Rebuking Feminism

Audio Interview: Rape Lies By The CDC: Christina Hoff Sommers

2012-01-14T10:17:00.001-08:00

http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/mikemcconnell/wgnam-mike-mcconnell-interview-christina-sommers,0,6929822.mp3file

Women Manufactured Their Own "Oppression"

2011-12-01T22:30:00.000-08:00

The Atlantic: All The Single Ladies (The End of Men II)

2011-10-15T12:03:00.001-07:00

All The Single Ladies (i.e. The End of Men II)
By:Kate Bolick

The Atlantic:

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/

"we no longer need husbands to have children, nor do we have to have children if we don’t want to. Biological parenthood in a nuclear family need not be the be-all and end-all of womanhood—and in fact it increasingly is not. Today 40 percent of children are born to single mothers."

An excellent read. Women have declared they are finally independent. This is a blessing for men!

Does this mean they are finally independent and can raise their fatherless bastard children in their own families? If so, that would finally make them the walking f**k holes they have become.

This is a blessing to men IF WE EMBRACE OUR INDEPENDENCE AND LIBERATION AS WELL. Plan your life of independence accordingly men. You don't owe them and their bastard kids a damn thing. Their value begins and ends as the walking f**k holes they so aspire to be.

Now that they are virtual whores I believe its time to legalize prostitution. Women should be sold as pieces of meat from red light districts. I want to see them lined up to be window shopped with a price tag on them. They should be sold as products. Something to momentarily serve as a f**k bag.

Women have their strategy mapped out. Their goal is the unfettered excercise of hypergamy. Secure resources by any means necessary then get the best genes from a high value male specimen that would never commit to her in marriage but will lay a fu*king on her and impregnate her. In this fashion their animal brain does not distinguish unprotected intercourse vs. protected intercourse. The strategy outlined and that is indeed taking place just goes to show you how they view men and marriage all along.

So, a word to the wise, the animals women have become want one thing, resources and genes. Their primordial animal hind brains are finally liberated. See them as the animals they have become and plan your interactions and commitments to them accordingly. Be smart, don't get a modern liberated gene shopping independent animal whore knocked up. Even withing marriage you are legally screwed. Don't do it. Play the field to your advantage. Remember, two can play this game...adapt.

Enjoy the complimentary video on MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why Men Are In Trouble?

2011-10-05T16:45:00.001-07:00

Just read the below article on CNN news. The truth is men will be just fine. If anyone can survive it is men. In our post liberation society men owe nothing to women, women's families and women's children. Men by law are not allowed to have children, they are women's property.

Somewhere women got the idea that men owe money to women's families...again, men owe women, women's families and women's children nothing.

Child Support = Fatherhood. Despite what women say and their marriage 2.0 laws convey, Fatherhood can not be replaced with money.

Lol the same old tired solution to the problems women have created is offered....men need to "man up". What ignorant filth.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/04/opinion/bennett-men-in-trouble/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

How To Make A Male Bomb

2011-08-15T04:10:00.001-07:00

Excellent Show....

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

Young Men Give Us Hope For The Future: Video

2011-06-17T02:25:00.000-07:00

Good thoughts......

Should We Pay To Fertilize Women's Barren Wombs?

2011-06-14T19:16:00.000-07:00

The question is, should we cover women's fertility treatment for in-vitro fertilization under our socialized healthcare plan?

http://www.fertilitynation.com/will-infertility-treatments-be-included-in-health-care-reform/

Women are go getters now:

This above graph is old. Following the trend momentum for women, the average age of first marriage projects to 27-28 years old and this is just the average. Though it must be noted that marriage is now unhinged from the connection to childbirth due to our now 42% single women birth rate (graph dated), I surmise that by combining the fact that women are 60% of college degrees and out earn men in every major city in the U.S. with the phenomena and effect of female hypergamy demonstrated below:

Education and Hypergamy, and the “Success Gap” by Prof. Elaina Rose * Department of Economics University of Washington: LINK

-age at first attempt at pregnancy puts women around age 35. We know that this age onward is the twilight of female fertility. If we further add in the fact that 1 in 4 women now carry an STD most prominent of which is HPV disease, this further serves to decrease their fertility (See: HERE).

I believe that with in-vitro fertilization treatment being as expensive as it is, combined with the rate of growth in demand we are experiencing for this procedure, along with demographic population trends and current debt obligations we are currently experiencing, paying to make women's wombs fertile will be an unsustainable expenditure. Reality is that we simply can't afford it.

The fertility quotient clearly places problems in the age 35-40 range
Source: Management of the Infertile Woman by Helen A. Carcio and The Fertility Sourcebook by M. Sara Rosenthal

I looked at the census the other day. Half of women up to age 29 have never been married and with only a 44% total intact marriage rate at age 34 we have serious problems not only in the prospect of the two biological parent married family but fertility itself. With our already below replacement level birth rate we simply can not afford not to calculate the strain of not only the baby-boomer generation on our healthcare capacity but the fallout from the subsequent decline in birth rate and furthermore the decline in number of births altogether. None of it seems sustainable to me.

To be honest I suspect that we will increasingly be overrun by the foreign hordes pounding at our gates if not having to open immigration policy in order to stem our decline. I do not expect American culture to remain homogeneous for very long. If anything I expect us to become an ever more divided nation along the lines of the socio-ethnic, gender, fundamental moral ethos as related to the social construct and policy but also religion \ the lack thereof. When a culture is dissolved to these levels and representation is divided accordingly, discord ensues. Increasingly as the core foundation of the mated pair bond breaks down, we witness disparate representation by socio-political and socio-economic gender class, and at this point it is mainly on behalf of women. The natural consequence is a further exacerbation of the initial problem i.e. the breakdown in the male\female mated pair bond and the social structure that facilitates it.

2nd MALE STUDIES CONFERENCE A SUCCESS

2011-06-08T02:51:00.000-07:00

Part 1: 2nd Annual Male Studies Conference

Part 2: 2nd Annual Male Studies Conference

Conference on Male Studies: Looking Forward to Solutions Part 2 from Joseph Notovitz on Vimeo.

Outlines male disenfranchisement from education, the family, fatherhood, the workforce, health etc. Excellent top minds speaking about the fact that men and boys are far worse off than women in all measurable realms. This is what women call being "oppressed"

Personally, I think the best answer for men is to find ourselves for ourselves and to live for ourselves as individuals. You no longer have to define yourself as part of the family or as a father to children as these roles are dwindling away. I think men will have to find another home for ourselves on the margins of society. This role by all means has to be empowering to men and not defeating. You no longer have to define yourself by how adequate you are to be "eligible" to a woman or family. Patriarchal society is dead. The construct now is the same it was when we roamed our ancestral primordial plains and likewise the final days of the Roman Republic. Women's "liberation" is nothing new. Men must make the adjustment or face the consequences of your own exploitation. Like the man in the video said, look at marriage law and how fatherhood is valued by law, look at what men are valued for under marriage law. There is no point. The laws were changed in the 70's during the second wave feminist revolution. We must ask why women fought so hard to institute no-fault divorce law and default entitlement to child custody and male resource support.

Marriage was what they wanted to escape but that was only the beginning. The only reason men produce was never for ourselves. We can change this. We CAN live up to only ourselves.

Men should withdraw so to speak and live according to however we want to live. The future of manhood entails responsibility and accountability to ourselves and for ourselves alone.

In a way, men can now see themselves as free. There is no place else to go. Fighting against such things is humiliating and self defeating. For many I can see more empowerment for men in embracing our marginalization and making it work for us and for our own interests. Men can see this as our downfall or embrace it...Some call it MGTOW or going Ghost. It's not a bad idea really. If anyone else has a better solution let me know but despite the best wishes of men I see this as the nations future.

Now...there is the other side of things, there are the men who think we can make a change but that will not be possible without the efforts of women. Women will not budge. You will not see groups of women gathering and pondering how to make things better. Feminism is not about equality or creating a common felicity between men and women. It is a zero sum game when you look at the things feminism advocates for.

I watch the collective actions, political and social agency of women, many of us do. We have to understand what the massive distribution of societal and governmental resources women advocate to be directed to themselves is for. We have to understand what women's goals are. It is to be independent. Men must become independent as well. Incidentally this means cutting off the last aspects of female dependency upon men and embracing mutual dis-need. Mutual independence is mutual dis-need. Men just have not completed the other side of the picture.

Does any of this mean men have to be miserable..not at all. Like women, we to can "empower" ourselves and "liberate" ourselves. We have to ask ourselves what is it all along that women were wanting to "empower" "liberate" and seek "independence" from? Think about this for a moment and you will come to your answer.

We must complete what women have set out to do for themselves. The man in the conference thinks we will be able to divert resources away from women and towards the wellbeing of men, young men and boys. This will not happen. I do not believe women will allow this to happen. Diverting resource protection and provision away from women will never happen. They will always want more. We know this...

What men do have control over is our own resources and our own use and utility and who and what it is devoted to. Who among us wants to become an isolated resource producing male for an independent woman and her children? Who wants to become a "turnip" as the government now calls it? Who among us want to submit to such a fate? Male enfranchisement only exists in such a scenario if women allow it to. Look at the numbers and ask yourselves what is happening. Understand that female "empowerment" "liberation" and "independence" means polyandry and unattached hypergamy, it means matriarchy. Under ALL matriarchal structures males are not members of the mated pair bond nor the lives of their children. This is what the base animal instincts of women are acting out. What role will you play in this, where do YOU want your life to end up in all of this?

Work for change men but at the same time don't embrace your expendability and disposability to closely as it will make you angry, resentful and full of the worst of feelings. In the mean time while we are supporting the formation of a better and positive future for men and our roles in society we must live for ourselves...This is all we really have. 'Confronting feminism through an honest assessment of what it is, how men can utilize this understanding to get what we want, and how men bear responsibility and face the consequences for our own choices in a feminist paradigm can only lead to a better outcome in the future for men.'Men must learn to play the game.

Identifying and recognizing misandry, gynocentric societal changes and its religion of feminism does not entail whining about how you’re oppressed; it entails identifying your opponent, their strengths and weaknesses, and formulating a strategy to go forward and achieve success despite the changes women have made.' Men can be independent in this new order as well. No one says you can't live as an independent man and free from female dependency and choices that are financed by our use as men. Men must finance our own enfranchisement. Men must create the compliment of feminism for ourselves. We must finish the job.

Take what women have done and run with it men. Do what women have done but do it for yourselves. Free yourself and make the changes women have made work for your best interests alone. This will require an adjustment to what you were taught through the remnants of the patriarchal customs which remain. Following through on patriarchal expectations toward and for women is sure suicide and servitude to women and the State. Understand clearly that patriarchy is dead. Men must cut the cords or face the consequences of matriarchal law. It is your choice. You can hold onto the elements of patriarchy that served women but gain none of the benefits or you can cut the last cords and set yourself free. Understand that the two parent biological family and marriage in America IS NO LONGER THE NORM. We are officially living under matriarchy.

Understand that marriage, monogamy and the social mores that outlawed not only the extreme patriarchal advent of polygamy but also the expression of matriarchal female hypergamous rotating polyandry was a male idea. This male idea of a higher objective moral reasoning and the construct of a society based on punishment and limits upon our animal instincts has been destroyed. Understand that what women were seeking in the changes they made was and is in fact the license to increase their genetic fitness by removing all limitations upon obtaining this ideal. Women were seeking to open the flood gates of the mating dynamic of the past i.e. hypergamous rotating polyandry.

Understand the ways of our animal natures as this is the future of gender relations and the mating paradigm. This is life under matriarchy. We are indeed moving toward a matrifocal, matrilinieal and matriarchal society. Men must learn to survive and function well toward our own enfranchisement under this new order while at the same time learning to understand our own disenfranchisement and how to deal with this to the best of our health and wellbeing.

A Voice For Men Radio Episode 10

2011-06-08T00:49:00.000-07:00

Great show !

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

False Allegations & The Tyranny of State

2011-06-05T23:10:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Christina Hoff Sommers: In Making Campuses Safe for Women, a Travesty of Justice for Men

It is the prerogative of The Women's Section Zhenotdel i.e. The Council On Women and Girls along with the U.S. Department of Education's assistant secretary for civil rights, Russlynn H. Ali to remove all due process of law for men, remove the standards upon burden of proof to protect the accused, remove the right to a fair and impartial trial along with a trial by jury and for criminal offense trials to be transfered from the justice system to the authority of College campus Kangaroo Courts in the name of protecting and providing for women.

From http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/29/op-ed-a-thumb-on-the-scale-of-justice/ on how trials should treat people accused of sexual misconduct or relationship abuse:

Specifically, panelists are provided with an article by Lundy Bancroft called “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.” The article instructs fact-finders that, “When people take a neutral stand between you and your abusive partner, they are in effect supporting him and abandoning you, no matter how much they may claim otherwise.” Further, the panelists are taught that, “to remain neutral is to collude with the abusive man, whether or not that is your goal.”

Another article provided to judicial panelists is equally biased against the accused, who is almost invariably referred to as a male. That document is from the Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness and provides judicial panelists with “indicators” of an “abuser.” It states that an abuser will “feel victimized” and “act persuasive and logical.” An impartial training system would not teach judicial panelists that if an accused defends himself persuasively and logically, they should infer that he is an “abuser.” The Bancroft article admonishes, “Everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence. The great majority of allegations of abuse — though not all — are substantially accurate. An abuser almost never ‘seems like the type.’”

Dear SS Command: Please pass this to your officers:

When rounding up undesirables look for the tell tail signs of fear when a jew is asked to board for transport. The Jew may exhibit signs of “feeling victimized” or “act persuasive and logical” in his defense. He may attempt to reason with you and tell you he has a child and a family and to please not send him on the transport. This is a sure sign he is a jew. “Everyone (all SS soldiers) should be very, very cautious in accepting a jews claim that he has been wrongly accused of being so. The great majority of allegations of jewdom — though not all — are substantially accurate. Trust your instincts based on this instruction. Remember, A jew almost never ‘seems like he is one” That is all….Heil Hitler.

What is happening is a violation of our civil rights as Americans. What is happening is very dangerous and a violation of ALL civil criminal codes of justice. Vice President Joe Biden wants swift execution of trial upon the accused conducted in no less than three days.

"Under Title IX, a woman is entitled to equal access to everything on a college campus. That includes being safe. The most devastating thing is a young girl who reports something and ends up three days later in biology class with the young man still sitting next to her." - Vice President of The United States -Joe Biden

I read more today of Vice President Joe Biden's interview with Glamor magazine.

Joe Biden says he wants to allow women to clear all their debt obligations after sentencing a man to the below fate. Her credit and bills will be forgiven and a fresh line of credit issued. In other words "Domestic Violence Bankruptcy". It is not clear yet whether it will be men who are stuck with the debt or not. Joe wants to provide women with free housing under the Peoples Dept of Housing and free access to higher education under the peoples Dept. of Eduction. All she has to do is accuse any man of violence:

“Wait a minute now. I go out there and I leave this SOB, but I’ve cosigned on everything from the house to his business. I’ve cosigned on that $1,500 set of golf clubs he bought. What am I going to do? My credit’s done.” So [Secretary of the Treasury Timothy] Geithner is trying to figure out ways in which we can restore a woman’s credit. The same with what we are doing at the Department of Education and the Department of Housing [and Urban Development].

All of this and more will be provided to women without trial for the accused and on her word alone:

In book 5 of the Politics, Aristotle claims that there exists two different and completely opposed ways of maintaining tyranny: either it can be done through a reign of open terror and oppression, or through the cloaking of tyranny that is exercised by the State in a virtuous form.

"The evil practices of the last (stages) and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands"

-Aristotle

‎"women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies since under them they have a good time."

-Aristotle

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
-Plato

PLEASE SIGN the petition to REJECT this legislation HERE

More on the SAVE ACT from Wendy Kaminer of The Atlantic

Men must come to the clear understanding that we do not have rights what so ever and that we no longer live in America. A full sweep attack upon men, our civil liberties and justice is under way. It has already happened. What you have read above is the expansion of it. A NATIONAL MEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND MUST BE FORMED IMMEDIATELY! MEN MUST PROTECT OURSELVES FROM GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND THE TYRANNY OF FEMALE AGENCY ENACTED FORTH BY GOVERNMENT. IF THE NATIONS WOMEN DO NOT WANT THIS I EXPECT THEM TO COME TO OUR DEFENSE IN OUR TIME OF NEED.

COMPLIMENTARY ARTICLE: THERE ARE NO SEX OFFENDERS....NOT ANYMORE

Gynocentric Consummation & The Totality of Female Power

2011-06-03T13:48:00.000-07:00

Evil: Unmitigated self interest.

I like this definition but think it an all encompassing term for something that is not evil in it’s own right but certainly can and is indeed so when exercised without restraint and that is GYNOCENTRISM. Gynocentrism, given forth with no restraint has proven to have the propensity to manifest itself as “unmitigated self interest”. I have great interest in understanding it because I believe it to be a part of something integral to females. This is to say I believe it to be related to the process of sexual selection and hypergamy as well. Gynocentrism is an element of female nature that when given agency can manifest itself as "the dark feminine". Sometimes it is exercised purposefully to harm and other times it meets it's balancing force....male options.

I do know this much, it has biological origins without a doubt. I do know that males have a predisposition to feed it what it wants. I do know that of all things, it is men\males that give it its power. I do know that this force does not seem to have limits when not put in check by the balanced force of the equally enfranchised masculine. I do know that when made systemic through political agency it is a run away train. This is so because ordinarily, in the personal realm, gynocentrism is kept in check by male options. Male options are it’s natural governor.

The more options a man has, either to select females other than her (which itself is earned by gaining the ability to serve them), options and rights within marriage and family law or simply options given forth by equal protection under law\organizational policy the more gynocentrism is kept in check. However, when it is given agency in government under law as well as public institutional policy it is no longer males that have control over whether we serve it or not and to what extent nor do we have the equal opportunity to do so.

Female nature dictates that their representation, naturally, is gynocentric and therefore that she is represented disproportionately in healthcare, education, programs, job hirings, women first quotas, monetary flow, entitlements, family law, the judiciary and in general all aspects of public social infrastructure. As a socio-political class she organizes around the needs of the self.

Government is the be all and end all arbitrator of ALL male options.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

-President George Washington

Gynocentrism, when given political agency, but more importantly, DOMINANT political agency, the nature of government as a functional organism works in a symbiotic fashion with it. This is to say that government by nature seeks to grow itself as does any social organization of function built by human beings. Personified within it, as in any representative democracy is the tendency to seek approval and direction from the majority Will of the people.

Under a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, a representative democracy is supposed to be kept in check. There is supposed to be equal protection and representation under law. “Democracy (in and of itself) is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” It is mob rule, the "tyranny of the majority".

So here is the crux of the matter, females are the majority vote in the political realm and yet also they are a socially dominant force in the public realm and this includes the domination over the dialog of our social fabric, gender issues and the public conversation itself on such matters. Their representation as a social class united towards it’s own interests is unparalleled by men. Furthermore, without the natural limits placed upon it by male options, equal rights and representation, gynocentrism becomes dominant over men in the personal realm.

When all three realms of female dominance are combined, the social-personal, the social-public, and the public-political, gynocentric nature becomes the driving force of social, political and cultural movement. It is in this way and in this fashion that it becomes consumptious and consummate. It is by the superior representation of females as a socio-political class in the realm of public (non governmental institutional policy) combined with her superior representation in the governmental realm of political and lawful policy that confounds the realm of the personal and thus the prospects for and private process of male options.

Ironically and most of all PARADOXICALLY it is male options that served her in the first place, it is male options that enfranchises men and most of all it is male options that keeps gynocentrism moderated. It is in fact the violation of the personal through secular and separate representation in the realms of public policy but also political and lawful policy that exacerbates the break down of the common felicity we naturally form with her. Subsequently, through her own actions she nullifies the very male options that served her. Her response,…...to reach out further with outstretched arms to the cold metallic arms of the government, to seek out more empowerment, protection and provision from public infrastructure to fill the void.

And so it is the case that without male options, we no longer have the power to serve her, which, incidentally, is where male power ALWAYS came from.

The ends of female agency IS gynocentric in that the ends of feminism and female nature itself is to serve her needs and in so doing, perhaps inadvertently, makes her “independent” of the need of men to fulfill them. Without male need there are no male options.

Feminism is not a separate collective from women. Feminism is the product of and the vehicle of agency manifested by female nature itself. Feminism IS the manifestation of collective female gynocentrism and it is the synergy given to it in the personal, public and political realms that makes what we are experiencing now, a self compounding, self consuming and ultimately a self destructive process. Ultimately, as the divide of representation grows between our increasingly divided gender-classes the personal social contract between us is destroyed while power is ceded from the BOTH of us toward that of State and working industry.

