers and countrymen. You are not alone in this. I hope that someday men will see themselves as a socio-political class as women do. I hope that someday men will achieve representation not only as a social class in society but a political class. I hope that together men will be able to make change for the better. I hope that someday men will have a voice. I hope that someday a common felicity with women can be reached. I hope that someday our interests are represented to the benefit of mutual ends of which we will then be able to seek together and not as single and separate individuals and classes in conflict to the detriment of men. Currently men are losing the battle for a common felicity with women. We will all increasingly pay the price for it in all realms of the social, political and economic.

Pay Gap Myth Used To Deny Healthcare To Men

Now usually The Good Men Project is full of manginas and white knights but this is something I must syndicate:

Feds to Men: Buy Your Own Aspirin and Put It Between Your Knees
April 5, 2012 By Greg Peterson

Men will be paying more for insurance than they have in the past, yet receiving fewer preventive services than women, under the ACA. Part one of a two-part series on the surprising sex discrimination under the U.S. Affordable Care Act.

For the first time ever, the U.S. government will expand access to preventive health services for women without requiring equivalent coverage for men. The U.S. Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes labeled by critics as “Obamacare,” will be rolled out using rules likely to deny men equal access to contraception, sterilization, sexually transmitted infection prevention, domestic violence screening and counseling, and even counseling for HIV-positive men.

U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hailed these “historic guidelines,” emphasizing their gender-bias:

"Previously, preventive services for women had been recommended one-by-one as part of guidelines targeted at men as well. As such, the HHS directed the independent Institute of Medicine [IOM] to, for the first time ever, conduct a scientific review and provide recommendations on specific preventive measures that meet women’s unique health needs and help keep women healthy."

The problem is that HHS went well beyond obstetrical, gynecological, maternal health and chronic disease services, adding preventive health services not unique or important only to women, Yet the services will be provided on a no-cost-sharing basis only to women. Worse, men were already medically underserved compared to women for many of these services.


In a nutshell, women’s IUDs, contraceptive pills and implants, tubal ligations and birth control counseling must be provided without co-pays, doctor’s visit charges, or deductibles, while insurance companies will be free to charge men for vasectomies and contraceptive counseling. Women will universally receive free counseling if they test HIV-positive, but HIV-positive men will not. HPV can result in anal cancer and genital warts in men as well as cervical cancer in women, but no-cost HPV DNA testing will be added to free pap smears for women, while men pay for HPV tests or go without. The Centers for Disease Control found that 28.5 percent of men—over 40 million men—experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. Those men, unlike women, will first have to ask for help and then pay out of pocket to receive it.

In contrast, a mental health service that men disproportionately need, is not a preventive health service under this Act or HHS guidelines. Men commit suicide at a rate nearly four times that of women. Young men are at particular risk: the National Institute of Mental Health reports that the suicide rate for young men during late adolescence is almost five times that of their female peers, and by their early twenties the rate rises to almost six to one. Reminiscent of Anatole France’s remark about the majestic equality of the law, suicide prevention services are excluded from the ACA / HHS no-cost-sharing package for both women and men.

Does President Obama’s Healthcare Plan Prohibit or Require Sex Discrimination?

HHS based its decision on Section 2713 of the ACA, which prohibits cost sharing (co-pays, co-insurance, and deductibles) in four specific categories of preventive health, including preventive health services for women. While many critics view the ACA as mere health insurance legislation, supporters argued it would put in place experimental approaches to lower the ruinous cost of American healthcare.

One such approach was an increased focus on removing access barriers to preventive medicine. But rather than ordering a bottom-up analysis of what preventive services would yield net cost-cutting benefits to the overall system if patient co-pays and deductibles were removed, Congress reached for three, off-the-shelf, clinically-based lists of preventive services. The three lists are: (1) recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), (2) immunization recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and (3) guidelines for pediatric preventive care supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of HHS.

Noting that these three off-the-shelf lists did not specifically focus on women’s preventive health services, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) proposed what came to be known as the Women’s Health Amendment, which now appears as Section 2713(4). Thus Section 2713 of the ACA lumps together preventive services using very different clinical evidence standards — strict for USPSTF and CDC, looser for pediatrics, and no requirement for any evidence at all for women’s preventive health services.

Adam Sonfield of The Guttmacher Institute, a leading reproductive health think tank, speculated to GMP that perhaps insurance companies voluntarily may extend no-cost reproductive health services to men. He noted that Section 2713 of the ACA “establishes a floor, not a ceiling.”