In past history this process has never ended well.

Idealogues in our human history who have, of all things, seen this process as a good thing, knew that female nature was the key. They knew that through the power of gynocentrism, through the power of the female along with the nature of both men and women to serve it we both could be usurped. They knew that if they fed it, it becomes an all consuming process of male enfranchisement. They knew that if power was offered it, that it would take it beyond limits, they knew that men as a class would yield to this. They were right…….

“Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” -Karl Marx

‎"Women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies since under them they have a good time." -Aristotle

Complimentary Post: Challenging Female Dominance Cautiously

The "Masculinity Crisis"

2011-05-29T20:14:00.000-07:00

Well, I've just got done reading some brain dead hollow analysis from feminists and corporate interests on the so called "masculinity crisis" and how this "masculinity crisis" is propagated and sold to the masses through the flickering brainwashing box of T.V.

TIME MAGAZINE: High Manxiety:

Time's conclusion: ‎"in the real world, sometimes it's better to man up by manning down."
--------------
AND

Jezebel:
WHY ARE MEN SO "MANXIOUS" ABOUT THE RISE OF WOMEN:

Feminist Conclusion: "one of the reasons we keep hearing about the ‘masculinity crisis' is because it's being pushed to the forefront under the guise of "Women are becoming too powerful, so men are becoming wimps. We must put a stop to this!"

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

First, lets evaluate the shows in question:

"Work It"

"This high-concept comedy centers on two unrepentant guy's guys who, unable to find work, dress as women to get jobs as pharmaceutical reps. Not only do they pull it off, but they might just learn to be better men in the process. With unemployment an ongoing issue and women now outnumbering men in the workforce, the new comedy series Work It follows men who realize the only way to beat the current "mancession" and land a job in pharmaceutical sales is to pass themselves off as women. Why would they do that....(women are the new men right). "Being a better man sometimes means having to be a better woman."

"Man Up"

Focuses on the inadequacy of 3 men who are not "real men" but little boys. This is a try as they might spectacular of showcased inadequacy. These buffoonish inadaquate morons are sure to bring some laughs.

"Last Man Standing"

"It's a Woman's world" The show teaches "how to live in it" properly. A showcase spectacular of male redundancy, uselessness and powerlessness. Tim Allen stars as the low status husband who has no say so within the home run by his more competant, smart and adaquate wife.

In reality there is no "masculinity crisis". There is simply an encroaching threat to the welfare and posterity of our nation and the enfranchisement of the men within it. Whether anyone realizes it or not, nations rise and fall on the backs of men. It is not the nations men who are in crisis, it is the nation itself. Men should neither "man down" as Time suggests nor roll over and accept our own emasculation and expendability.

The point of these shows is to emasculate men, to get men to "man down", kill their spirits and to elevate women. The shows are not about men garnering back some form of slipping masculinity, they are designed to create confusion and instill inverse suggestive mental programming. When they are done killing off men from education, the family and the workforce we will not have gone anywhere. The truth is, when the smoke clears from this volley the men of this Republic will have our rifles trained and zeroed. Is this a threat of violence...no but it is a natural consequence of the road we are heading down.

You know, they have been bombarding men with the message that we should surrender, that we should roll over and accept what is happening to this nation, it's men and our families.

Men..I have a message for you my countrymen:

It is not "the end of men"

"You don't need to man up and become women"

"you don't need to hand over your jobs and everything else to women"

What you need to do is understand that your country is in grave danger and those in power will do everything they can to keep the threat of insurrection at bay. The nations men, when organized and on the same page are a terrifying force that the government and it's corporate masters are deathly afraid of. The strategy is to demoralize and confuse the nations men. What men need to do is prepare. What men need to do is realize your nation is on the precipice of collapse. From the mouths of men who are not afraid to confront it "we are hammering the last nails in the coffin" at the moment

The coffers of the public treasury are spent. Our debt limit has been reached, our imperial armies are over streached in costly and continual wars, the nations men are standing in invisible bread lines for unemployment rations. The stimulus packages and quantitative easing have done nothing but debase the currency causing price increases through inflation and this is only the beginning of it. This nation faces multiple angles of systemic and demographic collapse. It is staring us in the face if you turn off your TV and simply wake up.

I expect that if we do not form a cohesive threat together, the powers in play will defeat this nation. WE WILL BE OWNED from top to bottom. Your future, the future of your families and the future of your children and nation are at stake. So....please...men.....do yourselves a favor, TURN OFF THE TV AND WAKE UP.

As with Rome the last thing to go will be the military industrial complex and the government itself. Let me explain to you all that your private retirement accounts and all socialized programs are target number one. Taxes will also be increasingly levied when the massive inflation from our debt runs have completed. Realize that the printing of money and the debasement of our currency IS a tax by the way of inflation. The debasement of our currency serves nothing more than to hold back the flood waters of the inevitable. It simply buys us time.

The government is now discussing seizing control over not just private government pensions but public IRA accounts. The government is seeking everyway it can to feed itself. Governemnt will not shrink, it is not in it's nature...IT WILL DEVOUR YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR CHILDREN FIRST.

If this nations men do not regain their revolutionary spirit the Republic will die.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it"

-President Abraham Lincoln

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-President George Washington

Beware the growth of Government, as it is by it's very nature, force, a fearful master, it is tyranny. Do not be afraid my countryman, do not fear our government, the government should fear our people. Do not become complacent to your emasculation on the television. Do not get rapped up in "the bread and circuses" as Roman men did. FOCUS, turn off your TV and get in the game, regiment and fight to save your homeland. "Man-up" to the big picture...the disenfranchisement of the nations men and with us, the Republic itself.

If ye love "the tranquility of servitude rather than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” -Samuel Adams

The Sword of The Tyrant

2011-05-29T18:08:00.000-07:00

In the process of planning a camping trip with all male friends I received a remark that is very telling, it made me think. I was asked, "when you get to the summit are you going to have a circle jerk"

The circle jerk remark is the oldest one in the book and one of many typical male shaming techniques. When men decide to get together as men it is threatening to some, women included. The remark centers around validating a man in terms of how he stacks up to being worthy of getting laid but also being worthy of male "use" toward the ends for which culture seeks of him.

Biologically speaking, men and our genes have no right to be passed onto life unless a female approves. Lack of competence, acceptance and worthiness or lack of male use toward the ends of women in the present moment implies that your genes have no right to exist...now...or in the future. By getting laid, men are able to validate their own right to exist. In this way, acceptance by women defines us. In this instance the circle jerk remark suggests that the men getting together as men, for ourselves, as men, makes us so unworthy we must be gay.

Thinking like this is used by culture and many times by women themselves to invalidate men, male needs and especially male criticism of women. If you are not serving their ends you must be bitter and if you are bitter you must be unworthy and if unworthy you must be bitter that you can not get laid.

Men doing things to benefit themselves and for themselves as a man alone is threatening to women and culture. Everything in regard to what defines "being a man" is in fact defined as being so for anyone but ourselves. The only reason men cut down other men with it is for the exact same reason...to suggest that they are more worthy of women and for being of "use" than you are. It is wise to reject such notions especially so as seeing how men are in fact used to serve the ends of women and culture to our own expense and sacrifice. We are in fact the beasts of burden, the workhorses trained to forever be seeking to validate our own existence.

Men... especially now a days need to reevaluate the situation. We have to ask ourselves....what is in it for us? Are the things women and culture seek to goad us into being worthy of.....actually worthy of us? This is an important question that every man needs to ask himself. I have found that often times they are not.. especially when it comes to law and policy in regard to men's place within the family, marriage, our children and this includes our general welfare in all realms. I have found that this culture offers very little rewards for male use and utility to meet it's ends.

As such, I reject the social contract of marriage and I reject my own expendability and disposability to both the family and in warfare to defend something that will not defend or offer anything to me. My male use and male utility are to serve my own ends alone. The only thing I will offer such sacrifice for would be toward the ends of tearing out the lynch pins that attempt to hold me in place, to kick a hole in the wall to make a door where there is none and toward the ends of helping the nations men do the same.

When this nations men become disenfranchised....and we are becoming so without a doubt, the wheels come off the wagon my friend. Civilizations rise and fall on the backs of men. Systemically disenfranchise men from education, the workforce, in the family and to their own wellbeing and health and you are signing the death warrant of the Republic. Look around...the only thing keeping things in place is the continual sacrifice of men at our own expense. Expect the wailing set forth to emasculate men and the goading for men to man-up to get louder in order to keep them from waking up and still from others in the perilous attempt to get men to do so, to man-up to something. Expect the validity of men and this "masculinity crisis" the media has been shoving down our throats to get louder. Expect our women to get all the more goading, critical and inciteful toward men while their hands are stretched forth to the cold metallic arms of the government husband.

Give men nothing to fight for and the nations soldiers become something else, they become paid mercenaries not Patriot men fighting for their country. As with the Roman empire when the checks stop coming these mercenaries will turn upon the hand that fed them. Military dictatorship will follow our increasingly totalitarian State. The profiteers running our government will not survive the onslaught when this nations men turn upon them. Continue in the direction that we are and this will be our fate. I am prophesizing nothing here. It has all happened before and if we pay attention...it is happening now. However, it is not to late.

Though I do fear the course of this government will not be amended or overthrown, until it is to late. This nation is weak and it's men are confused. When they wake up, they will find the yoke of servitude strapped firmly around their neck and the sword of the totalitarian profiteering tyrant already at their throat.

Shared Custody DV Laws and Fatherhood

2011-05-28T15:45:00.000-07:00

I’ve been looking into it and despite women’s bitter rejection of fatherhood many states are moving toward joint physical custody. It seems the hard work of men to be fathers is paying off. If you have not already, please go to the ACFC.org button link below and sign the shared parenting petition.

http://www.jacksonvillefamilylawattorneys.com/2011/02/more-states-presume-joint-physical-custody-is-best.shtml

However, this does not stop women from using DV laws to attempt to gain full custody through false allegations. As feminists have seen joint custody legislation approaching they have focused heavily on their wild card…DV allegations. The goal is to remove due process of law and place the burden of guilt upon the accused who must prove themselves innocent. Feminists have been instrumental in this. However, I am hoping we can fight them and stop the progression.

Men will fight to the death in order to be fathers to our children. I think the motivation is high on both sides. Women will continue to fight men and in many cases they are still winning. Men must push at both aspects if we are going to win the right to have children and be a father. I also think with the added aspect of liability and reciprocal obligation placed upon women in divorce it will inspire women not to simply walk out on their families in divorce.

History Is A Great Teacher

2011-05-27T20:25:00.001-07:00

Wow, I read the below comment from a man today on a men's forum at a time when the American Empire is in the state of collapse. What is so striking is that men of high standing in Rome pleaded with men to do the same when the Roman Republic was head long toward collapse...AMAZING SIMULARITIES IN THE MESSAGE! Anyway....just found it fascinating.

"The death of marriage is a symptom – not the cause. Delighting that it frees you from the traditional burdens of manhood is delight in the death of our civilization. Biological stagnation is death, and if we don’t participate in the propagation of our forms our forms will disappear. What joy is there in total freedom from women and children when you know that your own inevitable death is nothing but another nail in our peoples’ coffin?"

"No sane man can deny the evil of the Pink Horde, but their destruction is not the answer. Only they have the power to create new people on the scale needed to perpetuate the Western tradition."

"Feminism is an attack on Western civilization – designed, unleashed, and funded by the real enemy. MGTOW is collaboration. It is defection from our male responsibility. It is our natural responsibility to be the Great Oak in the storm – to teach these women true repentance – to change their hearts – to show them their need – so that the West may be replenished. Their delusions have their prices – which reality will extract. But we Men have our own debts to pay."

I pulled the above from a men's forum today.

------ Then what is remarkable is the similarities to the below quote of a Roman Statesman and General addressing the nations men:

Upon the dissolution of the Roman family, falling birth rates, female sexuality moving from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C....

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

"Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Men rejected the message. What we are witnessing is just a part of the death cycle of civilization. What is happening with women is how women behave at the precipice of decline. By historical accounts their women became just as intolerable, demanding and entitled as ours have during the height of the empire. The death of the west has already happened, it is simply that they have not pulled the Stimulus plug out yet. We are being held afloat by the debasement of our currency and mounting debt.

Living in a time and place of a dying empire yields so many of the same experiences. I identify with the men of Rome. I find the whole thing fascinating.

Hmm...it is interesting when you add up the census report I've linked below for the 25-29 age group and combine it with the information in the census graph for up to age 34 demographic. Less than half are married or have divorced by age 34. I doubt there is an age above 34 where the majority of people are married or have a family within the marriage of two biological parents. It would be interesting to find out but I doubt this is the case. Marriage and married families with both biological parents present are actually the minority. Crazy huh.

The above graph is a little dated the single mother birth rate is now 42%

WOW, "Nearly half of all women between the ages of 25 and 29 have never been married" The numbers are climbing with great momentum.

Here is the census report:http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

Our birth rate is already below replacement levels. I expect it to drop lower. The infrastructure of our social systems are not maintainable not only from government debt alone but simple birth demographics. I wonder how all this will play out. One thing is for sure. All this will continue to be blamed upon men. I see the government becoming ever more totalitarian.

The tatters of the American family will be kept on life support by ever more draconian laws against men to provide to women's families. I see a continued increase in what can be described as government husbandry in order to hold things together. However, the system can simply not support it. I believe with the death of the family the death of the civilization the common felicity of the family held together must not be to far behind.As societal structure moves toward matriarchy fatherlessness becomes more common. Women typically have children from multiple fathers. The goal of "women's liberation" is "empowerment" in this respect. The goal of "women's liberation" is "independence" to act out their base animal instincts.

Civilization, morality and justice are formed from higher objective reasoning and only come about when our animal instincts are regulated and put in check. Unlike polyandrous matriarchy, western patriarchal societies made polygamy illegal for men.

The United States of course is becoming matriarchal:

With this comes the destruction of the family, the marginalization of men from the family and fatherless children. This is the future women seek. "Independence" for women means freedom from the very constraints that hold civilization together.

It is my contention that with the reform women made to marriage law that men should not reproduce if they can help it. Men should not commit to the matriarchal marriage. After women's liberation during the final days of the Roman Republic men were so disenfranchised from becoming the sperm donors women made them to be that they refused to marry women and would rather simply have sex with them.

Abortion became normalized. Philosophers of the time legitimized it. The family was destroyed. When female nature was unleashed the Republic was destroyed as well.

“We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” -Cicero (History and death of the Roman Republic)

Women's liberation laws became up for debate in the senate. Upon the deliberation upon one of them it was recorded:

"Suffer them once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors."
-Cato the Censor (234–149 B.C.) Rome (215 B.C.)

Never the less the State suitor deferred to the nations women.

Statesmen, government and generals of the time pleaded to men that they must "man up" to responsibility and marry women, to be disposable fathers to the matriarchal family, men rejected the message.

The marriage law promoted by Octavia, Augustus Caesar, was a belated attempt to reverse this process which was already well advanced in the first century A.D.

Heavy "bachelor taxes" were enacted upon men in attempt to force them to marry. The blame then was the same as it is now...upon men. Men, as we know now as well, were not the source of the nations woes.

Women's liberation occurred in Sparta as well. When women gain political agency the state becomes the male suitor. She enacts her nature through the State and from the State upon the nations men. She will not stop this....it is her nature. It is happening now in the United States. I fear there may be little we can do to stop what women are doing.

"Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws."

And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.

"The evil practices of the last (stage) and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands"

-Aristotle

‎"women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies since under them they have a good time."

-Aristotle

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." (most especially of women)
-Plato

Save The Turnips

2011-05-25T18:51:00.000-07:00

From an email from ACFC (American Coalition for Fathers and Children):

"The campaign to confront Child Support Agencies and their inhumane practices toward child support payers is off to a rousing start. But there’s more…One basis of this campaign is disgust over how child support officials identify child support payers as ‘turnips.’ We provided a link to a National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) training program titled: “Getting Blood from a Turnip: New Farming Techniques for Increasing Your Yield.”

Apparently folks at NCSEA got the message, sort of. Within hours of the start of the ‘Save the Turnips’ campaign NCSEA programmers had changed the website and pulled the reference to obligors as ‘Turnips.’ Of course, we thought you would like to see those ‘before and after’ alterations. The NCSEA is apparently still farming, just not specifically ‘turnips.’

If only the decades of damage these people have done to families through their campaigns to vilify child support obligors was as easy as altering a webpage.

---

You know, I just think that men are more than Turnips to be bled is all.

These men have nothing left to give women or women's children / family. These men can not support themselves much less a woman and her children. Many men are out of work. 82% of all jobs lost in The Great Recession or what is being called the "mancession" have been men but women petitioned the government to divert the Stimulus Package to women in growing industries and the request was granted! Many men supporting their ex-family and ex-children can not even afford to have and support a new family of their own or even support themselves at the moment.

Most lack of pay to women is from the inability to pay them. Even when he can pay her the chances of him doing so increase proportionally to the amount of time he gets to be involved with his children.

These men do the best they can. Even if they could form another family like women can the risk of being cast out yet again as an isolated resource producing male is just to great to take a chance.

I pray that at very least women will petition their government to free these men from their jail cages, share parenting responsibilities and then support themselves financially. I pray women's government can have mercy upon male turnips.

Many of these women have already found another male to support the matriarchal family. These men as well are potential isolated resource producing males at the moment or are potential male turnips in the making.

I don't know how much longer we can collectively redistribute men's production capacity to support women's choices and our own lack of right to be fathers to our children. Children need fathers. What incentive is there for men to produce in the first place but by enfranchisement as members of the family?

I just wish instead of valuing men as a collective and socialized re-distributors of our providing capacity we were valued as fathers to children and could share parenting. I just wish by incentive of law that men were needed in some capacity as members of the family. I think if men had the right to be equally needed in the family or post dissolution of said family we could at least be involved in the lives of our children. I believe it might decrease the incentive given to women to abandon their family (women initiate 70+% of divorce and particularly the majority of divorces involving children). According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

It makes sense that perhaps women could have some sort of equal liability, responsibility, reciprocal obligation and accountability to family...or...toward the consequences of disolving said family. It's all very sad what means to an end men have been made to become.

If only men could have a role in society, it's future and the lives of our children. I never understood why men are the ones expected to get on our knees to make a marriage proposal and offer resources to females. I don't really understand what is in it for men. I think this custom is from a time before women changed marriage laws in the 70's toward the ends of default female child custody and no-fault entitlement laws. I think marriage is a humiliating proposition for men. Among other issues afoot between the sexes I think perhaps what might be missing in the assessment upon the decline of marriage in our culture is the very real reluctance of a male incentive to commit to ending up members of a State\woman owned "Turnip" farm.

90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

Why Men Should Not Commit To Women Or Family

2011-05-24T22:44:00.000-07:00

http://70.166.63.240/podcasts/11-17-08_plotinsky_and_hymowitz.mp3

Kay Hymowitz speaks about the modern western independent woman crisis in America and the growing male solution being to Game the entitled, independent and empowered women down since their hypergamy is not satisfied with men "below" them or equal to them. Interesting.... I have to agree.

Yes, she is correct, men are very reluctant to marry under women's new Marriage 2.0 laws. Men have learned it is suicide for a man. It is a one way commitment. Fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege. So is the right to your own property, your body and the fruits of it's labor. It's ok for men to be angry about it as well.

Kay has to understand that women don't offer men anything. They don't offer children and they offer nothing in marriage because commitment in marriage is at the same time commitment to the liability of divorce. Women have no liability in marriage and thus divorce. What women have are "choices" financed by male responsibilities. There is literally not reason to marry. Legally all else is precluded from falling on their shoulders so the only thing left that women offer is sex unfortunately. Men can get that without marriage. Marriage has been on the decline for quite some time now

Outside of the personal realm women are our competitors and our adversaries for jobs, for resources, for education, for healthcare you name it. Within the justice system in all realms we face the increasing deference to them in all matters. They have managed to divert all these things to themselves through advocating for institutionalized chivalry even to the point of denying men equal opportunity for education with women first laws. They diverted the Stimulus Package to themselves as well. So on a political level we must fight against them and every law they have created.

Men increasingly know that a complimentary relationship with women within the sanctity of marriage is no longer possible. Your gender married the State instead. You are doomed to remain in definite preclusion, the grey twilight between what could have been a natural and fully consummate mutually symbiotic bond with him. Something once untouched now sullied and desecrated.

Inside...deep within your only wish is to really need him. You hope that he will believe you do and that this lie will suffice. You want to believe it too. It is to late for that...you have devoted everything you seek to need in men to yourselves by law.