Unfortunately, this disregards the last paragraph of Section 2713(a), which created what lawyers call a safe harbor, legally protecting insurers who deny coverage to men:

"Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a plan or issuer… to deny coverage for services that are not recommended…."

At the same time, Section 1557 of the ACA broadly prohibits sex discrimination. As any first year law student can tell you, all provisions of a law must be read together. Section 1557 starts, however, with an exception clause (“Except as otherwise provided in this title,”). This could allow the Obama administration to blame Senator Mikulski and the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress for mandating sex discrimination against men by limiting the benefit of Section 2713(4) to women.

On the other hand, the ACA is the signature achievement of President Obama, and HHS has taken full credit for making no-cost-sharing preventive reproductive health services available only to women. Moreover, it was clearly the actions of the IOM committee and HHS, not Congress, which extended Section 2713 to reproductive health care in a manner discriminatory against men. It may also be worth noting that the exception clause of Section 1557 would be of more legal use to an insurer refusing to extend no-cost reproductive health services to men, than it would be to HHS. HHS itself may be open to a sex discrimination lawsuit for its actions.

Despite Mr. Sonfield’s sunny view of insurance company generosity, insurers would be justified in citing the HHS action as a reason not to extend no-cost reproductive health care to men. If a Federal agency has acted to discriminate against men’s access to reproductive health care on the basis of sex, why shouldn’t an insurer take full advantage of the Section 2713 statutory safe harbor to do the same? Why should an insurer pay out any more than it has to, after all?

Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sponsored key portions of Section 2713. The office of Senator Snowe had no comment for the GMP at press time, while Senator Mikulski responded to say that “additional protections for women” were “vitally important” because of women’s “unique medical needs” and “average” lower income levels. Dr. Linda Rosenstock, Dean of the UCLA School of Public Health, and Chair of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee that made the recommendations adopted wholesale by HHS, referred all questions to HHS. Dr. Paula Johnson of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and an IOM committee member, also declined comment to GMP. HHS was repeatedly contacted by phone and by email, up to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Chris Stenrud. HHS did not offer a justification for its decision to discriminate against men’s access to reproductive health care.

Mind the Gaps

In light of the decision by HHS not to explain why it acted to foreclose men from equal access to no-cost reproductive health services, the report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee which produced the recommendations adopted wholesale by HHS, entitled “Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps” offers the key window into the underlying cultural assumptions.

The IOM report included this dissent by Anthony LoSasso, a health services economist with the University of Illinois at Chicago who is married to a prominent Ob/Gyn:

… "the committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition. Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy."

GMP contacted Dr. LoSasso, who, unlike members of the IOM committee majority, spoke with GMP. The IOM majority responded to Dr. LoSasso’s dissent but, in contrast to the detail included in the dissent, the majority response is a single, conclusory paragraph. It is available online through the link above.
Fairly read, the IOM panel majority report would appear to justify Dr. LoSasso’s dissent. A repeatedly stated reason why any given preventive healthcare service was recommended for women without out of pocket cost is that women need the service in question. However little if any effort was made to explain why men don’t need the same healthcare service when nothing about the service in question makes it useful only to women. Even when the IOM majority ultimately decided not to recommend a service for women at this time (as in the case of type II diabetes, which as the IOM report admits, strikes men and women about the same) the IOM majority reasoned that women would benefit more than men because more life would be preserved for women than men. The IOM panel majority’s reasoning violates the ACA ban on discrimination on the basis of life expectancy, arguing that men’s shorter life expectancy means women get more benefit from treatment. The IOM majority report also called for future identification of additional preventive health services, but only for women.

In fairness to the IOM committee, as quoted at the beginning of this article, the “independent” IOM was “directed” by HHS to focus purely on women. That does not, however, explain the actions of the Obama administration.

Another major justification given in the IOM majority report was the overall average income gap between men and women. The panel did not provide any citation for that claim. According to Dr. LoSasso, the gap was assumed to exist.

Yet a detailed analysis by Catherine Rampell in the Economix blog of The New York Times demonstrates that, even before adjusting for the greater number of hours worked outside the home by men, there is no significant pay gap between men and women earning below approximately $100,000 in annual income. (The scattergraphs in her analysis are especially eye-opening; the post is worth a careful read.) And, as reported in Time Magazine, among men and women under 30, women now out-earn men in 147 of 150 metropolitan areas in the U.S., largely because younger women have substantially outpaced men in educational attainment. As reported there, young women average 8-percent higher incomes than young men.