Deep down You lament that this has been robbed from you but may not notice that it is you who advocated for it. Your goal after all is to be "independent" "liberated" and "empowered". We have seen what this really means. The personal consecrate and sovereign now political and public. Your nature and vulnerability laid naked and bare and surrendered to your State masters. You can't help but to cleave to the cold metallic arms of your government husband wailing to ever more be provided to more. You have sacrificed your men on the alter of your desires for the very things you seek to NEED in him and with this become the source your own undoing and sorrow.

Below is a complimentary interview with Kay Hymowitz on the same subject matter. Also available at the end of the article after following the link above entitled "I have to agree"

http://70.166.63.240/podcasts/01_08_anderson_and_hymowitz_discuss_child_man_in_the_promised_land.mp3

Of course as men know the decline will ALL be blamed upon men not "manning up" to something or other. This of course is not true. I elaborate on how the developing matriarchal social construct affects all of this here One thing that affects young men's expectations of themselves is of course the fact that many of these young men are products of the feminist divorce generation. These young men know what place fathers hold in the family and in the lives of children. This is not something men want to commit to becoming.

Challenging Female Dominance Cautiously-

2011-05-23T12:54:00.000-07:00

I was reading a post on avoiceformen the other day entitled Is Feminism A Hate Movement?

Great thoughts! Certain truth to this. Now…I have asked myself, is the MRM susceptible to the same influences? Yes without a doubt it is. So what can protect the MRM from influence by a hate based power engine?

Well at this point anyway we have something on our side and that is a moral grounds. The MRM is a RESPONSE to feminism. Does this mean that we will be able to defend ourselves from the same poison? Well in my opinion we can utilize whatever forces available to reach our goals as long as they are constructive and rightful.

In the present time, the threat of a hate ideology serves nothing more than a threat to tarnish our message. It is only through actual action does any hate based motivation harm us. Words are actions we can help stamp out. At this point this is all we have to fear…words and the tarnishing of our message. The MRM is just now getting its teeth. At this point I am not very concerned about a radical fringe because we have little teeth yet to take a bite out of anything.

However, IT IS OUR DUTY TO STAMP OUT HATE WHERE AND WHEN WE SEE IT.

We must remember the role male \ female biological imperatives play that impede the voice of men already and this is, virtually ANY criticism of women or feminism is see right away as a threat to women. ANY male demands, needs or criticism, (due to biological forces we contend with) is immediately reflected back as judgement upon the mere male who dared to open his mouth. He is seen as sexually inadequate, unworthy or even hateful of women. His male use and external utility to the selective choice of the female is nullified. This is how powerful biology is.

This is the threat from the female side of perception. She need only disagree. She is, in her gynocentric nature, predisposed to disagree with anything that may not serve her interests increasingly better no matter what the detriment to males is. Male harm or sacrifice is inconsequential. Through hypergamy she is designed to push the limits. To her, the selective value of males and male legitimacy is measured in this regard. It is literally measured by the male breaking point. She need only disagree with the terms the MRM is advocating for and these forces of motion come into play. This is where the second roadblock comes in…..men themselves and their response to this judgement by her.

The second side is that males, as a class, are a class divided. Unlike females, other males will capitalize upon the phenomena above. Where men draw the line with women and feminism other males will see their opportunity to swoop in to tow the feminist\female line. It is their opportunity to meet female selective variables demanded upon males. They may even be willing to die for this opportunity or at very least cut their own balls off and the balls of other men to get it.
The sheer length to which I’ve seen manginas and white knights go has been astounding to me.

This is why MRAs are so adamant about protecting ourselves from manginas and white knights. They are a real force driven by a very powerful biological imperative. This is why females were not allowed to vote. Female voting destroys the regulatory mechanism of her selective choice to eliminate betas. Desperation was cut off. Now, politicians can be as beta as they want, in terms of serving females they are betas. The crux of the matter, the paradox is that they become alpha by this. Female institutional power and political agency leads to a self compounding and self consuming model. Intrinsic elements of female hypergamy are exercised through the power of the State. The system actually consumes itself of its own means of male enfranchisement. It consumes itself of its own means of production. No civilization that I know of has ever survived female institutional power. Matriarchies have only managed to exist in small matrilinial \ communal social groups.

As such, it is my belief that we may never be able to unite for our collective interests and indeed even the beneficial interests toward a common felicity with women under the event of this new found political paradigm we find ourselves in. Believe it or not, convincing women that male rights and enfranchisement are ends toward their better interests and common felicity with men is key. Will they be able to see it, we don’t know, we have not tried to a large degree.

Remember, the MRM by default, at least initially, is up against A MAJOR FORCE and that is that we as mere males are doomed to serve females as a gender. If he is seen as and labeled unworthy then he must be resentful of this and thus hate women.

Again, other males will capitalize on this especially males in government. Watch the President's body language closely, he winks at the women and after the last sentence licks his lips. Anybody who watches the Science channel on TV knows what this means. This is what men are up against:

We must somehow convince them that they will be safe without being provided to and protected to the death of men. This includes the changes women made to marriage and family law along with protections and provisions given to them in all realms. Others, such as "women first" Affiramative Action in college admissions are very important contenders to male welfare and common felicity with women. Government courts her well and he is a heavy contender. The below is just at the State Legislative level.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/60.Lott_.Suffrage.complete-25633.pdf

These are the forces of biology we are up against. Males will break ranks and play into this. Anyone who doesn’t is seen as unworthy. Her upward demands of hypergamy exacerbates this to ever increasing levels. Only when a majority of males draw the line can we make progress. Even if this is achieved we will then need to contest her husband government, the female majority vote and the all powerful hegemonic female social agency that directs it. Otherwise females are designed to capitalize on the breaking point threshold of how much males will serve their ends.

The other option is to convince females we have passed the threshold toward the ends of meeting their own welfare and interests by the treatment of men and thus we can make progress even though white knights and manginas are willing to still lower the bar upon male treatment even further if it gets them female approval. However to the best of my knowledge women will not concede to this agreement, they will not do this, it is not in their nature. Will the MRM be able to stop the self compounding, self consumptious paradoxical mechanisms that are in play here? To tell you the truth the odds are against us. So for now, there is no need to worry to much about a radical fringe other than to keep hate words out of the discussion.

WHEN our goals are met is the time we should concern ourselves with overstepping. WHEN our goals are met I see the moral constitute of our base supporters going back to the pursuit of fruitful relationships and lives. At this point I see the core of the movement being taken over by radicals that will keep it going. However, we are a long way off from this. It is the least of our worries. Furthermore I see the same forces that attempt to preclude us from advancement as more than adequate mechanisms to shut down any radical fringe. Males, unlike females do not have the authority to propagate a radical fringe. (See: Disciplining Your Male Is Normal)

We must remember we are not playing by the same rules and forces that females have with their movement. Hate and criticism of males actually serves to raise the bar on all of us. She utilized the same mechanisms to enact her will and she will use the same to stop us.

As for now, for reasons of moral fortitude I believe much of our core base is in fact driven by a moral engine. It is when our goals are met and the constitute of our moral base falls away from the ranks that we could be left with a fire of radicalism. Again, we need not worry about this yet and as stated by reasons above, we may not have to worry about it at all.

However, IT IS OUR DUTY TO EXTINGUISH FIRES AS WE MOVE ALONG. ANTI-WOMAN HATRED CAN NOT BE TOLERATED.

It will only excite the white knights and manginas and give them something to work with no matter how small or even non existent. David Futrelle of manboobz is a perfect example. He’s taking beta opportunity when and where he sees it. David is mearly the manifestation of the very real force we contend with on a structural scale. To be quite honest, ANYTHING the MRM says and does will be seen as radical and misogynist anyway. However, at times I've seen him bring to light some needed constructive criticism. This is simply the biological battle we are up against i.e. female selective choice, hypergamy, white knight \ mangina supplicators and the political paradigm paradox of female political agency.

Disciplining Your Male Is Normal

2011-05-22T21:36:00.001-07:00

Female abuse is considered hypergamous discipline by the male primordial brain and by the females as well. It is also considered normal by the general population accordingly. We really don’t think of it as violence. Many men “yes dear” it and try to please her more. Many don’t think of it as abuse but rather a fight. Men are less likely than women to see it as abuse when it is directed toward themselves or other men. Women are less likely to see it as abuse as well. Men are also much less likely to call other men (police) for help or report it.

Compounding this issue is the fact that if he did call for help the other males would quickly play up to hypergamy and female selective preference by bettering him out of the game. This is done slamming his face to the concrete, cuffing him and hauling him off for her. This is also reinforced by these same base human propensities enacted by law through structured institutionalized chivalry into law. In fact most female political agency where gender is concerned is actually acted forth through the same mechanism. It is personified within the system by the same gendered biological imperatives toward meeting the ends of the female. Raising the bar upon males as to what constitutes their worthiness is normal, it is hypergamy.

The Violence Against Women Act ended due process under law for males. This in my mind is to be expected. My contention is that it is some sort of biological propensity in action manifested through chivalry and in this case mandated male unworthiness without trial. This makes the State and it's male workhorses worthy of females.

This despite the findings of the most recent large-scale study of DV that was conducted by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study, which surveyed 11,000 men and women, found that according to both men's and women's accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time. LINK

Disciplining your male in some shape or form is standard fare. Female shaming has TREMENDOUS IMPACT upon the male psyche. Males respond quite readily to it. Sometimes having to compartmentalize and shut it out all together. Hypergamous critical nature is actually normal from females toward males. Females have the natural right to complain and to be critical and men do not.

It is so normal in fact that public display of it is accepted, it is considered ok. Watch the below video and imagine if the roles were reversed and it were men who shouted the answer “women”. Only the first portion showing the T.V. show is immediately relevant though the rest serves to exemplify the point. You are welcome to watch the entire video.

Excuse the fact that our friend here was unfortunate enough for YouTube to pick a horrible screenshot for his video intro.

You see, mere males do not have the biological authority to scream out loud that we hate women. What occurred in the video would not have happened in reverse...it is forbidden for mere males to do so. We simply do not have the authority, indeed far from it, in fact mere criticism of women is often times labeled misogyny. This is why many shaming tactics of males involve alleging his biological unworthiness to fit the bill. Any criticism toward women is immediately deflected back as male unworthiness and therefore he must be bitter for not being worthy of females and as such he must hate women, he must be a misogynist or he must not be able to gain their favor with mating opportunity, he must not be able to get laid.

Mere males do not have the authority to be critical of women. Who do we think we are, we are the selective variable who must be worthy of her choice. Our value is wrapped up in male use and male external utility. Our value is not inherent as hers is. A male or man is not something one is by default but rather one must "be" a man. This implies action and male action implies use and use implies male external utility to women and society. Male value or worthiness in all realms is defined by this or the lack thereof.

Again, disciplining your male is normal, it involves voicing a general complaint or criticism or sometimes it involves beating him and yet other times calling other males to force him into submission. Our primordial brains automatically legitimize female criticism of males and interpret it as male unworthiness to live up to female selective choice. Suffice as to say that if the abuse was done in public most all would think the male did something wrong, that he deserves it. This is our collective hive mind analysis of female abuse toward males, this is to say that it is seen as rightful. The hive mind is always right in its assessment. Remember the quintessential game show gimme where you get to ask the audience? Do you remember how the audience is always right? This truth speaks volumes.

Female hypergamy often takes the form of standard fare misandry. Misandry is simply the embodiment vehicle for female hypergamy and associated critical nature. We must understand how females are naturally critical of males and what role this plays, from a "natural" perspective, toward our views of female on male abuse in any form and how it is normalized within culture. We must also ask how this must play out in our domestic perception of female on male abuse including within the legal system or simply within DV advocacy itself.

DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC
ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE
ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE
by LINDA KELLY
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

It is important to understand that it's not that violence against men doesn't happen, in fact violence against men is prevalent. The difference however is that violence against men simply doesn't matter to anyone. This is what the feminist webside Jezebel has to say about the majority of violent attacks being female on male: Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend, Cause Uh We Have You can see that violence against men is not just ok but due to the status men hold, violence against men is ubiquitously seen as deserved. I can't help but to think that it must be natural and of biological origin due to the lack of inherent value that men hold compared to women. Suffice as to say that male welfare is simply not as important. The sheer volume of hatred, criticism and contempt of men that is demonstrated by women is (or at least it has become).....normal.

We have known for some time now that women commit domestic violence against men in equal numbers in all western nations that it has been measured: http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men?cat=commentisfree&type=article

The American Psychological Association Journal of Family Psychology has found that, contrary to public perception, women committed more acts of violence than their male partners in 11 overall categories of violence. Specifically, women were more likely than men to throw something, push, grab, shove, slap, kick, bite, hit or threaten a partner with a deadly weapon such as a knife or gun.

When minor and major acts of violence were tallied:

Female-to-male violence accounted for 18.2 percent of overall violence
7.5 percent of severe violence.

Male-to-female violence accounted for 13.7 percent of overall violence and 8.6 percent of severe violence.

So in aggregate females were found to be more critical and abusive toward their male partners and males were found to commit 1.1% more actions considered to be severe violence.

The study, which is based on an interviews with 1,615 married or cohabiting couples and extrapolated nationally using census data, found that 21 percent of couples reported domestic violence.

Link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/11/20060511-112526-4029r/

Is A Hostile Raiding Party On The Women's Center In Order?

2011-05-21T12:21:00.000-07:00

Hmmm, I just got done reading an article over at Avoiceformen.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/05/20/no-means-no-sure-whatever/

Yale University has banned all male activities on campus for a period of 5 years.

There is a reason those boys chanted hostile slogans in front of the women’s center. Women should perhaps ask themselves why that is. It was a rightful response to the Take Back The Night from men rally and Vagina-Day being held on the same day as Valentines Day. Men should respond to this hostility with hostility. Good....the fraternity has been banned, time to form a secret fraternity, time to go underground brothers : )

I am lucky to have my grandparents still around so I ask them about these issues on occasion. I know I know…our grandparents are wondering why on Earth these boys were expressing themselves this way….Things have changed grandpa and grandma…, for the worse : )

I wonder what response these young men will have now that they have been pushed to the margins. Is a hostile raiding party against the women’s center under the cover of the new moon in order? Sound insane……Yale should ask themselves what type of hostile environment they have created for young men in academia. They would be wise to ask why. Isn't the act of overt hostility at the same time inspired by the subjective feelings for defense? What are these boys defending themselves from?

You see young men, we just want you to be shamed while attending school..that's all.

Young men, we know you are a minority here in college but we just wanted to make you feel welcome.

Welcome to school boys, we’ve placed a welcome sign on the entrance ramp for you. Make sure you all to attend your “She Fears You” orientation. Next week…Take Back The Night from men rally will be held and you are all welcome to attend. On Valentines Day we will instead be holding V-Day or Vagina-Day, you are welcome to bring a date. Feel free to make up your own catchy slogan, we prefer shouting "no means no" or how about "my vagina is mine, it's only yours when I say it is". This is all done in case 99% of you were not already living under this doctrine faithfully since you were born so we figure we will throw it in your face to make things clear....clear??? Yes, crystal...mistress. The idea is to make an affront to your very dignity and honor as men.

“When I first began teaching college classes 20-some-odd years ago, my classes were about 50/50 male to female. Since then, I’ve noticed a distinct drop in the male to female ratio. Now, some of my classes are all women; in classes with men, the men are outnumbered 3:1. Congratulations, ladies, for moving on up; and shame on you dudes for slacking. ”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/women-surpass-men-in-adva_n_853795.html#

“The most reliable current statistic on campus assaults — which still comes with caveats — is that nearly 3 percent of college women are raped in an academic year. While that may seem like a slim stat, a report from the National Institute of Justice explains that (taking into account that some women are assaulted multiple times)”

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/05/there-are-no-sex-offendersnot-any-more.html

Hmmm and how many of these three percent were violent pathological rapes???? Why do a portion of this 3% of women have multiple experiences…Doesn’t anyone find that odd? Rape being so rare, violent pathological rape being even more rare don’t you think we need to ask some questions here?

Men Lose: Arnold & Maria Shriver Adultery and Cuckolding

2011-05-20T05:51:00.000-07:00

Upon the Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, Mildred Baena & Rogelio Baena adultry Scandal:

Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold's status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I'm sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity. In fact it is used to be women that set the precedent to ostracise these women. It used to be called a home-wrecker.

However, there is nothing wrong with cheating and adultery, at least when women do it of course. In fact, female adultery is the only adultery that is legal. Not only that but the man has to pay for the pleasure of such a betrayal. What type of self loathing man would sign up for a commitment like that?....What is the point?

As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I'm sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband. If he ever finds out it is to late for him. He's already signed as the father and will be paying support for another man's child.

At least women can divorce when they are cheated on. At least parental fraud and adultery is legal for women. Men who are cheated on and were stupid enough to sign onto feminist marriage 2.0 laws live in quite heartache and suffering. Eventually his feelings play out in the relationship and the woman ends the marriage. All men suffer the same fate when things turn south. All men suffer the same fate when betrayed. Women have no commitments to uphold....only men.

‎"The boy's birth certificate listed the father as the man Mildred Baena was married to at the time."

HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA....I KNEW IT!

HEY...WHY NOT..WOMEN BEAR NO COMMITMENTS TO MEN...IF THIS COUPLE ARE DIVORCED NOW IT DOES NOT MATTER...SHE ALREADY CUCKOLDED HIM AND THERE ARE NO PARENTAL FRAUD LAWS TO PROTECT MEN....WOMEN ARE FILTHY LICENSED WHORES BY LAW.

Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men...Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights. The other losers here will be the children from these relationships.

If only women were held accountable for adultery as men are then this little whore maid may have thought twice about committing adultery against her husband.

The real victim in the Arnold Schwarzenegger bastard child adultery scandal is the HUSBAND of the adulterous whore cuckoldress. She got what she wanted didn't she. I have not seen the media but I bet they are focusing on her as the victim and the onus of betrayal of any commitments broken is placed on Arnold alone.

She got what she wanted didn't she. Now she gets paid and rewarded. Her ex-husband loses everthing he ever worked hard for. The onus of responsibility to honor her husband, family and sanctity of marriage is abdicated from her in this culture. This goes for any adulterous woman in this culture.

UPDATE: "Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina."

No, what I mean is that Arnold is paying the price vicariously through the marriage \ divorce law system. It is an illustration of the bigger picture regarding lack of female culpability under law. What I mean is that only men i.e. Arnold in this case is paying the price where as a woman in this situation, as is illustrated by the reversal in this case (the maid and her husband) does not have to pay the price nor does any woman within marriage law. Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.

The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end. Care to debate this??? The onus of responsibility and consequences of adultery and paternity fraud fall upon men.... categorically at both ends of this equation.

This man was lucky. His name is on the birth certificate as the father yet it has been removed from the divorce certificate by some political sway no doubt. Ordinarily once a man's name is on the birth certificate as the father you are legally responsible for a woman's offspring no matter who's it is. Even fathers who find out after 18 years of child support that their children are not their children have no case for lawsuit for paternity fraud.

A woman can cheat on you, have another man's child then divorce you and you will be responsible for supporting not only for her but her child. This is just one of many legal pitfalls of feminist marriage 2.0 law....Still want to marry???

From Feminist Marriage 2.0 to Marriage 2.5?

2011-05-18T09:17:00.001-07:00

I was reading an article at The-Spearhead detailing what was postulated to be a better future for men and marriage and for men as members of the family. The author postulated the same premise as Newsweek has... Namely that men and masculinity has become outdated ,redundant and that men should become the new women.

I and others took some time to help him out a bit:

The situation you describe (a society of lower earning, lower educated men, lower status men) or men who simply find feminist marriage 2.0 laws untenable to creating a family with women denotes instead the precipitating factors and elemental precursors to matriarchy. Remember, females are hypergamous. When these requisites are not met it creates a disaster otherwise known as a feminist utopia.

Matriarchy is obviously growing in society, it is becoming our default structure. With this comes the growth and centralization of power to the State as well as women becoming a separate and secular socio-political and socio-economic class. With this comes a synergy between women and the government that exacerbates and accelerates the process toward matriarchy along with accelerated advocation for female secular interests toward providing her increased "independence" "liberation" and "empowerment". As we have already detailed, this is done by simply providing for and protecting women by way of government along with allowing them increasing privileges and representation in all aspects over men and boys. Take Affirmative Action "women first" college admissions law (still on the books in my state of Colorado and many others)or the diversion of the Stimulus package to women as only two examples of many.

Her relationship and public contract with government precludes men from enfranchisement not only to create a private social contract with women in the first place but nullifies it. It is already happening now and at an astounding rate.

So let me tell you what we are looking at…. We are looking at rotating hypergamous polyandry even after marriage 2.0 is consummated. Marriage 2.0 simply does not protect against it. Unlike Patriarchy, matriarchy gives license for female adultery..(it's called divorce under Marriage 2.0 laws.) Given the opportunity women will increase their genetic fitness just like any other creature i.e. they will cheat if the system supports it (as it currently does and at male expense.)

Hypergamous polyandry will also leave a good portion of men marginalized from enfranchisement towards creating relationships with women altogether. These men, these "shut outs" will simply be played out of the game as it is the case that unfettered female sexual license dictates she mate up. This leaves us with a more animalistic mating structure where the top percentiles of males monopolize mating opportunity. This increases as you move up the scale of "male adequacy" towards female selected requisites. All of these things are currently happening.

We will increasingly find loose knit short term mated pair bonds\"hooking up"\cohabitation, single mother births, fatherless children, centralization of State control, high rates of abortion, single mothers with children from multiple fathers, low marriage rates over all but also high divorce rates (particularly female initiated divorce), increased STD disease etc. All of these things are measurable and already happening. They go hand in hand with matriarchy.

Our new reality is now and will continue to look much like the Chav community in Great Britain and the African American community in the U.S.(Matriarchies). The creation of Matriarchy is formulaic, measurable and its prerequisites are currently and increasingly being met. So it is wise to surmise that we are heading this way with momentum given the measurable data available. The results of feminism, women's secular representation and relationship with the State along with feminist policy will increasingly not bode well for us all.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/14/marriage-2-5/

Hmmm a friend sent me a reference to this book. He says it has much to do with my article. Though I would have named it The Garbage Future. By all observation, things will continue to barrel down the path to matriarchy. Anyway, should prove a good read:

Update: The below book is freely available over the internet though I am not sure if copyright is expired. One thing I have found by my own observation is that as men become increasingly displaced from a place in the family they become increasingly loutish layabouts. Though women may deconstruct it in their own way (which is to say by contempt and though limited methods of analysis) you will see their wailing get louder as time goes on. The below book corroborates with my observation of matriarchy. They don't have incentive to produce anything. With little enfranchisement nor incentive to produce they simply do not "grow up" or "man up" as patriarchal culture would enfranchise them to. Expect to see more of this "man-boy" or "man-child" phenomenon within culture.

A Voice For Men Radio: Episode 9

2011-05-17T20:11:00.000-07:00

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

As mentioned on The New York Times, CBS News and elsewhere:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/

GAME \ PUA Now A Necessity

2011-05-14T14:12:00.000-07:00

One thing is for sure about the formulation of comedy, exemplifications or disclosures of simple unspoken truths make us laugh.

Though presented in an exaggerated form consistent with comedy, what we witnessed in the video is nothing short of the acknowledgement of the increasing relevance that Game and PUA play in contemporary culture within gender relations. It has become part of the ever increasing construct of our "Hook Up Culture" and contemporary dating, a staple of our ever growing matriarchal female dominated society. Hook Up Culture???...don't look at me, I didn't coin the term, sociologists have and they have done so for good reason. Things have changed.....

I showed the video to my grandparents, they didn't understand the elemental truth (comedy) that makes this funny to people my age. However, I and many others my age understand it right away.

Game and PUA are nothing short of a brilliant adaptation of males to a mating dynamic which has changed drastically in the last 45 years since female "independence". It is female "independence" and "liberation" that has caused this behavior. This is so because the whole point of feminism is to lower relative male value, status and necessity to women through "female empowerment". Game simply places men back where women want them...on top and worthy.

Is the implementation of the "negging" aspects of Game an expression of male anger, male resentment, male disrespect of women...no not at all though I do imagine that a large segment of males left out and disenfranchised from our now unfettered hypergamous polyandrous mating dynamic have embraced it whole heartedly.

Game is simply an expression towards the intended ends of appealing to female hypergamy or the instinct of females to seek out men of higher status, strength, intelligence, resource potential and over all, men who have more dominance than they have. Why are men of all statures increasingly employing Game, faining alpha characteristics or presenting a "bad boy" thuggish downplay of female status you ask....because it works now a days.

Courtship and courtly chivalry toward todays woman (who is more educated, of higher status and earning more resources than the men around her) is beta, it makes you unworthy. Men who are not more dominant than the women around them can learn Game and those who are of higher status than women already exhibit their dominance and employ aspects of Game naturally. These men may even be dominate enough to exhibit courtly chivalry without being beta. Think you got a shot at a true alpha male ladies...fat chance, they are in hog heaven banging women on a nightly basis. Why won't these men or any men for that matter commit you ask...what is the point of that? What man wants to have the one way liability commitment of a feminist marriage 2.0 then get raped in family court....not many. Marriage is no longer about men, it's about a woman and HER children.

For the majority of you the competition is tight, instead you will be stuck asking where all the good men are and unable to secure your own. Ahhh yes, I see those skirts getting shorter and shorter : ). However, many men can no longer afford to behave with chivalry or courtly love. It is women themselves who no longer allow it. Women are to dominate to allow this now a days. Men are figuring this out. In fact I venture to say that courtly love and chivalry is dead.

In todays environment, with women being more equal or simply equal to the men around them, the only way to appeal to them is to be "more equal" than they are. This is so especially if you are not only not above them but equal or below them in the above aspects of dominance.

I'd like to tell you a story, I was out on the town some months back enjoying the night life. I went to the bar to order a drink. While waiting to order I hear a female voice in my right ear, "buy me a drink?, a Sex On The Beach" without ever looking over or turning my head to evaluate her I lean over to the right and say "excuse me". She repeats herself again....My reply, "No thank you" I say as I look at her for the first time and without hesitation to even evaluate her attractiveness first. Her response was predictable....instant attraction, what PUAs call the Gina Tingles.

Mmmmm she was hot to! However, I let her go. I no longer participate in any of this or at least try to get laid as little as possible. Sound crazy....not under the matriarchal construct of rampant hypergamous rotating polyandry it isn't. I've decided to drop out to avoid the risks matriarchy presents. It can kill you dead and if it doesn't what are the chances that any of these women are any longer fertile??? I'm looking for something more traditional...I know...fat chance right lol.

UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS SECTION: Is it really that hard for you to believe that women come up to men and ask them to buy them drinks?

Do you know that she was not necessarily attracted to me to begin with but was simply beta testing men to get drinks out of them. Is it so hard for you to believe women do this? I am teaching men how to deal with it because I guarantee you that there are plenty of young men who would have opened their wallet. There are plenty of young men who have nobody else but other men to help them.

You see, Game \ PUA in American culture came from a very fitting place to formulate its necessity, the female dominated matriarchy of the black (African American) community. Black men coined the term, they coined the methodology and soon Thug\Game\PUA courtship between men and women was born. It's simply an element of matriarchal society. The single mother birth rate is 70% in the black community. The black community has the highest rate of polyandry and as such, the highest rate of not only single mothers but mothers with children from multiple fathers. Abortion is also rampant in matriarchal social structures.

You see, monogamy,traditional family, fatherhood, extended courtship, chivalry, dating and commitment are relics of a once patriarchal society.

I find it amusing that women are struggling to understand it all... along with the changes they have made to society.

It reminds me of a Kay S. Hymowitz article: Love in the Time of Darwinism
"A report from the chaotic postfeminist dating scene, where only the strong survive"

And one from Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon's Online Magazine, Broadsheet:

Dudes try "dating Darwinism"
An author argues that angry young men are becoming assholes to try to get women.

More from Kay Hymowitz: Child-Men interview

All stemming from her original article in The Wall Street Journal: Where Have The Good Men Gone? "Kay S. Hymowitz argues that too many men in their 20s are living in a new kind of extended adolescence"

Don't despair laides....welcome to matriarchy. As they say "Don't hate the player "bitch", hate the Game.".........

Female Choices

2011-05-13T23:09:00.000-07:00

What a white knight..How charming. Women should have "choices" and men responsibilities. The epitome of "women's liberation" isn't it. Choice to work, not to work, to pay on a date or not to pay, to have a the only choice to conceive and bear responsibility for unplanned pregnancy or not conceive, to divorce with no liability or reciprocal obligation, to have default parental rights, to not serve her country in any fashion through military Selective Service, to simply be valuable for the simple fact she exists while competing with and even disenfranchising men by social, political and even economic policy for what men are valued for...worker bees to enable female choices. Who is it that bears responsibility and consequences to enable these female choices? Guess who.

What liabilities, responsibilities, reciprocal obligation and accountability are women expected to have exactly?

I was just talking to someone about the church. Don't worry we all know that religion in outdated now right? I'm certainly not a member of a religious institution. Religion is founded on maintaining a social construct that no longer exists. Anyone who is familiar with the state of religious institutions has realized that women form the mass majority of church members now and men have left the church. If you search online you will see the church trying to figure out why and some are quite amusing in attempting to explain it. It is men's fault of course.

By responding with the mantra of "men need to man up and show some responsibility" for a societal structure we no longer have interest in maintaining, men run further away from the church. The church needs to ask itself what interest do men have left to contribute to maintaining something we have no vested interest in maintaining....an increasingly matriarchal social structure where men have no rights, no enfranchisement and thus no vested interest in contributing to it.

The church needs to realize what it is trying to maintain and enforce that has been taken from men not only by the weakened church but by government. These institutions were once the only thing that stood in between men and complete female domination. The only thing left at the disposal of government and the church now is coercion and shaming...and not enabling male enfranchisement. Male enfranchisement no longer exists. Men must ask, what are the rewards for sacrificing ourselves and enabling the choices of others?

Men are withdrawing from maintaining civilization itself. Increasingly the only people or duties we have vested interest in "manning up" to serving is ourselves.

Helping Women Along To The Grave

2011-05-12T08:32:00.000-07:00

Source: Thomas G. Mortenson is Senior Scholar at The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education

I’ve been curious as to the marginal decline starting in 1990. It didn't decline so to speak but simply snapped back to it's upward average momentum trend. If you have any suggestions let me know. I do know that this peak in the 1990 is the time where male suicide was recognized as an epidemic and suicide help lines along with other suicide resources began to open shop. Around 1920 the rate was just over 1 to 1. Now for every female suicide there are 5 male suicides.

Interesting to note is that between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent. (Info not presented here)

I think it would be a great idea to create a list and measurement of general male health and wellbeing indicators. From what I gather though, it seems male health and wellbeing have been on the decline.

You will notice something particularly interesting about the below graph:

Controlling for what I believe to be known variables I will focus on the white population. 1991 was when the first generation feminist \ single mother divorce product of boys entered the world as adults. Looking at the rise in single mother birth rate the 90's were when an ever increasing mass of single mother boys entered society. What you will notice is the trend momentum for boys hit a reset point and lowered in 1990. It literally flat lined from the prior trend momentum.

I have read several studies which show a connection to single mother homes and the ratio of boys and girls from these homes that go on to attend college. Controlled for variables the studies found that although both boys and girls from single mother homes showed lower rates of wellbeing in virtually all areas, boys showed a much lower wellbeing than girls from these homes. I believe this is why it is only the boys college attendance rate that flat lined. I’ve got the studies but will have to dig them out (So in that case this blog post is still under construction).

Anyway, The 90′s were an important time period. It saw the plague of results from the earlier stable family structure fall out, divorce, fatherlessness, boys raised by single mothers, alienated men with no families etc. The term “latch key kids” was also coined. Women began demanding that the State provide affordable child care facilities to help raise children. School shootings, mass shootings and violent crime skyrocketed for what appeared to be no reason. Suicide became rampant. Many feminist generation young boys were now young men turning 18. They were being turned out of the starting gate of society all at once. The 90's were the beginning of our current societal nightmare.

You know I must admit that as it is the case that men and boys simply don’t seem to matter to society I find some solace in the fact that women are and will continue to suffer from what is happening. Of course it will all be blamed on men and boys themselves but doesn’t that validate feelings of righteous retribution? It does for me.

“Man up” “Man up” they say to no avail. Mass dating destruction, “Deadbeat” “Deadbeat” they say. “Child-Man” “Child-Man” they say as a once great civilization sinks into the abyss of destruction. The famous Roissy weighs on the dating destruction and child-man articles above.

Netflix To Help Women Eradicate Men From Reproduction and The Family

2011-05-10T20:40:00.000-07:00

Hmmm, she picked the female baby and then declares that men will no longer be needed for reproduction or as members of the family......Quite the normal narrative in this culture isn't it.

‎"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

Anti-male commercials showing men, fathers and husbands as useless, obsolete, incompetent, bumbling idiot animal jack asses are universally appealing to women. What truths of female nature does this reveal? The ads exist because they sell, they sell because they appeal to an innate truth that appeals to something in the minds of women. What do you think this might be? I wonder what the fresh eyes of a child viewer would think.

Women Execute Renowned Top Surgeon

2011-05-10T13:31:00.000-07:00

As editor of Surgery News Dr. Greenfield wrote the below Valentine's Day-themed editorial in a publication for fellow surgeons. Apparently women were so upset by it that the entire issue of Surgery News was pulled from the web and Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign as editor as well as forced to declare his resignation as President-Elect of the American College of Surgeons. His new role...a castigated exile to the back alleys of civilization, the implicit label of a criminal to humanity and the subject of no less than execution:

"As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you'd be surprised by new findings. It's been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%."

"Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests. So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."

Greenfield's personal reflections on the matter: "The editorial was a review of what I thought was some fascinating new findings related to semen, and the way in which nature is trying to promote a stronger bond between men and women. It impressed me. It seemed as though it was a gift from nature. And so that was the reason for my lighthearted comments."

The entire editorial can be read HERE

Popular Science Magazine has also written more upon the story HERE

What the world lost?:

Chairman of the Department of Surgery, and inventor of inferior vena cava filter which has saved countless lives from pulmonary embolism caused by blood clots during heart surgery. An utterly brilliant man, Dr. Greenfield has authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, 55 book chapters, and 8 books. His textbook of surgery is one of the major surgical texts used by many medical schools and residencies to this day. He is an Emeritus Professor of Surgery. This year, he reached one of the ultimate professional pinnacles in surgery, being elected to be the incoming president of the American College of Surgeons, the largest and most influential surgical organization.

UPDATE: As with the Dr. Lawrence Summers case, Dr Greenfield has been replaced by a woman, Dr. Patricia J. Numann of Syracuse, N.Y. as president-elect of American College of Surgeons.

Now.....we must ask why women do this. Well lets take a look from a female bloggers perspective from inside the organization:

"A Valentine’s Day editorial in the official newspaper of the American College of Surgeons has set off a firestorm of controversy that has divided the largest professional organization of surgeons in the country and raised questions about the current leadership and its attitudes toward women and gay and lesbian members."

"Dr. Greenfield wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues in response to the criticism, he wrote that his editorial “was considered by the Women in Surgery Committee and the Association of Women Surgeons as demeaning to women. Despite my apologies, they brought the issue to the Board of Regents.”

"While women now make up almost half of all entering medical school classes in the United States, fewer than a third choose to go into surgery, in part because of a perceived male bias, negative attitudes of surgeons and a lack of female mentors. Once in practice, studies have shown, well over half of all women surgeons report feeling demeaned (source?), and nearly a third say they have been the objects of inappropriate sexist remarks or courthship advances from men.

"Dr. Greenfield has had what many believe is an exemplary career not only as a surgeon but also as a longtime mentor and advocate of women in surgery." "Dr. Greenfield has been a mentor to countless surgeons, many of them women"

"Birmingham, who worked as a medical student, surgeon-in-training and faculty member under Dr. Greenfield. “Our understanding was that he went out of his way to recruit women on the trainee and faculty level.”

Clearly this was a mistake on his part wasn't it....

However "Dr. Diane M. Simeone, a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan who was a co-author of a recent article on barriers faced by women in academic surgery, agrees. “There still is a lot of gender bias in surgery, and I have seen it myself on multiple fronts,” she said."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So....what I gather is that the execution of Dr. Greenfield is the product of the vendeta women have. It is a product of the hypersensitive atmosphere of "social gender justice" and "sexual harassment" hysteria that dominates the social infrastructure of our societal institutions at every level including the Federal government. This was a product of dominate female social agency in action.

Popular Science Magazine: ‎"For what it's worth, I asked Gordon Gallup, Jr., an evolutionary psychologist at SUNY Albany what he thought about "Semengate."

"I think it's a tragic overreaction," he says. "The point at which we begin to let a political agenda dictate what science is all about is the point when science ceases to be a viable enterprise."

- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/controversial-ideas-semen-natures-antidepressant

What we do know is that it is clear that women have a well known track record with things like this. It is my contention that women have shown themselves to be to child like and to emotional to be capable of engaging in the higher pursuits of science. Yes, the above statement is facetious and filled with resentment isn't it.

They obviously have no business being anywhere near such definitive processes of logic and reason Dr. Greenfield referenced in his light hearted Valentines Day editorial. It's very sad what they have done.

Women should know that no matter how many men they have fired and castigated to the back alleys of civilization, science and freedom of speech will progress forward no matter how hard women try to stop it, no matter how hindered, handicapped and anti-male they attempt to make it.

I think what we are witnessing is female critical selective nature in action. Women evidently see his statement as an advocation for their own ingestion of semen perhaps even from the man in question.

I would like to reference an assessment of the universal appeal that misadry in commercials has to women in relation to their gynocentric, critical and selective natures:

It is my contention that portraying men as unworthy males to women is done to provide contrast to what is presented as a proper hypergamous decision...i.e. to make them feel as if buying the product presented is, in contrast to the choice they made in a man, a good better and rightful decision.

It plays on women's biology. their natural critical, demanding, hypergamous and selective nature. The product presents to females the inverse of the selective mistake they made of the man so the product is presented as the selective solution. It is meant to validate their critical, discerning and selective nature as naturally ordained "choosers".

This is why these ads are universally appealing to women. It taps directly into female nature.

So it does not really matter what she is being critical of in the man. Any selective preference of men by women is, in the female mind, the right one. In fact, the more unreasonably critical she is shown to be, the more it elevates the selective value she is ellicited to find in the product. By creating contrast with an inadequate male, it increases the selective worthiness and value of the product.

The above assessment is a deconstruction of the same selective sexual selection process in action in the Greenfield case. So to me it seems that women did not see the doctors statement as objective in nature but internalized the process of what he said through the subjective filter of mate selection. His statement was processed as an affront towards the critical filter of their selective natures.

He did not make the cut....that much was made perfectly clear to the world.

On an individual level is the fact that the reaction that took place against the doctor was uniquely female not feminist. It is the natural coalescence of female individual and gynocentric will that formates feminism as the collective vehicle of action. Was it feminist ideology that influenced the reaction and gave a vehicle of agency to it...yes. But the underlying forces involved is the product of individual female nature itself.

I think we need to realize that being a feminist and being female are integrally related. Feminism is simply the vehicle that is formed from female collective agency. It allows women as a group to enforce female will and power. It is not necessarily feminism that reigns supreme, it is female public agency and the natural social dominance that comes with it.

Female hegemony and individual nature coalesces through the vehicle of feminism. Suffice as to say that all women are feminists. Suffice as to say that females, increasingly, in any institution we look at have established and are able to maintain social dominance above and beyond male social agency. Females have always been served by public and private social structures of society in all realms...the difference is that it was men who had influence over how we and the social systems serve women to any measurable extent. Now, women dictate the terms of how they are served....this is a monumental change.

The concept that it's females themselves that are the source of destruction is a frightening idea I know because we are talking about females themselves being the dominate threat rather than a specific group of females with the label (feminists). We are talking about female collective social agency itself that is the threat and as such female public agency within public social institutions themselves.

Is this why prior cultures throughout time tended to keep females away from spheres of influence over public social structures...yes, undoubtedly so.

Few civilizations prior have allowed it and as we have witnessed.....this was for good reason. This is because female agency begins to reign supreme in a gynocentric fashion. These public social infrastructures quickly turn gynocentric and as such..as we have increasingly witnessed, these systems themselves are consumed of their own means of operation and production in order to serve female interests. The greater objective purpose of these institutions is destroyed.

In the Dr. Greenfield case, the Dr. Lawrence Summers case and many others this is obviously what we are looking at here and yes....it has proved nothing but destructive. The cat is out of the bag. I fear we will not be able to do anything to stop it. This is to say that we are unable to keep them from ABSOLUTE domination over public and institutional structures through the exercise of their will and power.

When public social infrastructure such as government are of AT LEAST equal male influence through male social and political agency they at least have the chance of acting in a manner to best serve resources to females while maintaining individual sovereignty of the individual especially the sovereignty and rights of men along with equal protections and provisions. As female agency grows the male workhorses of the Matriarchy grow to serve female gynocentric interests to the detriment of the objective purpose and intended ends of these public infrastructures

Again, this is simply how dominate female institutional and societal agency is manifesting..i.e. in a gynocentric fashion.