In short, for the poor, the middle class, and the young—for whom co-pays and deductibles pose the greatest hurdles—men face the same or greater financial barriers to health care than women. The IOM committee recommendation and the resulting HHS rule mandate that Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and Oprah Winfrey receive free reproductive health care, while a man employed as a garbage collector, gravedigger, or landscaper can be asked to shell out co-pays, co-insurance, and/or deductibles for the same care.

PART II CAN BE FOUND HERE

Here is my take on part II:

“Dr. LoSasso noted to GMP that young men have been the least likely to carry health insurance, instead gambling on their invincibility.”

This is not necessarily the case. Young men make on average 8% less than young women and furthermore more young men may be working under the roof of temp and contract companies many of which simply do not offer healthcare. However, being how expensive healthcare is along with the lower average wages of men I wouldn’t be surprised if men forgo healthcare expense when it is offered them….to make ends meet.

“Men are carefully trained from infancy not to show pain, not to complain about hard knocks and not to seek help.”

Men are first and foremost use and utility objects. Without male use and utility men are not granted the title of man. Men are not inherently valued as women nor inherently valuable. A man is not something one is, a man must “be” a man. This subjugation and status of men transcends to male worthiness and the desire to remain worthy in relation to ignoring possible compromise of bodily health.

Furthermore, without being useful or presenting one’s self to be used by women and society, whether it be as cannon fodder in war or simply to secure the choices and needs and desires and Liberty of women (as in the case of Feminist Marriage 2.0 laws, reproductive rights etc.) men have absolutely no value. Men are the worthless beasts of burden. This may be why 85% of the street homeless are men. This is where men end up if we are not able to be used by women or society.

"Worse, the HHS decision to allow insurers to bar men from no-cost-sharing birth control is likely to deny U.S. men truly effective, reversible birth control methods for years to come. We know from decades of research that effective, reversible hormonal and non-hormonal male birth control is achievable. But it will be costly to bring male birth control pills, implants, and procedures through FDA trials to market. Why would Big Pharma invest in the effort after HHS has decided that men can be subject to often sizeable co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles for hormonal birth control? Aren’t those cost barriers more likely to depress demand, making it less likely products will be brought to market?"

Yes, correct. With government subsidized female focused healthcare the non-free market incentive is created so that a male birth control pill will never see the light of day. This while at the same time creating incentive for big pharma to focus even more on women.

“Erin Gloria Ryan put it well in her recent Jezebel post: “When a woman consents to sex, she is not also consenting to pregnancy.” A woman in the U.S. has a constitutional right to terminate hosting a fetus and unilaterally end any obligation to support and raise a child. A precisely opposite legal regime applies to men.”

Which is why I believe in the male right to abortion. I promote young men to practice this right in their own lives whether women and their government concede to give men equal rights or not. The lack of male Liberty and equal protection under law should not be sacrificed on the alter of “women’s rights” extra choices and Liberty.

Reply to comment section of article:

“This double standard is pathetic, and the justification I always hear to differentiate it is only about body autonomy…You can’t use a woman’s body against her will, but in saying that it also gives the privilege of opting out of motherhood should she choose to do so yet men are given the “keep it in your pants” line, we expect men to be more responsible under the current law.”

I’m leery of men even being allowed to speak here but I will again venture to comment anyway. Here is my take on it. However provocative it might be this is how I see it:

I’ll tell you a secret women don’t want you to know…..it’s not about their body….its about the body of a child, the ramifications that child will have upon women’s lives and the ability to absolve themselves of said ramifications. Men….men on the other hand, we are the only gender responsible for conception. So….. depending on what life choice women decide for us we are stuck with it. Their choices, our responsibility. This way women’s choices aren’t hindered in anyway by a man’s choice in the matter. You do what you’re told. You are a sperm donor and a wallet.

You see, if it were ever found out that the debate really isn’t over women’s bodies then the concept of a mutual act leading to mutual responsibility will present itself and thus the product of said mutual act being mutual property of the life created. Under constitutional theory property ownership does not exist without rights over said property in which case the truth would be revealed that men have no property rights…only women.

Therefore the last thing women want men to have is property rights. If men were able to abort and women were to then decide to abort or not abort we would have whats called equal protection under law. We can’t have that now can we. Which leads us to the abduction of male individual Liberty in the name of supporting women’s.

So much effort is made to avert men from realizing our condition because quite frankly the entire system depends on male subjugation, male use and exploitation to maintain itself. This I believe is why women as a class, consciously or unconsciously attack men's rights and and avocation for our well being whenever these issues are brought up. Without male use, male utility, male subjugation women will not get what they want. This is what women call avocation for "equality". It is a ruse and a lie.

A Reprieve From The Regular Feminism Fare

A Reprieve From The Regular Feminism Fare:

UPDATE: Now that I've written the article this is no reprieve from discussing feminism at all. I guess it all comes together in all realms of the social, political and economic to create the big picture men face. My goal through my blog is to create that picture for the world to see....especially for men.

This post is intended to give men a brief on what exactly has led up to the situation we face outlined on the blog post below titled: "Another Bullet Shot At The Wage Gap Myth"

First I'd like to present the below graphs illustrating what globalization, unfair trade agreements (unfair for workers but great for corporate profits), foreign outsourcing, domestic outsourcing (i.e. labor being marginalized under the roof of temporary and contract companies) has done to our economy and specifically to men.

The graph below shows the historical distribution of income in the United States. The higher the graph line the more wealth (and what would be the potential wages for "the 99%" as the Occupy Movement calls it) is concentrated away from the majority and held in the hands of the few.



As you can see we now have the largest income inequality in American history surpassing that just prior to the Great Depression.

It is said that the below quote is not attributed to President Lincoln. However, history is not written by those who lose but rather by the hand of the victor and as such, the hand that holds the power to both write it but also erase it.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed."

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864

There is a reason why so much wealth concentration makes economies inherently unstable. The first peak you see is the wealth and wage\profit aggregation prior to The Great Depression. The second peak which actually exceeds the concentration of wealth preceding the first Depression shows the wealth distribution preceding the fallout for which we (the 99%) are facing now. However there has been little or no change in this distribution because we as a people were forced to bail out those at the top and give them back money they lost while also losing more of our own.

In the second scenario, the one we face now, in order to to keep the scheme running, debt had to be leveraged upon the masses to keep the illusion of continued prosperity and to maintain the same or better standard of living. However, borrowed money is borrowed time. The wool was pulled over the eyes of the masses until their debt obligations caught up with them. As we know, this could not go on forever as has been made quite clear with the bursting of the housing bubble, student loan bubble, and the personal credit card debt bubble. All of which have burst and some are still collapsing. The Stimulus Packages issued by the government and the Feds lowering of interest rates to near zero are merely efforts to contain the crash, this can not stop it but mearly slow it down. The actual fallout from the crash will take place over several more years. This is only the beginning of the devaluation of the dollar, inflation and pain to come.

There is a reason such wealth concentration makes an economy volatile and a house of cards waiting to crash. Given any event or impetus this large sum of money in the hands of a few can move and change investment position very quickly, as it only takes the actions of "the 1%" (as the Occupy Movement calls them) to have reason to do so. Such a monumental shift of monetary flow and position within an economy is tantamount to an earthquake taking place. Such was the case of the first Great Depression. One bad day of indicators at the stock exchange and "the 1%" sold their investment positions. This caused a monumental crash in the markets creating panic and began the first Great Depression.

Now, we must ask ourselves how such a concentration of wealth, wages\profit took place again, what is the anatomy of our economic situation, what caused it? First lets figure out where it began.

For this we need only look at when wages separated from corporate profits and production:

What took place during this time was the beginning of globalization and "free" trade agreements\policy. With this came the shrinking of many sectors of our economy such as manufacturing etc. coinciding with the specialization and growth in the remaining ones. What was left, well primarily the service sector, education, finance, core internal business jobs within corporations (while the rest were chopped up and sold out by domestic or foreign outsourcing), healthcare and government jobs....that's it.

(Remember the above when we attempt to understand why females dominate our economy) Primarily however, what kept us afloat was consumption financed by debt. Consumer spending plus government health care spending accounts for is 70% of GDP (our gross domestic product) i.e. what we as a nation produce..suffice as to say that we do not produce, we spend and consume. Here in lies the problem in a globalized non sovereign economy. We consume and spend more than we produce.

This leads us to our trade deficit. The graph is a little dated but we are in a worse position now...continuing downhill.



The problem with a service sector \ consumer based economy of course is that it doesn't produce anything tangible for the global market. Which gender is it that actually produces something of tangible value for trade?....men. So...we have an impotent feminized economy and the massive liquidation of our wealth and prosperity as we spend and debt ourselves into oblivion for what has been record corporate globalist profits since this all began.

Well, if the 1% is doing so well and the bottom 99% are struggling where does this leave us. Well, as time goes on, unless our policies are amended it creates social, political and economic instability. This is not good as if it is not resolved this will lead to social unrest and dire consequences. So what is to be done about it?