With now dominate female social and political agency females now simply dictate the terms of how their will, needs, protection and provision is served and to what extent. We have seen the limitations of extent brought forth by it. This is to say that there IS NO limitation of extent. I regret to say that as we have witnessed, there is no limit to the preference given to this if we look at the laws and policy women have implemented.

A female dominated society is the female domination of both the private and public sphere of societal operation and infrastructure.

As we have witnessed it is remarkably gynocentric and as such it is manifested through subjective female focus on themselves. Watch a Dove Chocolate commercial and you will witness female gynocentric focus of self sustainment and self focus in action.

Female terms serve the subjective self and not the objective terms which are beneficial to formating and operating such social structures. From definitive observation, these subjective terms of female gynocentric agency are no doubt a destructive force to these structures. Suffice as to say that this force serves to consume the system of its own means of production.

Again, what we have witnessed is female subjective, relative and selective nature manifesting itself to the objective detriment of the structure as a whole...Take this quote for instance which further corroborates with my initial assessment :

"That's right. Forget chocolate on Valentine's Day. Give your woman a heapin' helpin' of man juice, and your "little lady" will perk right up. And, according to ol' Lazar, it's all biology, maaan; as in evolutionary biology."

As we can see, women pass the doctors comment through their subjective and selective gynocentric filter of what is allowed to serve them and in this case it is the implication that a man's semen is beneficial to them. They did not see it in an objective format as men do but in a subjective format. This is to say that it implied to them that just any man's semen is good for them or perhaps that by correlation this man was implying that his semen was good for them. The implication being that they should be consummate of semen. Obviously it was offensive to the dominate agency of arbitration women hold over what semen is acceptable to be given to them.

Objective reason, logic and connections to supporting data for this to be the general case is thrown out the window, then internalized on a subjective level and reacted to accordingly. Women seem to be incapable of objective reasoning and logic in this case and many others. Again gynocentricity is inherent to their nature and manifested likewise when they obtain social agency within public social infrastructures. It forms the base structure from which their reason functions and their actions follow accordingly.

You know, chivalry and courtship itself is the demonstration of willingness and dedication to serve females. We know that female nature is gynocentric and it is their nature to see themselves to be served in this fashion. As such they seek to enact structured chivalry into institutional structures and this includes government policy, law and social policy itself.

Other source: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php?utm_source=combinedfeed&utm_medium=rss

Kay Hymowitz Audio Interview: "Man-Children"

2011-05-08T16:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/11/where-have-the-men-gone-a-conversation-with-kay-hymowitz-2/

She uses the phrase "man-child" as if men are not living up to something. As if under performing boys from single mother homes are supposed to change this situation. All the data shows that boys from single mother homes do so much worse than girls in academic performance and just about EVERY other health and wellbeing indicator.

You've all seen the Single Mother Birth rate since women began their "revolution" :

She expects these "man-children" to be able to stop women only funding, "women first" Affirmative Action in college admissions, job hirings, Title IX, The Council On Women Girls etc. You simply can not favor one portion of the population with "equality" over the other with social, political and even economic policy and expect the other portion of the population not to fall behind. We are talking serious resources here. Women only loans, mandated government contracts to women owned businesses, women's "advancement" business centers, women only scholarships, grants, "encouragement" programs etc. They have even rid our schools of any semblance of competitive learning models in favor of cooperative learning models. When the boys get bored they get restless. They give them pills and tell them to shut up and sit still. She expects men to be able to stop women's "equality policies".

All of this is women's responsibility not men's. Women are not only the majority vote and the single largest voting demographic but they are the dominate sociological force in the cultural dialog and social fabric. "Women's issues" are always the ONLY focus. Women removed all of men's rights in marriage and thus divorce some time ago. The Soviets created the same family policies we have. I don't see why we expect a different outcome. When you remove all of women's liabilities in divorce they abandon their families on a whim. They initiate 70% of all divorce and we now have a 50% divorce rate...if people get married at all. Anyone who studies feminism like I do knows that women said marriage and family was oppression and set out to change that some 45 years ago.

She speaks as if men of lower status and earning potential is a turn off to women when women have been denying this throughout their revolution for "equality", "independence" and "liberation". Women simply lied and will not step up to the plate as a provider for their families nor support stay at home Dad's. Nor will they marry what they are calling "man-children". Men owe women and women's single mother matriarchal families nothing in order to repair this situation. Men, at this point anyway have no institutional power to dictate and change social, political and economic policies when it comes to gender class along with the separate and secular representation under law and policy it now entails.

How Women's Gynocentric Brains Work

2011-05-08T12:54:00.000-07:00

Sweden is doing everything it can to convince women they should be firefighters. I don't think there is a women first quota system in place for this yet but as history has shown it is probably not to far around the corner. Many European countries even have quota systems which require men give up their seats for women in many areas much like Affirmative Action and Title IX "women first" college admissions laws here in the U.S. This is simply what happens when women are given political agency to influence and dictate policy. I think it important to try and understand WHY women demand so much resources, protection and provision and otherwise can not accomplish things on their own. We know that equal opportunity is not enough for women and so they want to be favored. This is what women call "equality". Go figure, I always though equality was equal representation under law and policy but I guess not aye.

I surmise that women don’t necessarily want to be firefighters it’s just that their primordial brain tells them there are resources available that are not being given to women and thus naturally they want these resources to be provided to them. Women see themselves as deserving to be provided to.

I do imagine that there were marginal attempts to to use reason and logic with women to prevent these policies from being instituted but this is highly forbidden in a gynocratic society such as Sweden but also, very much so in the U.S.

When these marginal attempts to convince women they are already provided to well enough fail, the government caves into the female majority vote. The same thing happened when women demanded the Stimulus Package be devoted to women as a gender class here in the U.S.

All gynocracies seem to go this route. To me it is evident that when women have political and public agency it is always used to divert resources to themselves, it's just how women are. Again, women have the majority vote so there is really nothing we can do about it.

I believe men will simply have to let ourselves be disenfranchised until the Chinese or non gynocratic society takes us over. When you let women dictate the distribution of resources….well….eventually they consume the system of its own means of production. Perhaps we have no option but to wait this out until that happens.

There Are No Sex Offenders..Not Any More

2011-05-02T06:49:00.000-07:00

Hmmm Just reading some articles at Salon.com

Sex Offenders:

"The main issue here, as far as I see it, is that sex offender registries clumsily lump together all sex crimes. In recent years, a host of less extreme offenses have been included as grounds for registration: "voyeurism, public exposure, adultery, giving obscene material to a minor, displaying obscene material on a bumper sticker, and bestiality," according to a report by the Vera Institute of Justice. Also, some states require registration for those "possessing computer-generated images of virtual children." This isn't the case across the board nationwide, but a Human Rights Watch report breaks it down on a state-by-state level, and the results are staggering: "At least five states require registration for adult prostitution-related offenses," 13 "require registration for public urination," 29 "require registration for consensual sex between teenagers," and 32 "require registration for exposing genitals in public."

"This has led to the rise of low-risk offenders on registries. Take Georgia, for example: The state's Registration Review Board found that just 5 percent of listed sex offenders were "clearly dangerous" and two-thirds posed a small risk. Just over 100 of the 17,000 registered sex offenders in the state were considered "predators."

"Most states do not make individualized risk assessments before requiring registration. Nor do they offer former offenders a way to get off the registry upon a showing of rehabilitation or years of lawful behavior." The result is that we have nearly 700,000 registered sex offenders in this country. To put that in some perspective, "more than one in 160 adult males are registered sex offenders," according to the Vera Institute's calculations."

Yea, the crazy thing is that I've seen little boys on these lists as well. The definition of what constitutes a sex offense is now just about anything. I've personally met a guy who fell under "require registration for public urination," portion of the law. Crazy huh?

What is happening to my country! Yes, this graph is real!
---
Rape:

"The most reliable current statistic on campus assaults -- which still comes with caveats -- is that nearly 3 percent of college women are raped in an academic year. While that may seem like a slim stat, a report from the National Institute of Justice explains that (taking into account that some women are assaulted multiple times) the percentage translates into the disturbing figure of 35 such crimes for every 1,000 women students."

--"Some women"...You mean of the small number of rapes taking place it keeps happening to the same women right? That's odd, I think perhaps we should look into the factors for this. If such assaults are rare, what is causing these same women to have multiple instances of these experiences? I'm leaning toward the variable in these cases being something to do with her behavior but what could it be?

"In the past few years, the number of "forcible sex offenses" reported by college campuses has declined (save for one year where it ticked up). "Non-forcible sex offenses," on the other hand, have slowly risen -- which might have something to do with, yes, awareness raising about "date rape" and the like."

You mean where the woman and man have been drinking and\or using drugs and end up having sex? So if both parties have been drinking and \ or taking drugs, who is responsible for these acts while under the influence? Somebody has to be responsible for this to constitute rape right? I wonder what constitutes "date rape". I mean, I'm sure the man could slip a pill into her drink but how often does this happen? Anybody know....Does anybody know? Until then I will err on the side of the highest known factor in these instances which is the mutual ingestion of intoxicating substances.

Now I'm not denying that rape happens, I mean plenty of women have abused little boys. And women do commit the majority of child abuse and child murder so it has to turn out some young men into the world with some serious issues.

"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."

The good thing is that VERY FEW men are capable of obtaining an erection by attacking and hurting a woman because most boys have experienced good relationships with women in their childhood so pathological violent rape is exceedingly rare when we are talking about rape.

So when we are talking about the "other" type of rape it is important to understand what is actually meant by it and the factors in play. It is a shame that anyone should get hurt by unintended intercourse.

http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html Male erection response and misunderstandings:

"Myth- If a male experiences sexual arousal or orgasm from abuse, this means he was a willing participant or enjoyed it."

In reality, males can respond physically to stimulation (get an erection) even in traumatic or painful sexual situations. Therapists who work with sexual offenders know that one way a perpetrator can maintain secrecy is to label the males sexual response as an indication of his willingness to participate. "You liked it, you wanted it," they'll say. So when women like these say things to their victim like this many survivors feel guilt and shame because they experienced physical arousal while being abused. Physical (and visual or auditory) stimulation is likely to happen in a sexual situation. It does not mean that the male wanted the experience or understood what it meant at the time.

So we can see that erection does not always imply conscious will by any means. In my opinion, being drunk on alcohol and\or drugs does not make the man any more capable or responsible of consciously having sex than the women. Believe me I'm 32 years old now but it happened once when I was a kid. I woke up in the morning and there she was right next to me. The first thing she said when she woke up was "Oh my God did we have sex!"

I had no idea if we did have sex or not but the first thing in my mind was "Oh my God did we!" If we did I am the one who is expected to be in control and responsible for this situation or any situation involving a woman no matter what the circumstances is.

In fact I can't really think of anything women have responsibility for when it comes to the legal terms set forth by the government on personal and private relationships and this includes marriage, conception, parental rights, rights to one's own body and the fruits of it's labor, property, DV rights, healthcare funding, equal rights to attend college through "women first" Affirmative Action you name it. I can't think of anywhere where men have rights CAN YOU??????. Please help me here, I can't think of any rights or choices that men have. Not even visitation rights are enforced. I really see men as a means to an end to enable women's "choices" and rights. Even Constitutional theory dictates that rights don't come without responsibility. The law states that mutual acts nor mutual commitments require mutual responsibility on women's part..in anything. Men don't have any rights compared to women, nor "choices" in anything. From what I've studied on my own virtually all men's rights were removed in the last 45 years or so.

To be quite frank I really don't respect women for this...at all. I am also angry. I love women or at least the potential to love one but it's really hard to have an equal relationship with them by any means. Anyway, It scared the crap out of me and for good reason. So I said what anyone in their right mind would say when faced with women's omnipotent power in all realms, "NO, no we didn't". As a man I simply back away from all of this to preserve my own dignity and protect myself. Some say PUA and GAME is the answer in this new order. I really don't think it is. For me it is simply MGTOW in a way you know?

I'm intelligent, successful (but not where I want to be with it yet), good looking and I've never had trouble with women but HOLY SHIT!

I've seen things happen to the men around me to many times. I feel I can't commit to a woman and am afraid to get emotionally close to any prospective children I might have. By law, fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege. I grew up in the feminist generation and know what happens. What man wants that??? It is not that I am afraid of commitment but rather there is nothing in modern relationships (by law even) that is worthy of my commitment to a woman, marriage and family.It's really very sad.

It is only men who can lose everything. If anyone can help me with a solution it is greatly appreciated. I don't know if anyone knows but I've turned to this growing Men's and Father's Rights Movement for help and to gain a sense of control back. Ironically I feel raped...does that make sense? I started my blog on my own you know. At the time I didn't realize there were so many others out there. I guess I know that I'm not alone in this situation and becoming an MRA has been a good start to a solution for me even if it simply allows me to understand the situation and protect myself. The growing Men's Rights Movement is the beginning of what could hopefully be a solution in the years to come in this society.

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/06/college_rape/index.html
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/20/sex_offenders/index.html

Women's Vaginas Now More Toxic Than Tobacco

2011-05-02T05:22:00.000-07:00

Oral sex is leading cause of increasing U.S. cancer rates, compared to tobacco use in other nations

BY LINDSAY GOLDWERT
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Oral sex could be hazardous to your health.

So say researchers who note that oral cancer stemming from the human papilloma virus is more common in the U.S. than oral cancer caused by abusing tobacco.

Researchers found a 225% increase in oral cancer cases in the U.S. from 1974 to 2007, mainly among white men, said Maura Gillison, a cancer researcher at Ohio State University.

The more oral-sex partners a man had, the greater his cancer risk, Gillison told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-22/entertainment/28639602_1_oral-cancer-hpv-vaccines-cervical-cancer
------
REMEMBER: Men and boys are still banned from receiving vaccination for the HPV virus. The vaccine helps prevent SOME HPV strains. 1 in 4 of America's women carry one or more diseases. This disease in particular makes their womb a barren infertile waste land. Their cervix rots from their body. If you plan on establishing any type of relationship with an American woman PLEASE BE CAREFUL AND MAKE SURE SHE GET A FULL EXAMINATION AT THE DOCTORS OFFICE.

Men Are A Disease: A Critique of George Carlin

2011-04-28T04:37:00.000-07:00

A critique of George Carlin's Video upon men: The Male Disease

If anything this video outlines how male "use" and utility has been exploited by culture, not only to hold up the operation of culture but to support the needs of such a culture even to the point of the disposability and expendability of male lives. Male use is also defined by women and their needs but also elements of biological imperatives placed upon him for the survival of our species.

I first noticed this video on The Conscious Men Facebook page. This is a group which seeks to apologize to women for the male condition and its effect on women. A follower posted the above video to seek guidance as to validating this view of men from the leaders of this group and the response is demonstrated from this captured screenshot:

This group of men have been outright rejected by most men as is evidenced by the comments on their YouTube videos but also strongly by the Men's Rights community. There is good reason for this, it is not male responsibility or male free will which is responsible for the human condition nor is it men who are the sole creators of it.

Carlin makes the mistake of placing responsibility of the male condition upon men themselves, particularly fathers.

He states that it is fathers who introduce men to male subcultures i.e. (tangential cultural expressions deviating from the cultural norm of male "use") in other words, ALL places and activities men can be themselves FOR themselves. He attacks all bastions of refuge but also the places where masculinity is literally used.

Car and machinery culture: Nothing inherently wrong with this, men gravitate to machines because we are the ones who invent them and this is so because it extends our capabilities to produce the imperatives defined by our use and utility. Machines and tools are an extension of men's drive and male purpose. Tools and machines are something integral to being male they are a physical manifestation and extension of ourselves.

The Police and Military Culture: Necessary to keep social order to protect and provide safety and security of our native culture but also to secure territory and resources to our native culture should they come in conflict with another’s. As we speak, mostly men are working around the clock to quell the raging reactors in Japan. These men, these military men are accomplishing a productive, useful and dangerous task. Men know from a young age their intended male "use" and even their expendability in order to secure the needs of culture, women but also children.

The Outdoors and Gun Culture: Stems from male independence and ability to provide for and protect one’s self. But also embodies the male spirit of Freedom, Liberty, Independence and the innate, intrepid, go it alone, independent spirit of masculinity. If a man is not self-sufficient how is he to provide his utility for the use of others? Men find the outdoors and wilderness a challenge. Men in the wilderness are facing what can be hospitable if he utilizes his self and abilities properly but also equally unforgiving. It is the epitome of the unique struggle that men face in the world. After all, if women sacrifice their own needs for children and men sacrifice our own need for women and children then who is there to sacrifice their own needs for men in this regard? What use and utility will voluntarily be offered to us and by whom? Who will court us in order to do so.....nobody.

Sports and Competition Culture: Elements of male-male competition are expressed here through the embodied biological imperatives the male serves. Sports and competition not only provide this but also serves to showcase who is of better use or utility essentially...it is a contest of who is better.

Drug and Alcohol Culture: Not an exclusive male bastion of culture but for the sake of argument may be primarily driven by the pressures of the lack of inherent value in men. Men are not men by default but instead must "be a man" and become a man as defined by our external utility and use. Being a man entails accomplishment, duty and responsibility and the pressure to achieve. Along with drugs and alcohol we also suffer early death and suicide.

Let’s mate with females, while exemplifying and devaluing a non-useful male i.e. ("go get pussy and pick on queers"):If one is labeled queer it does not necessarily denote a lack of acceptance of queer sexuality but rather what it represents...along with feminization insults such as "pussy" and "fagot" it denotes males that are not of use. If you are like a woman or queer, then you have no use or external utility to neither women nor culture. However, though I've seen men declare we as a group should go find women I have never heard men as a group declare that we should "pick on others" while doing this.

Carlin labels testosterone (a symbolic element meant to denote "male essential nature" as the source of male suffering or cultural ills but I disagree, men are not solely responsible for the advent of our own condition. Masculinity has an essential nature and is also defined by and created by forces outside itself. Again, this is largely defined by biology, particularly in relation to use and external utility to the female but also what is defined as male use for the benefit of culture and often times to the sacrifice and expendability of a man himself, his own needs up to and including his own life for the benefit of others, the group, or society as a whole or for a defined cause.

Homophobia: Again, this has little to do with homosexuals as it does to the need to exemplify one’s own use and external utility above other males. Alleging someone is queer or calling another man a faggot, along with feminization insults of other men such as "pussy" is also used to do the same. These insults are used also to inspire another man to be of use, to "man up" to a task defined for him though it may not be in his best interest but rather that of women, culture, the group, or society as a whole. When you hear men or women using male shaming language think of not just the current context and purpose it is being used for but also how the qualities he is being shamed into producing i.e. (overcoming fear, pain, suffering or self interest etc) are part of the larger construct of male use, utility and expectations upon men as a whole.

Child Like Trust in Male Authority: This is false, the trust, following and development of male hierarchical social structure stems from following dominant males not simply other males or just any male authority. Individual enactments of male confidence, competence, bravado or otherwise demonstrating trust in one’s own authority and competence as a male, comes from the need to be dominant, and the need to be dominant stems from the need to be of use and of the highest utility and capability than the males around you but also of the highest capability and competence to be adequate to women and culture.

Fear and dislike of women: Perhaps can be described as more so the feelings of grappling and struggling with the area of ultimate authority and control that women hold over men and how this force powerfully places mandates upon us and defines us but also what it demands of men to be worthy, of use and external utility. Biologically speaking, men and our genes have no right to be passed onto life unless a female approves of this right. Lack of competence, acceptance and worthiness in the present moment implies that your genes have no right to exist in the present. By getting laid, men are able to validate their own right to exist. In this way, acceptance by women defines us. Likewise both male and female inherently know this and can be very demanding, vile, brutal and critical of the measurement of what constitutes a man’s own validity.

‎......He asks, why are men like this and concludes it is because men have no authority or control over whether they reproduce and yes, in simplified form this is on target. He asks, so what are men looking for. He explains that men are looking to gain the authority to reproduce which is correct but he states that "women do all the work of reproduction". What he does not recognize however is that "men also do all the work in our own fashion and in an external way in order to be able to reproduce. So where do we find ourselves.....back to the concept of male use and male external utility as defined by the mandates of engendered biological imperative pressures placed upon him and thus by extension, the pressures placed upon him by women and culture itself.

Carlin,... believe it or not is attempting to display his own use and utility. He asserts that the solution to the "male problem" (males other than himself of course) is the extermination of most all other males. Ironically, he is the embodiment of the same propensities he seeks to discredit. Men are brutal to other men and women are brutally critical of men.

He states, because men are excluded from control over reproduction they find ways to be of use and external utility. This is correct but men do not define this for ourselves and it is not entirely or mostly the product of male free will.

He continues with the fact that females are the constant and the base blueprint XX and males are the variable XY and as such, men are the primary variable that embodies the necessary traits or dictates of human survival, use, need and thus perpetuation of the species through such external variables embodied and displayed by him and this is correct. He states all men are modified females but it is equally true that all females are what males are not, never can be nor will be and this is good, it's what makes males unique, valuable, different, complimentary to the species and necessary.

He states that males are an afterthought so as to convey we are somehow deficient or a waste product of the essentialist design of female or even suggests that we are a deviation of what is essentially human, a thought perhaps a nazi might purvey.

He states, females create life and males end it: No, men are the embodiment of life’s self-actualization to perpetuate itself, refine itself and adapt itself not for our own ends but life’s own ends. Life wants to live. Men want to live on and pass on our genes. This is the biological portion of male use and external utility and why males are the variable. He is mistaken, men do not simply end life through culling out, challenging or destroying other male variables, we give it, shape it and its means of survival, this is embodied in us.

He states "war, crime, violence are primarily male but in reality they are primarily nature serving its own purpose through the culling of male variables represented in external utility and use. We must ask what war, crime and the byproduct of violence and male-male competition actually serve to this end.

To this I say ask these males: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVq7Mo6LY-A

Are territory, resources and male superiority and dominance over the ability of other males to acquire such things conveyed by these behaviors in the video above? Are human males any different?

He states that men start out as (female good) and end up as the "crappy thing" or (shit and waste) and this goes to show Carlin’s hatred not only for himself but life itself and life’s brutal struggle to perpetuate and refine itself. Life wants to be competent and able and this is embodied within male nature. Male seek competence, authority to be competent and dominance for a reason.

He says that men are not only responsible for the human condition but we are fully responsible for what we do to ourselves and what is done to men in this process and in this he is mistaken.

That male kangaroo shown in the video was sent off to die alone. If you look under a bridge in any city you will find males living out the rest of their lives there for the same reason. They have nowhere else to go, no value, no use or utility to provide. Women simply do not value men as much as they value themselves, men simply do not value ourselves and other men as much as we value women. I believe this might be true. A woman would never get up on stage to speak of women this way but it is quite possible she will speak of men this way. I have nothing but compassion and understanding for the male condition not hatred, misandry and bigotry.

Despite what Carlin and women say, men are human beings, males are LIFE and we deserve to live and be treated as equal and necessary to exist. No male scholar has ever contemplated the extermination of women but female scholars have contemplated the extermination of males and still do. Entire governments have and so do major female newspaper columnists.

The question of whether men have the right to live is obviously out there:

To answer the question that has been posed by feminists within their movement and even by other men (and Carlin himself), do males deserve to exist? Are males human beings which deserve to live?

Men, being the variable obviously have certain traits when contrasted to life's goals that are fit to survive, are successful and meant to be passed on and others that are not. Over time some of these variables are culled. Some survive and others do not. After all, DNA evidence shows that 80% of women and 40% of men reproduced in our evolutionary history.

Females, other men and culture can be brutal to men. They see this as their right to dictate and as such can be critical, cruel and inhuman to men and even question our right to exist or even our status as a human being. Likewise this brutality, critical mindset and cruelty is embodied in us towards ourselves as men (Carlin is a perfect example). As mentioned before, we are simply not as valued as women or else why would we be treated as less than them in this way??? However, males deserve to exist because females are static, they are the constant. Without males and the male variable, life does not go on nor do we adapt as a species to our environment to do so. Most of all men deserve the right to exist because we are human beings.

Though it has been questioned whether men or males are even necessary or have the right to live to me it is quite obvious that we do. Men do not complain about our condition or seek to show how we are in pain, suffering or being used by women, culture or biology. We are also not critical of women as much as women and culture are critical and demanding of men. Unlike women, we have no authority to complain and instead seek to hide weakness, pain suffering and the general brutal reality of the male condition. If we demand for this to be alleviated, provided to or protected for or even to have "choices" as women do we will thereby be announcing our own unworthiness and viability to exist, to be of use. Perhaps it is men's place in line of importance of gendered needs that we are put last. Perhaps this is the source of the imbalance that men now face under the current feminist hegemony. Men used to have the power over how we put ourselves last for women's benefit but how has female public, political and institutional agency exacerbated, increased and controlled this? What happens when females are given the power to dictate this?

Unlike what we have provided to women, they will not allow us a choice to escape the male condition as we have offered to make sacrifices for them to escape elements of the female condition. They will not be so kind. In fact I've found that what males are asked to do is provide something more to women and likewise female issues, needs, demands etc. and as such, this dominates the cultural dialog. Men have no needs that deserve to be addressed apparently. We will always be ordered to "man up" to this and take it.

Men have little healthcare funding for our health as women do. Men have little funding for our education, success, wellbeing and advancement as women do though men's health and educational success and general wellbeing is much poorer than women's. Men have no one to look after or support us. As men, for the most part we are all alone in this. We will not be cared for, we will not be protected and ultimately we will never be cared for as much as women. Under observation and practice female public and political agency seeks to expand this divide by providing ever more resources, programs, initiatives, funding and even anti male "women first" policies in college admissions and even business hiring. I guess it is the case that women put children before themselves, men put women and children before us but no one will ever put the needs of men before themselves...not women, not government and not other men.

The only people who can change the state of wellbeing of men in this regard is men. We must see ourselves and the male condition for what it is and address it as always...on our own..Women will not seek to care for us as we seek to do for them. It is up to us to see that we meet our own needs and that women meet our needs as well.

Women complain about their power over their sexuality, what a burden it is and seek to maximize it by "empowering" themselves for their own gain. The difference is that women own this power inherently along with the phenomena of being "sex objects" but do men own our "use"?

Women by default are on to the next stage..management of this for their own best benefit. Well, the way I see it, men are "use" objects. Men should become conscious of the ways in which we are literally used by women, law, social culture, family law etc. Men must own our gendered expectations and mandates of male "use". We must recognize our exploitation and how our inescapable biology and very lives are "used". Are our needs being met in return? Is there reciprocal obligation, responsibility, liability and accountability from women toward men?

Male "use" is something men need to empower ourselves with. Men, like women, must own our power. We must "empower" ourselves for our own wellbeing. Most importantly we must become aware of the ways in which male "use" and utility is used to empower women and give them "choices" at male expense. Choices of paternity, choices to be responsible for conception or not be responsible, choices to abandon their families, a choice to work or stay home, a choice to pay on a date or not to pay, and a choice to discard men from the family itself. In many ways female empowerment is defined by the "use" of men to enable it.

Also...may I ask...what are women required to "woman up" to? If they are asked to, do they have a "choice" to escape this?

-----

By the way….consider this article an apology on behalf of any “conscious women” (should there be any that are not victims of men) for treating men as “use” objects. Because unlike the manginas at the “conscious men” no women or culture will ever recognize the male condition for what it is, an equally valid part of the human condition.

No matter how misguided those men are at least they have offered to be of more “use”. You have to hand it to men, we are the most self sacrificial and giving beings I’ve ever witnessed. No matter how shallow and self loathing at least the “conscious men” attempt to take the world on the shoulders of men and to be accountable for EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. This is what men have always done.

I am afraid we will receive no valid apology or accountability from any “conscious women” should they exist.

We will always be left catching our brothers in our arms. Quite frankly it is an honor to do so and be here for all of you. “You put your back up against me and I’ll put my back up against you (my fellow brothers), that way we don’t have to sleep with our heads in the mud”

Thank you all for contributing to the growing MRM. It is an honor to be a part of this.

Exchanging Sex For Survival

2011-03-20T06:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33624850/ns/technology_and_science-science/

"Two male fiddler crabs fight on a beach on Inhaca Island, Mozambique. Researchers from The Australian National University in Canberra found that male fiddler crabs will happily defend a female neighbor against intruders, partly because the females will dole out sex in return."

The scientists are trying to find the variable of why they do it on the surface during these exchanges. I will place a good bet and say she does not get pregnant from the exchange but only at the end of the culling cycle of weak males. Probably once a year. Meanwhile she happily grazes on his territory and resources while waiting for stronger more dominant males which then have more territory and resources to come along to kick his ass. Other life forms such as ducks have false vaginas. Human females have their own methods of extracting resources and also engage in paternity fraud \ cuckolding. Gynocentric and hypergamous to the hilt lol.
In the mean time, within the territory he shed blood, sweat, tears and death for she most certainly complains about a food gap between the male crabs and herself and other female crabs. Most likely if these crabs formed such complex social structures as government like humans do, the dominant males would take his food and territory and give it to the females when they complained. They would then continue to demand more and more "equality" until the vast majority of male crabs have nothing left to give or any incentive to do so even to the point of not placing paternal investment in their own offspring who are considered female property. She would see the government as alpha for sure and happily screw over every male crab in the land with her government husband who gains dominance by it.
Like crabs, human beings are no more than animals who's base instincts and nature heavily influences what they believe to be free will and reason. Feminists will tell you the whole thing is by male design and a social construct, a big conspiracy to rob females of the resources males compete for in order to be worthy of them in the first place.
Right now we have ventured outside our territorial lines our males secured in the same fashion as the fiddler crab males in order kick Gaddafi's ass while at the same time our young men sit in their "women's studies" classes being throughly shamed and emasculated. Cartoons will be shown of females rolling their eyes at the inferior male. Like human males, The young crab males will be taught how terrible males are along with their "toxic masculinity". Everything female will be promoted as superior and everything male and masculine as an oppressive force used to harm females. The goal is to turn out legions of castrated men into society. These poor hapless and impressionable young male crabs unfortunately mistook this class for an actual science course rather than gynocentrically motivated nonsense.
In the video below I'd place a good bet that the females who are happily and obliviously grazing on grass in the background complain about a grass gap between female kangaroos and the males who are adamantly competing for it for no other benefit but to the females in the first place. I bet they won't shut up about it. It must drive the males out of their fu*king minds every new legislation that is passed by the kangaroo government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVq7Mo6LY-A

I bet the female crabs and kangaroos will eventually have the dominant government pass so much "female first" Affirmative Action, Title IX, female only loans and scholarships that they will gain 60% of college degrees and out earn male kangaroos and crabs until they make more than them in every major metro animal city in their kingdoms. I bet the females will change marriage law so that resources and offspring get transfered to them no matter what. The male crabs and kangaroos will no longer have incentive to compete, produce or commit to females for anything and instead lay around playing video games, drinking beer, watching sports and hanging with their buddies.

The females will then gloat at what losers the males are for not producing the very things the females seek to remove them from and disenfranchise them from obtaining fairly.

I bet the single crab and kangaroo mother birth rate will shoot through the roof. More and more advocacy for gynocentric policy in the public and private realms of society will be established. Committed mated pair bonds and male paternal investment will plummet not only because of his own disincentive but alienation from having incentive or opportunity to make paternal investment in his offspring all together. I bet her relationship with government and the propensity for related gynocentric policy will become self perpetuating and self compounding. I bet it will create its own necessity, a self fulfilling function of its own ideology. Perhaps when males have nothing left and the crabs and kangaroos live in a full blown single mother matriarchy she will then consume the only resources the males have left....the males themselves:

Unplanned Pregnancy is Not a Man's Problem

2011-03-11T18:38:00.000-08:00

Unplanned pregnancy is not a man's problem. Not anymore.... In fact it's not a woman's problem either.

Men don't "get women pregnant" It is a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility and thus (since abortion is legal) under Constitutional mandate (along with the equal protection and rights under law that it affords) the equal right of each party is afforded to absolve themselves of such responsibility....or at least it is supposed to be.

If abortion is against a woman's values who cares. Cut it's head off latter or something...Right?....What is the difference? Nothing is stopping a woman from getting an abortion:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/10/young-woman-gives-birth-to-baby-boy-decapitates-him/

No one cares if it is against men's values. No one cares about men's "choices". Men have the right to walk away. Men have the right to abort responsibility and the ramifications of conception just as women can. Her body, her choice, her baby, 100% her property, her problem.

Men don't necessarily have anything to do with conception. Conception of life by law is something only women do and women choose, even to the point of not requiring a man to conceive life all together. Men are no longer a part of nor are we necessary for conception and this is the sole choice of women...for now. What men need to realize now is that we also have the power to take our exclusion into our own hands and make it our own choice, we have the right to exclude ourselves from having any part of it. By law we are already excluded. Male genes are sold over the internet by what Hollywood celebrity the male specimine looks like:

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/sperm-banks-men-for-sale.html

There are no laws against paternity fraud and cuckolding committed by women when it is discovered. Men don't necessarily have anything to do with conception now a days. Women and THEIR children are THEIR problem and THEIR responsibility. Conception is something they do..it is THEIR choice not ours. It doesn't have to be this way. Men don't have paternal rights to children anyway. Fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege.

It is said that women have choices, a choice to work or stay home, a choice to conceive or not conceive, a choice about her gender role, a choice to be a single mother, a choice to conceive a child without a man by purchasing male genes, a choice not to serve her country by military draft, a choice to pay on a date or not pay, a choice to divorce with no liabilities, obligations or responsibilities AND at no-fault....Even then a man's responsibility to women and THEIR children remains.

Yes it is said that women have choices......men, responsibilities. Not anymore.....

Equality by the way women have implemented it in practice means Independence and Liberation which equates to dis-need, and choices. As such, Independence, Liberation and Equality for men means the same...that is, choices and the right not just for women to practice dis-need but the right of both sexes to practice mutual dis-need of the other and mutual choices to absolve ourselves of responsibility and the role we play to the other.

Men are beginning to understand that we have choices in ALL realms that women do.....or at least we should. It is only fair. This is the other half of Feminist ideology that men must complete for ourselves. Right now the whole house of cards of women's "Independence" and "Liberation" is held up by men's half of the bargain and thus lack of equal ability and choice to absolve ourselves from it. Men currently are made to be responsible and accountable to women while women are not made to be the same...they are not accountable toward and for men or even service to country.... This is changing....men are waking up to exactly what feminism really means, men just have not completed the picture yet...It is MUTUAL Independence, Liberation and Equality.

As women have taught us, only through "Independence" i.e. dis-need and lack of liability or reciprocity can the selfish "rights" of the individual be realized. Only through "Independence" or dis-need and thus no liability to anyone can "Liberation" and "Equality" be reached. Men must continue to move toward the complimentary ends of "equality" that women seek. This means equally liberating ourselves from liability to them as well. Men must now create choices for ourselves.

Why Do MRAs Hate Feminists So Much

2011-03-11T12:31:00.000-08:00

The manginas at TheGoodMenProject have given MRAs a platform to speak out. The comments section of the article is interesting.

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/whats-up-with-this-mens-movement/

Dan Moore of MenZ magazine gives his perspective on fundamental men’s rights issues, breaks down MRA sub-groups, and answers the question: Why do MRAs hate feminism?

My involvement with the Men’s Rights Movement began nearly two decades ago, before Reddit gave MRAs (men’s rights activists) a place to gather, and before I founded MenZ magazine. Back then, there was a thing we call the “Lace Curtain,” a reference to the media’s unwillingness to take a male-sympathetic view of anything, even to the point of suppressing any pro-male comments or letters to the editor. We used to send out an email alert whenever someone got a letter to the editor published in their local paper. It was so rare, we had to celebrate it.

We’ve made a lot of progress as a movement since then. But what kind of progress, exactly? It’s obvious we exist, and that we’re angry and loud—but what do we believe in and stand for today? Explaining the MRM involves exploding so many of the cultural myths we live with that it would take more than one article to cover them. But, if you’ll bear with me, I’m going to try.

♦◊♦

The Issues:

Men have no reproductive rights throughout what we would call the Political West. Men have no right to choose if they are ready for parenthood post-conception, even though women have that right (and staunchly defend it). While the morality of letting men abandon pregnant girlfriends is left in question, the base inequality of the current situation is not. We have a blatant legal double standard, based solely on the sex of the person involved. Either give men the same rights as women, or restrict women’s rights to equal those of men—I don’t care which. But to fail to do so is to promote sexism as official government policy.

As the Department of Health and Human Services concedes,”historically, unmarried fathers have had fewer rights with regard to their children than either unwed mothers or married parents.” For example, as an unintended consequence of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which required single mothers seeking public assistance to identify the father and put states in charge of collecting child support, millions of men across the U.S. were declared dads by “default judgement.” As Matt Welch wrote in a 2004 issue of Reason magazine:

[W]hen the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn’t, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop—even, in most cases, if there’s conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child’s father.

Many states have since passed reform bills, but paternity fraud is still a problem.

While we’re talking about family court, how about those child support tables? They were based in part on hysteria created when sociologist Lenore Weitzman concluded, in a 1985 report, that after a divorce women’s standard of living went down 73 percent, and men’s went up 42 percent. “For several years after the publication of her book, she did not make her data available to other researchers,” according to the Associated Press. In 1996, she admitted that her calculations were faulty. A re-analysis of her numbers “found a 27 percent decline in women’s post-divorce standard of living and a 10 percent increase in men’s—still a serious gap, but not the catastrophic one that Weitzman saw.”

But by that time it was too late. According to the 1996 AP report, Weitzman’s bogus statistic had already been cited in 348 social-science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 appeals and Supreme Court cases, and in President Clinton’s 1996 budget. “This has been one of the most widely quoted statistics in recent history,” said Anne Colby, director of Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center at the time.

All this is done under “no fault” divorce, which basically means there’s no reason needed to initiate divorce and no acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Even in cases where one spouse is decent and hardworking and upstanding, and the other cheats and drinks too much and is addicted to gambling and takes off with the kids, there can be no assignation of blame. Alone, this is no big deal until you factor in the misandric culture we live in, where accusations of wrongdoing are gendered in the media.

Speaking of the law, men have particular concerns when it comes to the justice system. There has been a massive spike in incarcerations in the U.S. over the last 30 years. Nearly all of those are men, and nearly all of those men are poor, and usually black. While some might see this as our society being tough on crime, I see a society locking their “undesirables” out of sight. And while black and white men are often treated differently, the differences in treatment between men and women are substantially greater.

Why Do MRAs Hate Feminists So Much?

In a nutshell, because nearly everything they say is a lie. Why do men get such a bad rap? Why are men afraid to help small children, for fear of an accusation? Who is promoting the idea of a “rape culture,” and that one sex is responsible for the safety of the other? Who has consistently painted all things masculine as evil, toxic, or in need of improvement?

MRAs reject the very notion that “men oppressed women.” It didn’t happen. Ever. Men worked with women, in the roles they were allowed, and men’s roles were no less restrictive than women’s. Indeed, most of the time the men’s roles were far more restrictive than women’s. Of course, Patriarchy Theory doesn’t address this interpretation.

But more than that, feminists don’t even live up to their own rhetoric. And the reason for this? They don’t have to.

Feminism is little more than government-sponsored and -enforced chivalry. Feminism isn’t about equality—they have steadily attacked men’s privileges without giving up one iota of their own (and fiercely oppose those, like MRAs who seek parity).

Feminists have, from the outset of the Men’s Rights Movement, ridiculed, dismissed, viciously attacked, mischaracterized, and misrepresented the MRM—pretty much in that order. Today, feminists are castigating us for not wanting to play nice, as men made no concessions in the last 60 years.

Men are angry. Very angry.

♦◊♦

What Men Are Doing to Cope: MRA Sub-Groups
Articles written these days about men and boys don’t talk much about the issues I outlined above. Many of these articles still don’t even bother to ask men what they think. Instead, many turn to female “experts.” In an age where even articles discussing the state of men refuse to talk about the male viewpoint, or even ask men what they think, what exactly can a man do to get by?

That depends on your goals and expectations. These are the major sub-groups:

MGTOWs

Men Going Their Own Way, or MGTOWs, are one major subgroup of the men’s movement. These men are, as the name suggests, essentially dropping out of society as we know it. A good portion of these men are the ones Kay Hymowitz and the like are complaining about a lot—the men playing video games, drinking beer, smoking weed, and not “manning up” as expected.

For the most part, these men are responding to the lack of reward in our current culture for those who do “man up,” coupled with the massive risk involved in playing the game by the rules in place. They’ve decided that women—and society itself—are literally more trouble than they’re worth.

This is the fastest growing segment of the Men’s Rights Movement, followed closely by PUAs.

MRAs

Men’s Rights Activists (or Advocates) is the generic term for those men concerned primarily with the political and legal aspects of the issues facing men—and a strong concern for the social forces enabling these injustices. The defining characteristic of an MRA has yet to be found, but it seems to be concern over enough legal political issues, as opposed to any kind of traditional political leaning.

There are devoutly religious MRAs and “devoutly” atheist MRAs. There are black, white, Asian, aboriginal, and Indian MRAs. There are straight MRAs and gay MRAs. And there are male and female MRAs.
There are devoutly religious MRAs and “devoutly” atheist MRAs. There are black, white, Asian, aboriginal, and Indian MRAs. There are straight MRAs and gay MRAs. And there are male and female MRAs. MRAs have no particular political stances on things like abortion, other than men should have the same rights as women. MRAs are simply men and women concerned about the legal and social state of men today.