Well lets watch this video then get down the the reality of the dire situation we face.

The add is misleading. While true, it fails to calculate the complexity of the situation the bottom "99%" (as the occupy movement calls them) are in. If you look at total personal debt outstanding, the effect of inflation, wages failing to keep pace with production, the decoupling of wages from said production starting 30 years ago, the continued relative real wage decline in incomes, net worth loss by collapse of housing value, net worth loss by retirement investment lost (40+% and more) the dire situation comes to light... Taking away any brainwashing and mental block created by the govt\corporate\media complex and their vested interest in maintaining this system the reality is that current real wages and net worth of the masses factored for their current and future financial liabilities such as retirement and even day to day living for the 99% is not enough.

So what does the President propose we do about it?

"If the rich are not taxed more, everyone else will have less." -President Barack Obama

What the president proposes is to slice off the point at the top on the right, give it to the government and then redistribute it to the ailing masses. This he says will solve the issues we face. Indeed perhaps free money taken from the globalists and given to us will help. Of course, what happens to money when it is in the hands of the government or the few...it gives it power. Remember what Lincoln said..."the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People".

Given the power of Women's Political Feminist Union I postulate that we already know exactly where the money will go and who it will be given to, the female majority vote. Allow me to present a text message conversation I had with a friend of mine. She paid in around $2,000 and received $7,500+ back.


"Damn getting like $7500 back in taxes..nutz!"

"Makes no sense at all our govt is nutz!"

-"single mother subsidy, child credit"

"That's what G said...asked him if he wanted another..lol (sik fuk me ha!)"
(i.e. if her boyfriend wanted to crank out another kid so she could increase her income from the government and presumably increase both of their standard of living)



-"It's ok, I'd rather the govt do it than men although currently it is both"

"Doesn't make sense, you get more than u paid..f-ed up!"

"Encourages me to never get hitched again! Y would I!??"

-"I know, don't worry, daddy guv's got ya baby and if you were not honorable so would baby daddy. You don't need no man girl"


The money will go to subsidize the growing single mother matriarchal state.

Giving more power to government and less Independence to the people is no solution. A government who holds control over your money holds control over all of us. Do you believe the government will redistribute wealth to us equally...no I assure you it will not. Politicians will do no such thing, they want votes and "by working upon the prejudices of the People" i.e. (gynocentric female prejudice toward the self) they will hold supreme reign over the ailing and dependent masses namely women while serving to increasingly marginalize men both economically and from the family.

Now, by definition this is called socialism which is the implementation of soft communism. I will not present solutions here to you but instead will say that there is a reason wealth rapidly accumulated up top and the wool was kept pulled over our eyes in the meantime by the availability of debt taken out and made available to the American people.

Should we raise taxes on the 1%? Well the top marginal tax rate for these people has not been this low since the years preceding The Great Depression.


Yes perhaps we can raise taxes on them..but as we have seen this will not solve the problem. What needs to be understood is how and why the labor force "the 99%" have been marginalized, how and why their wages decoupled from economic growth, corporate profit and production, their current, future spending and debt liability position and how to change this for the better.

What you have witnessed over the past 30 or so years was essentially the rape of our sovereign economy for corporate profit. Something that has disproportionately affected men. The American people need to understand clearly that the decisions we make now will make or break the back of our nation and what it stands for. Please understand, the only way to spread this information is to create our own media as a people,the corporate media will not help you with this. Know that if a consciousness is not raised among the American people we are now and will continue to be in grave danger. Do your part...

The President does not plan to solve the underlying reasons why we have the largest income disparity in the nations history. Rather, he plans to raise the top marginal tax rate, grow the size of government and redistribute the wealth. Mr. President, raising taxes will not solve the problem. You must amend our trade polices and globalization and reduce the trade deficit by creating incentive to build domestic production for the global market. You work for the corporations. Paying a bit more in taxes is a good deal for them in order to maintain the liquidation of the wealth of our nation, our sovereign economy and our people. Socialism will not solve our problems.


What the president is saying is that where as before the wool was pulled over our eyes by cheap money and increased debt, these bubbles have burst. In order to maintain the plutocracy debt can not be used but rather socialism must be instituted to keep the process going.

Again, he does not plan to restore the country and its economy, he plans to continue the course of the nation. He simply realizes that our feudal lords at the top must pay the government a small pittance in order for them to continue their operations while at the same time increasing the power and size of central governance. This new found money power of the government will endeavor to increase its reign by working upon the prejudice of the people to vie for the hand of their masters and the Republic is destroyed.