In fact, MRAs don’t have a catchy name because they didn’t expect to have a movement on their own. They originally believed the feminist movement would help. And yes, their faces are red about that foolish mistake (myself included).

PUAs or Pick-up Artists

Contrary to popular belief, there is enormous benefit to knowing “Game,” whether it’s used or not. PUAs apply some very astute analysis of female sexual behavior. PUAs have the know-how and the advice that fathers used to give their sons back when fathers were allowed in the family.

It’s a well-known fact that men and women both enjoy sex. “Game Theory” states that women are far more ruled by their libido than men are; men have simply forgotten how to push the right buttons. The effectiveness of this approach, as compared to what your mom taught you—”just be yourself”—can be easily seen nearly anywhere men and women interact. At the very least, Game Theory provides some protection against the petty manipulations men are subjected to daily.

While many women have complained about the presentation and the tone of the facts, sites like Roissy’s Chateau routinely have sheepish women admitting they are exactly as described. And while your mileage may vary, some advice is far better than none, especially in an age saturated with messages that “empower” women and denigrate men.

When Will the Men’s Rights Movement Go Away?

Likely never. Feminism manipulated already existing social biases to be more favorable to women, while leaving their gender role intact as “fallback position.” Men are literally saying “screw you” to women as a sex, and society in general, and for the first time ever, are dismantling the Chivalric infrastructure.

Men are hardwired to love and idolize women. It’s why we want to protect them and support them. They give our lives purpose. They are the center of our families, and they are the comfort at days end. They are the makers of the home, the calm in the storm.

Well, rather, they were those things.

Now women are our competitors at work, our opponents in politics (women’s issues begat men’s issues), our critics in relationships. Women are told to fear us, to hold us in contempt, and to feel empowered when their success is greater than the men whose legs have been cut off to enable it. They are imbued with massive self-worth, and told their every accomplishment is worth celebration in this male-dominated world. And this leads them to believe all the men they meet—who they’ve been told their whole life have it even easier—are total losers. How else could they have failed to succeed?

Women feel entitled to take advantage of men. There is little social pressure on women who, say, capitalize on men’s loneliness by demanding free drinks as payment for her company, to stop this practice, since it’s seen as “normal.”

To the men who may not have much money, who simply want to meet a nice woman and don’t know any better, this seems like cruelty. And to that man, it is.

We live in a society that caters to female hypergamy (“the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher socioeconomic status, or caste status than oneself”). We have structured our legal and social systems to accommodate the female desire to be able to “trade up” at whim with no consequences, and it has devastated marriage as an institution, and dating in general.

We live in a society that doesn’t care about men that are not “alpha,” You see it everywhere, the top slice of men doing as well as ever, with the bottom 80% falling off a cliff.

The men’s rights movement started because no one else was talking about this stuff. The MRM continues because even after hearing about this stuff, many people are too complacent or too convinced by opposing beliefs to do anything about it.

As long as men and boys are given the raw end of the deal (usually because society depends on the disposability of men to survive), the MRM will be in existence in some form or other. I suppose that if this is a concern, one could always take solace in one simple fact: Even after 20 years, and attacking all these major problems and more, and being the lone voice doing so for most of that time, there is yet to be established a single publicly-funded men’s rights advocacy agency anywhere. So at least the men’s movement won’t likely be surviving on your tax dollar, but will continue to thrive on the volunteer efforts of everyone involved.

Male Genital Mutilation

2011-03-11T03:37:00.001-08:00

Upon the barbaric practice of Male Genital Mutilation:

Men's Rights Radio: Violent Women and Government Lies

2011-03-09T14:28:00.000-08:00

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen

MRA RADIO SHOW A SMASHING SUCCESS!

2011-03-01T21:41:00.000-08:00

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MEN'S MOVEMENT

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen

Why Men Must Be Independent and Liberated

2011-02-28T17:38:00.000-08:00

I was reading an article written by a woman who is opposed to the establishment of matriarchy and female supremacist society.

This comment stuck out to me:

"I agree with you. Many men won't like the female supremacist society. I'm also not sure what it will look like. Let's face it, it won't be the 1950's with the roles reversed. The large majority of women (even Lesbians) do not like feminine men, let alone want to make one their house husband.Even feminine women and stay at home moms are criticized by society today. What will we see? Some things we see already. Women will not put up with men who cheat or even go out drinking with their pals. They are financially independent and will just get a divorce. Hence, the higher divorce rate.

Other women don't even bother getting married. If they want a child, they hook up with a man and kick them out when they are pregnant. They then take him to court to make sure he pays his child support or society will throw him in jail. Women like this call men a "wallet". I know men who work two jobs just to pay child support and live like paupers. We will see more and more of this.

We will also see men leaving jobs to follow their wives when their wives are promoted or take leave to raise the kids as their wives will make more. We will see men trying hard to save their marriages. Women will therefore make more and more of the decisions and men will have to like it. The male approach at work (assertive, loud, aggressive) will be less valued than the woman's approach (nurturing, caring, team building, understanding of family issues). Women already own the majority of small businesses. These trends will only grow."

-It is important for men to understand what matriarchy means and as such realize that we have no obligations or enfranchisement in supporting it. In fact we are subjugated to quite the opposite. There is no stake for men in any of it. Men must look out for ourselves as a separate class and toward the ends of our own self interests and not that of a prospectful symbiotic relationship with women as members of the family and lives of our children.

In Great Britain it is no longer required that men be listed on the birth certificate of the child. I see this as a step forward in Independence and Liberation of men from women's families and women's children. There is liberation in being downgraded to sperm donor. Men owe women, women's families and women's children nothing. The only thing men need to look out for is ourselves.

The above reasons are why men should withdraw from commitment to women, to family and to the prospect of children or fatherhood. Even if a man is a father in the United States and the west it is considered a revocable privilege and not a right. The comment from the woman above demonstrates what women have done to marriage, divorce and family law. Men should not get married.

The good thing is that since these law changes and other mandates of female supremacy have been implemented marriage rates have been on a precipitous decline:

The graph below is a little DATED, THE SINGLE WOMAN BIRTH RATE IS NOW 42% OF ALL BIRTHS. It is important for men to recognize what is happening. It is important to realize that increasingly women are a separate socio-political and socio-economic class and that social, familial, political and even economic policies are made accordingly which serve to exacerbate, accelerate and reinforce these trends. Men must adapt in self preservation and seek Liberation and Independence from subjugation. There is no other choice. Yes, you can become a Men's Rights Activist and fight for change but in the meantime you must protect yourselves.

Here is a primer to warn men of the changes women have made to marriage and divorce law:

Audience Please Shout Out a Group You Hate...MEN of Course

2011-02-27T17:58:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptv15wYNH4c

Imagine for a moment if the men in the audience shouted WOMEN! WOMEN! Think about this for a moment and you will realize how far women's hatred and contempt for men and masculinity has gone. We live in trying times for sure.

Men's Rights Radio On Air March 1st 9:00 p.m. EST

2011-02-27T16:45:00.000-08:00

Be sure to tune in: HERE
An Introduction to the Men's Movement
Length: 2 hrs 30 min
Radio On Air March 1st 9:00 p.m. EST

Description:

Our debut show at A Voice for Men Radio. This program will give an overview of the men's movement, take as many right hooks at feminists and manginas as we can in an hour, let you hear exactly why the men's movement is growing, and why it isn't going to stop. Paul Elam, founder of avoiceformen.com and former Editor-in-Chief of Men's News Daily is your host. One listen to this show and you will find out why the New York Times, CBS News and Ms. Magazine all have their panties in a twist over the work of Mr. Elam. Strap in and buckle up for this one. This is A Voice for Men you have never heard before

Male Abortion Rights

2011-02-25T07:32:00.000-08:00

I received a question the other day: "Alright, how is it that the male's right to abort has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's right to her body?"

Ethical and moral reasoning aside, being that abortion is legal men should have Rights and equal protection under law to reach the ends to which abortion accomplishes for women. Equal protection under law is paramount.

A man has the right to abort and a woman can choose to do likewise or not. Male right to abort is not about a woman's body but rather in MOST ALL cases the implications, implied responsibility and ramifications addressed by the female right to abort which has more to do with the body of the child, conception itself and the effect thereof rather than "a woman's body". It should be made clear that abortion addresses the ramifications of conception and not a woman's body, this is a feminist farse to detract from the principal purpose and object of abortion.

Conception is not something a man does to a woman, it is SUPPOSED TO BE a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility and as such, the mutual right to abort such responsibility or consequences of conception SHOULD BE AFFORDED EQUALLY. It should be understood that men don't "get women pregnant". For an unplanned pregnancy men deserve equal rights as women to reach the same ends that abortion reaches for women, that is, the termination of the ramifications, responsibility and supposed consequences of conception. A woman's choice in the matter is not affected by this right of men.

Feminists have challenged this notion in that if a man has "choice" this infringes upon the Liberty of women's "choice" and is a form of coercion which forces her to abort. This is a remarkably gynocentric viewpoint as it is currently male Liberty that is compromised in order to enable female "choice".

As is current her decision to keep or discard the child can be made regardless of the father's moral convictions or his wishes in regard to the ends of "personal health and life choices" to which abortion achieves for women. Coercion upon the Liberty of male "choice" is not even a question in our current system because currently men have no choices.

Women should not have default right to male commitment and resources in order to enable their "choice". Currently men do not have the right to our own "choice" of commitment or devotion of resources. These resources I might add are produced by our bodies, they are our property just as the child both pre and post conception is erroneously and wrongfully considered the property of the women. If women have the choice of complete ownership over the fruits of the labor of their body then men deserve the same rights over the fruits of our labor and sole property as well.

Women claim that it is their body and thus the child is their property and thus their choice. In reality the child is not their property and it is not entirely their choice. You can not have exclusive rights to property unless you have exclusive responsibility for said property.

Constitutional theory dictates that you can discern the difference between Rights and Privileges by understanding the delegation of responsibility. As such, sole female Right to abortion is a Privilege and not a Right as this female "choice" is currently financed by male responsibility. Furthermore, male abortion rights will serve to protect men from paternity fraud, some cases in which are perpetrated without intercourse ever having taken place:

"Sperm: The 'gift' that keeps on giving
Court dismisses man's theft claim against lover who kept semen" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/

“Equal rights for all, special privileges for none” -President Thomas Jefferson

To learn more about the difference between a Privilege and Rights in relation to property please take the time to study the free course below:

Professor Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s&

-------Synopsis:

Recently a historian I read about wrote that the founders of the Constitution believed that just a people have a right to their property, so to do they have property in their Rights. People can not mearly claim their Rights but when deemed equal and inalienable they own them as well. Thus the title to their Liberty was as sound as their title to their land. The question was asked "what is the difference between claiming a Right and actually owning a Right and how important is that difference, how are the two differentiated?"

Rights can be differentiated from a Privlege by understanding where responsibility for property is delegated.

For instance abortion is not a Right but a Privilege because responsibility for the Privlege women hold of sole property rights to a child is placed upon men to bear. Only if men have an equal right to abort responsibility, ownership or consequential results of conception of said property as well would abortion become a Right and as such equal protection under law be established.

Suffice as to say that at this point conception is seen as something a man DOES to a woman rather than a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility and therefore equal property rights to a child are not afforded to men BOTH pre and post conception, as such the equal right to abort such responsibility is not afforded equally. Men actually have no paternal rights to children nor our bodies and thus fruits of property beared forth by its labor.

Combating Feminist Revisionist History

2011-02-22T05:49:00.000-08:00

Feminist have completely rewritten history so much so that it is tantamount to the Nazis winning WWII. Imagine then that throughout culture it was simply common knowledge that in the past, the Jews ruled over everything and were the oppressors of the German people. Good thing payback and discrimination was enacted against them the common German would think. It is not so different post feminist occupied America.

Something I've noticed that is lacking in the MRA community is a counterforce and confrontation to feminist revisionist history. I find that when you bring up present concerns with women or feminists as soon as you have a point they revert back to some imaginary time in the past and legitimize any injustice upon men, boys husbands and fathers as rightful payback for the years that women were treated like "slaves" and "animals".

Through women's revisionist history they have managed to make themselves out to be the victims of all humanity. It will take time to analyse and expose these things but it must be done. MOST ALL AMERICANS HAVE BOUGHT INTO feminist lies of one sort or another. Feminists are master manipulators.

----------------------------------------
Feminist says:

"YOUR LEGAL PROPERTY. You deprived us, women, of the right to divorce, own property, get custody of our children, denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves, legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us. You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations". You deprived us of the right to vote. You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

First of all women were not kept tied up like dogs. Chivalry, reverence and elevation of women was common. Jan 5, 1643 was the first recorded divorce in the American colonies. In the first record of a legal divorce in the American colonies, Anne Clarke of the Massachusetts Bay Colony is granted a divorce from her absent and adulterous husband.

You see, adultery along with domestic violence was forbidden. Legislation was enacted in the American colonies that outlawed domestic violence in 1641. It was not common for women to be beaten by their husbands. Women didn't walk around the town square bruised, injured with black eyes and broken bones. Would you like to guess which gender has always reserved the right to slap and scorn the other since the Victorian era at least...women.

Yes, husbands were considered the head of the household and solely responsible for the welfare and wellbeing of his wife and children. Men were expected to be the religious and spiritual leaders of their family as well. You come from a very sick place lady and your view on the world is entirely warped.

Upon female ownership of property, women and children were considered the core of society and as such inheritance was passed down to male offspring. A male with resources had a good chance of being a suitor to a woman who would accept his devotion to her in marriage. Men must work and provide money and all the needs and lifestyle he could possibly afford her and his children. Women owned plenty of family possessions which is different from property or business which was passed on through male offspring.

"denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves"

Women have attended schooling since the very founding of the American colonies onward. College was uncommon for the vast majority of people of both genders for a long time. There was no such thing as "high paying jobs". We were largely an agrarian society until the Industrial Revolution. I suppose we could have asked women to do this work but I'm sure most thought it improper for a woman to slave her ass off with arduous and intense muscular labor. Furthermore, why would a woman want to support herself, she has a devoted husband who would get down on one knee, offer her gold and jewels and support her FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE AND AFTER. Living by one's self, making a life for one's self alone and thus "supporting yourselves" was unheard of. Back then the relationship between men and women and thus the formation of family was sacred.

"Legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us."

Family income was always shared. Yes, the man was the one expected to make financial decisions for his family. Women have been in the workforce for quite some time despite popular belief, especially among the lower classes. Yes, a wife would bring home wages and her husband would make decisions on how best to use what they could pull together to support his family.

There were no products like you think of today, no major amenities NO CONSUMER CULTURE FILLED WITH GOODIES OF ALL KINDS. EVERYTING was made of metal, wood, glass, plant material or stone...EVERYTHING.

We are talking money spent for to provide for the basic necessities of the family. There was no strong and affluent middle class.

"You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations"

Your idea that rape was a common form of marital relations is absurd. If you mean that part of a wifes expected reciprocal duty to her husband was to be sexually available to him even when one is not in the mood for it yes, this was expected of wives.

JUST LIKE YOU, MEN HAVE A SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE. Our bodies need to release at regular intervals. Masturbation and spilling ones seed alone and onto the ground was considered vile. It is still deeply hurtful and humiliating for a man to go to the bathroom and masturbate or to do so to pornography when his wife is in the other room. How hard is it to lay on your side for him???

"You deprived us of the right to vote."

Actually Anti-Suffragism was a political movement composed mainly of women.

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

Men never denied women the right to vote....they never asked for it and when they did many women were against it..not men. Furthermore non land owning men could not vote either. Only those who owned land had the right to vote. Men gained suffrage and women gained it sometime later...when they asked for it.

Also voting was considered a family decision. Men and women were not separate socio-political and socio-economic classes in conflict with each other as we are now. It was one vote per family and men were considered the public speakers of their family. Men and women were virtually one back then. The family and the mated pair bond WAS the individual economic, social and political unit.

"You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

Murder of ones husband or wife has always been a capitol offense under law. As far as prostitution goes would you like to know the fate of young lower class men??? You prostitute yourselves so don't give me that argument. Try being conscripted as cannon fodder in war so men can provide you the territory and resources you demand we provide to you.

Women Prepare For Another Assault Upon Men and Boys

2011-02-21T22:53:00.001-08:00

USNEWS And World Reports:

"If proportionality is applied to high schools, up to 1.3 million male athletes could be sidelined"

By ALLISON KASIC
Posted: February 16, 2011

Earlier this week, baseball fans around the country rejoiced as pitchers and catchers reported for spring training. It's a safe bet that as the Major League season gets ready to start, many children will go to bed dreaming of becoming the next Cole Hamels or Andy Pettitte, leading their team to World Series glory.

Of course, most athletes won't reach the heights of World Series. Most won't turn pro and most won't even go on to play in college. Yet as a society we still recognize the benefits of athletic competition--from physical fitness to building leadership and teamwork skills. That's why recent developments in high school athletics are so disturbing.

The threat to high school athletics comes down to a question of how Title IX, the 1972 law that bans sex discrimination in educational programming, should be enforced at the high school level. A case study of Title IX enforcement at the collegiate level offers a cautionary tale.

Colleges are required to take Title IX into account in a variety of areas including the quality of facilities available to each sex, scholarship amounts, and participation rates. It is the last area that has caused the most controversy.

In 1979, the Office for Civil Rights developed a three-part test for schools to demonstrate Title IX compliance regarding participation rates. Yet only the first test—the test known as "proportionality," which requires that a school's athletic programs' gender ratio is proportionate to the overall student population (i.e. if 57 percent of the student body is female, then 57 percent of athletes must also be female)—provides clear cut numbers. In fact, the proportional gender quota was declared a legal "safe harbor" by the Department of Education in the 1990s and has been the only measure to stand up in courts over the years. It is no surprise then, that proportionality is the enforcement measure of choice for schools.

With rising female enrollments (women make up 6 in 10 undergraduate students nationally), schools are left with two routes to meet proportionality's demands: add women's teams or cut men's teams. The route of cutting men's programming is often attractive as it also reduces schools' spending on athletics, which is even more attractive in a down economy. Just last month, University of Delaware and Bemidji State University cut men's programs.

Those cuts are part of a significant historical trend: a 2007 longitudinal study of NCAA athletic participation data confirmed that over a 25-year period, opportunities for men have declined. From 1981 to 2005, male athletes per school declined 6 percent and men's teams per school dropped 17 percent. Meanwhile, both female athletes per school and women's teams per school rose 34 percent. The total number of women's teams has exceeded the number of men's teams since 1995. It is great to see more opportunities for women, but there is no reason that such opportunities should come at the expense of opportunities for men. Using Title IX in such a fashion flies in the face of the antidiscriminatory spirit of the law.

Now, a new effort is threatening to bring the strict proportionality standard (and the corresponding cuts to men's athletics) to the high school level. In November, the National Women's Law Center filed administrative complaints against 12 school districts claiming that they were not providing enough competitive opportunities for female athletes based on proportionality.

Proportionality's rigid standards have taken a toll on college athletics, and will take a worse toll if applied to high schools. In fact, adopting the three-part test in high schools in the current economic climate would be expected to sideline up to 1.3 million male high school athletes.

There are also serious legal concerns about applying the proportionality standard to high schools. Specifically, a high school following three-part test would be subjecting boys to disparate treatment without sufficiently probative evident that such treatment is needed to combat sex discrimination, which violates the equal protection clause.

Given all the problems with proportionality at the collegiate level, it seems imprudent to expand the same method of enforcement to the high school level. In addition to being unfair to many high school athletes, such a move would also require significant government resources to fund investigations of school districts. At a time marked with massive budget deficits, such investigations hardly seem like a wise use of taxpayer dollars.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/16/title-ix-enforcement-could-devastate-high-school-sports?s_cid=rss:title-ix-enforcement-could-devastate-high-school-sports&utm_source=BIHealthNews&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=MoggySocialMedia

A Personal Letter To An MRA

2011-02-21T22:39:00.000-08:00

Ryan, though Men's Rights and Fathers Rights is real, it is a real challenge we face, we have to remember that in our personal lives relationships with women ARE possible.

As compared to many, the challenges you face are two fold because of your personal history.

Though in our lifetimes we may never receive equal rights on a larger scale and as such this preclusion transcends into the personal realm, we have no choice but to establish as much personal sovereignty and trust with the right woman as possible.

We can not just give up. Though the forces of good are used against us and the tyranny of the State reigns upon us, there is at least hope, there is at least a chance that men can share our feelings and position with a woman and trust in her not to destroy us. The risk is great but it is better than the alternative.

Women hold ultimate power in the family and over many things by law. Oppression has plagued man kind since the beginning. Though women hold more Rights and representation in the realm of the political, social, economic, in education, healthcare, judicial, family and marriage law, paternal rights, conception and reproductive rights and in general are placed before men in all matters I hope someday to find the right woman and believe I will be brought to tears when I tell her how terrified I am of what can be brought to bear upon me by my slave status, lack of rights to my body and lack of paternal rights to my children. I am terrified of losing my children like my father was taken from me and like my brother lost his child. I hope to find an honorable woman, draw a line around us in the sand and defend what we have with my life.

We can also make prenuptial legal agreements with women to arbitrate the terms of a marriage though they are not always honored by the courts. Ultimately we do have a choice though. I know that I do reserve the choice to abandon my obligations as a slave and to gain some form of control over my body and I am willing to pay the price to do so. I am willing to go to jail to preserve my Liberty, Independence and Freedom.

I hope that Men's Rights is a source of wisdom and as such a source power for you in your life. Enlightenment as to our position as men in society and in biology is important for men to know, it is empowering.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that as men we face many challenges to obtain equal Rights and representation in society in all realms but our consciousness of these issues can be used to make our lives better. I also mean to say that as men, we are in this together. None of us are alone in this. Struggle is the nature of life. I know that good men like you and I can not give up. Good men like you and I have to go on. We are all in this fight together.

Professor Walter Block On Sexual Discrimination and The Pay Gap

2011-02-14T22:56:00.000-08:00

The example of the cows and single bull is something I do not quite agree with. It is not that "men are not needed all that much". Human selection culled out the variables ourselves to select the traits we see as "stud" and seek to cultivate in cattle.

More men are needed than women because male genetic diversity and male variables are needed to ensure our selective adaptability as a species. As such, 107 to 110 boys are born or conceived to every 100 girls. A homogeneous population sired by a single man is extremely vulnerable because the male variance is not present. Never the less, the culling process of which traits and variables are adaptive takes place through the male, the Y.

Women need to understand why they are represented heavily in the clustered mean average.

However I do understand why he had to present this information in a self deprecating fashion i.e. "men as natures crap shoot". Women have forbidden open conversation on these things within the once sacred sanctity of our institutions of higher knowledge. Such things hurt their feelings.

Women demanded and obtained the resignation of the President of Harvard University when he presented this information. Women then demanded 50 million dollars to promote and hire women only. Then they replaced the President of Harvard with a woman and former Women's Studies feminist leader. We all know that women lack reason and as such opinions are not tolerated because female morals and values are centered around the subjective self. Freedom of speech is born from objective male moral reasoning.

"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"

-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

These are the things that happen through the manifestation of female social and political agency. It reminds me of the comment I received from Julie in the debate with a feminist two posts down. Though women may not be as consciously aware of their gynocentric nature as her, never the less Julie reveals something important to understand about the essential nature of females.

"It’s a fact male! We are much better than you! We are the center of humankind, the first sex.

Ok boy, let’s just return to the fundamental instinct of Gynocentrism. This is something you must understand because it’s the key of every thing, the crux of it all. Since We have a greater biological value than you. Since every fucking culture on this planet agrees that We deserve that you DIE for Us. We obviously also deserve a superior status, priviledges, deference, etc. We deserve that you serve our needs first. This is a smaller sacrifice than dying after all. So, call it a ‘Princess complex’ if you want but things will remain the same: We are your biological Superiors – period- and you will never ever be able to do anything to change that! You are here for two things: moving DNA around for Women and serving Us.

Keep it in your mind, you will NEVER be our equals, not even in your dreams. Nevertheless, I think you deserve fairness, respect and gratitude for what you are doing for Us" -Julie

Male Leadership and Female Submission

2011-02-13T12:51:00.000-08:00

Speaking of such things, like many, I picked up from American culture the disdain and distrust of religion, the bible and God.

As I get older I don't discount any of it but search for meaning instead. When the bible says submit to your husband it simply means you are submitting to his submission to you. It means you trust him, have faith in him, his judgement and abilities and will follow, encourage, nurture, believe in him and support him.

A good leader and man will ask you how you feel about something and if he respects you he will value your thoughts, feelings, input and will seek to take them into account to make his decision. If a man honors you he will also consult you for your advice and values your opinion.

As in all relationships and group dynamics there are leaders and followers. Men seek to earn the right to be a woman's natural leader. It is an honor to him. Remember, he is serving you. Leadership is service. When you allow a man to lead you validate his submission and commitment to you.

A woman who contests him for leadership undermines his confidence and weakens him. It weakens your relationship. A woman who shows trust and faith in her man and believes in him can bring a woman and her man a long way together.

Women have the tremendous ability to inspire men to greatness. I know personally that when a woman believes in you, and has faith in you she can make your chest swell with motivation, confidence and pride. For the right woman there is nothing more a man wants to live up to but her.

Men will strive toward great things when there is a woman who inspires him through submitting to his submission to you...his leadership.

Your love, respect and faith in him is his fire within : )

Note: The above video was produced by a segment of the MRA who has a lot of good and productive and some bad and destructive messages. Although I disagree with some of the things they put out you have to pick the good from the bad. I also think that some of the way they express things is meant to express and vent male anger and hostility at our current state and condition. The message in this video however is consistent with something I believe will help young men, especially those raised by single mothers.

Debate With A Female Supremacist

2011-02-11T18:59:00.001-08:00

-"We see what the male moral subjectivity and “logic” has accomplished in the forms of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and so on."

Per my previous statement you mean male objective morality unless you mean that men as a whole overwhelmingly present subjective moral reasoning. You base your whole basis of understanding of objective morality on the moral constitution of no more than 8 individuals. Just because men demonstrate objective moral reasoning does not mean that all men are moral. Your statement is a strawman argument and non sequitur...try again....Again, you prove my point i.e. the subjective relativity of female morality and in this case the projections of its thought process. If you notice, the form of alternative structure that women come up with on their own within feminist circles is that of wican goddess worship and thus a projection based upon the subjective self. Overwhelmingly female devised religion does not produce an objective and external goddess for which they themselves are subject to but rather profess and worship the self as the goddess, your self included. This has also been refered to as "The Devine Feminine". This is to be expected based upon evident aspects and expression of her nature in other realms of her subjective reasoning process, associated gynocentricity and resulatant moral ethos.

Furthermore, these men gained power through the subjective, morally relative gynocentric central ethos of the female in order to transition the sovereignty of the family and the mated pair bond as the core of society to at first the gynocentric nature of the female and consequently the control of State and working industry. If it were not for women falling prey to their own nature, the Communist Revolutions in China, Cambodia and the former Soviet Union could never have happened.

"Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Communist luminary Mr. Karl Marx

The element that drives males to acquire such power, territory and resources is not the result of an essentialist element of androcentric nature but in actuality to meet the ends to which female gynocentric nature seeks for herself. Contrary to gynocentric female projectionist thought, the male does not do all of these things for himself, he does them for you. The Male's nature (which is supposed to be complimentary to the female) does not exist or has come about in a vacuum but rather it is your own nature through sexual selection that you have embodied in him. He is in fact everything you selected for him to be. It is your own gynocentric nature, when manifested with political agency that destroys the mated pair bond and transfers power to State and working industry.

A timeline of feminist thought which has risen as a prominent ideology right here in The United States:

Here are quotes from an early feminist and leader of Stalin's women's section of the Communist Party the prototype which has formed Obama's Council On Women and Girls, a council which has the same stated goals and thus effectual outcome of Marxist equality upon society.

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

It was by the use of the gynocentric all consummate all consumptious but most importantly, subjective reasoning mind of the female that centralized power was and is achieved. :

Female Gynocentricity leads to the centralized powers of State and working industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0

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

It is important for you to recognize the merger of female gynocentricity with State, and the merger of corporations and working industry with State that leads to totalitarian governments.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

If the tenets of these totalitarian governments and their central machinations were female it would merely result in mutual squalor for all which I will explain later in this writing. In fact these central machinations are achieved vicariously through the female to begin with.

As you can see and as you have already confirmed females do not care or focus on the objective but rather any means to acquire their subjective proclivities and requisites. Nothing matters to the female but to acquire these things by any means and yes as you have demonstrated even by the expendability of the male from the mated pair bond and the lives of their children.

Women don't believe in Independence, Liberty and Freedom. Inherently women do not believe in depending on themselves but rather a more dominant, more capable force either centralized through the power of the State (which they see as alpha or through the power of the collective through which they seek to defer their dependent tendencies upon in order to fulfill) or as is evident by female implemented marriage laws, the removal of Independence, Liberty, Freedom, Rights, property and children of the male. Yet again, the subjective moral relativism and gynocentric nature of the female presents itself : )

Both of these support structures women either naturally see or are convinced to see as a better alternative than the mated and mutually dependent pair bond with mutually dependent liabilities. No-fault divorce was implemented by females to relinquish themselves of their portion of liability to the mated pair bond while still being entitled to the males and likewise was implemented during the Bolshevik Communist Revolution and to some extent during the decline of the Roman Republic. Before no-fault and default female child custody men VERY RARELY divorced their families and if they did they still bared their liabilities and obligations to the female. Even today men VERY RARELY divorce their family and even less so when there are children involved. Females initiate 70+% off all divorce. Of the 30% of divorce initiated by men, very few if not most do not involve children. Women do this after an average period of 7.9 years (a predictable pattern) and do so to follow through on the unequal ability such laws present to them in order to spread and increase their genetic fitness. Men would do this as well if we likewise bared no liability to women. Conversely under patriarchy (unlike our current and growing matriarchal construct) men do not absolve themselves of obligation and liability to the female. Again, female gynocentric and subjective moral relativism presents itself : )

-"I think Matriarchy is favorable to patriarchy, but you know I’m biased!"

Matriarchy by definition amounts to men not being a part of the family and in the animal kingdom it is likewise. Polyandry in such a structure is so rampant to the point where men do not even know who their own children are. You will notice this is a prominent aspect of the most definitive matriarchal communities in the United States, the African American community. If matriarchy is implemented men naturally feel, nor do they have obligation to women or their own offspring. In one of the only matriarchies that survive today men live with their mothers and marginally invest in the offspring of their female relatives. For the most part however men in matriarchies do not produce ANYTHING AT ALL.

Here is a picture of a matriarchy:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/090619-fathers-day-2009-no-fathers_big.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090619-fathers-day-2009-no-fathers.html

You can see that they live a rather primitive life with no modern implements THAT MEN PRODUCE anywhere to be seen. There is a tractor tire that is cut in half on the ground in the background and the scattered leavings of the prosperous patriarchies around them. The only reason this matriarchy has been allowed to survive is owed to the surrounding patriarchies having not come in conflict with them for territory and resources. Matriarchies do not survive long. They consume themselves, through female gynocentric agency, associated resultant polyandry and thus any semblance of their own enfranchisement and means of production through the male competitive echelon : ). Women simply do not produce anything and furthermore do not know how nor do they need to in a properly functioning patriarchy, how's that for "oppression". In females, the propensity for external demonstration of selective variables, associated utility of such, nor the associated competitive echelon that accompanies it exists at all and thus you have a society that lives in squalor.

-"It is My wish that Women realize their innate power and likewise realize how rewarding male submission is"

Submission??? You mean slavery....females are not capable of leadership in this regard nor morally objective thinking..Females are capable of no more than succumbing to their gynocentric, all consummate and consumtious nature. Their leadership would be brutal and fascist and yes amount to slavery. Simply take a look at the laws that women lobby for and create : ) Women are capable of nothing more than attending to their own requisite needs of THEIR OWN survival and that of what they believe are THEIR offspring. To females, yourself included males are nothing more than a means to an end.

-(In reference to the forced resignation of former President of Harvard University upon upsetting the feelings of females within the once sacred sanctity inside the highest chambers of academia and intellectual conjecture) "Noooo, Mr. Summers made an ignorant, throwback statement"

No, what Mr. Summers made was an opinion. Again females are incapable of objective thinking. They think in terms of how something subjectively affects the self and as such freedom of speech is born of male objectivity. Women lack reason, all intelligent men know this.

"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"

-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

In fact it is your nature to delete this entire writing from your site for the same reasons.

"Overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population."

The above is what Mr Summers said and Mr. Summers has scientific data, g factors and other OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE elements of proof to back it up. The Dimorphic curve of variance shows males proportionally populate the top and the bottom of the curve. Suffice as to say if you are going to find the most talented, the most gifted most exceptional individuals the chance increases exponentially as you go up the curve that that individual will be male. I know that females have a hard time accepting this but it is a proven fact.

Again here is the curve:

Again here is more evidence of the numbers behind the exponential curve. Before you claim "patriarchy monster" and "cultural bias" or "gender is a social construct" the curve is proportional to the bottom percentiles as well:

More Nobels but More Dumbells, Why Men Are At The Top: by Helena Cronin:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin

Females have a MASSIVE inferiority complex. What women need to understand is that they are not men, they are not male and never will be. You are so gynocentric that you seek your requisites and follow your programed proclivities to the point of male nullification itself. Females have to understand that they are heavily represented in the clustered mean average for a reason, they are the constant for a reason. Likewise their chromosomes along with the associated carried variables reflect likewise. The 50 million dollars women demanded and recieved after a "patriarch" expressed his OPINION (based in fact) will do nothing to change this. What it will do however is reduce the net production of our science base and thus in the end we will succumb to a patriarchy who does not allow women's gynocentric and subjective understanding of the world interfere with their science base.

"There is nothing “average” about the X chromosome, especially when you have two of them. You would do well to read about X inactivation in Female adaptation to disease and environment."

The quantitative does not equal the qualitative. More X chromosomes means nothing in the mind of one with objective reason. Again this must be a product of your gynocentric consumptious and all consumate reasoning. Futhermore I am already well read on this subject. You are speaking to a dominant male and not the beta males you surround yourself with, you know, the ones even yourself are unattracted to. This is also why a social structure like the one you have built in your home will never exist on a grand scale. Again, your mental pathology precludes you from acting upon the normal sexually selective preference of females. Suffice as to say that the likelihood that you will reproduce is slim to none and if you do it will be with these beta males. By chance you do reproduce this inferior offspring (as defined by nature and sexual selection) and this offspring happens to be male you will abuse him as you do the beta males you are so proud of attracting. In this case it is very likely he will grow up to abuse females. Ask any criminal pathologist this question.

Besides I will place a good bet that you do not plan on reproducing because it will nullify the vacuous lifestyle you aspire to. The ultimate reward will be that your genes will be extinguished from existence. Furthermore if your offspring is male you will not raise him to be fit for spreading his genetic fitness but rather to exist in some sort of psycho-sexual femdom underworld of disturbed females like yourself. Again you lose, and again to your disappointment, he will likely develop your own pathology. If your offspring are female I can guarantee you will not be doing her a favor in gaining the attention of men IN THE REAL WORLD:

"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."

Anyway, to the point of your statement. What the X does carry is our base blueprint. All human beings are modeled from it. The X carries cross redundant back up mechanisms to repair damage to this base blueprint. Consequently the lack of selective variables carried through the X is the reason why females are clustered in the mean average of variance in EVERY measure of adaptive and selective variables. Suffice as to say that you are doomed to mediocrity as far as selective traits are concerned, intelligence being one of them.

-"the male is an expendable sort of experiment by nature; he is without a doubt the more disposable sex."

He is without a doubt the most valuable sex in maintaining genetic variance and as such the adaptive health of the species. You would like to believe that males are expendable to you. Again this is due to the innate gynocentric and subjective moral reasoning of the female and as you practice your central female ethos out in the open you will only serve to garner expendable beta males into your "stock". However much to your disappointment, male expendability is not the case outside of your gynocentric self as much as you would like to believe it. Nature ensures that there are more males born to maintain this value of males. Given your mental pathology you have certainly keyed in on male variance and the expendability of certain variants as a reason you are superior. By definition there is nothing exceptional about the female representation as the base blueprint, the constant. What is exceptional, valuable and precious by definition is variance. The males with the best variables (which are not determined by you believe it or not) are more valuable than ANY FEMALE.

"To assert the male brain is superior to the Female brain is chauvinist fantasy, however."

You are the one focusing on supremacy which I have concluded by other examples elsewhere must be an innate part of female nature to be preoccupied with. Your obsession with an oppressive patriarchy is nothing more than projectionist psychology. As such your subjective and gynocentric nature makes you unfit to lead. Not to be condescending but in terms of functional aspects females are more so a parasite than a host. You consume, you do not produce or provide anything to men nor society at large outside of the social fabric which you manipulate and latch onto in order to survive.

(The males that keep your company are beta) "Very funny, and proof positive you know nothing about Me or the lifestyle I lead!"

Non sequitur argument....disqualified. Try again. Though now you have to come up with a reason you are attracted to these men. This will be difficult for you so you will have to lie on this matter or come to terms with your mental pathology. Again fundamentally as referenced from the whole of the female population and sexual selection itself the female is not attracted to them.

"I invite you to realize that the above is only a partial list (of female inventors.)"

Fine, I am willing to agree there are exceptions to the rule. The fact that men are MUCH more suited to the intelligent utilization of resources is the rule. I know this from countless encounters with females in my personal life, my observations of where females predominate in the areas of higher education and my observations of the world around me. Females by nature do not know how to design, build, maintain or repair the world around them which is built by the male mind. Nor do they have the motivation to. Females by nature do not produce. You are more so a parasite upon the male and the associated things which men produce.

Females do not produce and have never done so to the capacity of the male. Again due to your gynocentric nature any resources you do acquire are spent upon yourself. You have been carried on the backs of male protection and provision for so long, the capability to produce is not represented in the innate ability of the female population. You are social creatures by enlarge and instead focus on "the people sciences" more than anything else. You can't stand the fact that you possess different apptitudes in such capabilities as men. This is why your sex demands Affirmative Action, Title IX, bribery in the form of female only loans and free ride scholarships in order to force numerical parity of representation in the hard sciences.

"Does the name Grace Hopper mean anything to you?"

No but it should. She is such an exception to the norm. I wish we could have done a FMRI scan of her brain. Very odd indeed. She married at 25 which is exceptionally old for her time and never had children. Given her male like brain and capabilities along with female hypergamous mating preference it is a wonder she married at all. Usually such females like her produce themselves out of their own preference for a mate:

See:

Furthermore it is likely that Ms. Hopper was exposed to inordinate amounts of androgens during fetal development. Her facial characteristics show many signs of male androgenically induced secondary sexual characteristics. She looks much like a man with makeup on: See:

-(In reference to the dimorphic curve chart) "Be that as it may, this chart (which has been around for a while) represents an old logic of IQ axis, blind to the fact that cultural evolution shapes the brain through belief systems"

Ahhhh yes the old gender and gender differences are a social construct. Dream on sister. The two genders exist for a reason. It is not to be superior, but to be complimentary toward the ends of our common felicity and sacred bond ordained by nature. Unlike the male the female is valuable for the simple fact that she exists. She is the constant in sexual selection. Congruently, this nature of innate inherent value, a sense of primary importance or chooser as the constant in sexual selection seems to embody itself within the central psychological and fucntional modalities of the female ethos.

-"Also, what do you think about this graph?"

http://tinyurl.com/4pfv3ax

I think that different variants of the human genus very likely have differences and adaptive advantages. Black people for instance despite them denying it openly have superior athletic ability.

-"Other studies find a small female advantage on IQ tests. After controlling for sociodemographic and health variables, “gender differences tended to disappear on tests for which there was a male advantage and to magnify on tests for which there was a female advantage.”

http://tinyurl.com/49fl4md

This was not an IQ test, does not appear to be peer reviewed, has a limited sample size and does not represent the sheer mass of aggregate results from standard, more broad and nationally conducted tests on the ENTIRE population nor the sample sizes used to produce the aggregate results in question produced from IQ tests. I will agree that females may have different abilities in language and communication function. If my understanding of females is correct they may excel in the areas of choice of words and understanding of social context.

"(the males that are my "slaves") are more often than not are alpha males by definition"

And what is an alpha male by definition? If this is the case, females like you are merely an outlet for them to escape the dominant role and plethora of opportunities they have with a myriad of females other than yourself. You are by no means a superior when it comes to surmounting the base principals of sexual selection. They, in fact, may be numb from being "superior" (as you like to call it) themselves and are looking to pretend or play with the feeling and desire not only to find a female of equal selective value but exacerbate this desire by creating a disproportionate and even submissive interaction with a female. It is something they may miss IN THE REAL WORLD. Again, back to my point that you are not superior over them but merely appeasing them. They are over-qualifiers so to speak and far from inferior when it comes to the power you believe you actually hold over them.

It makes sense that they are either extreme betas in which case you are fooling or overriding your own biologically selective preferences for a male in favor of the predilections produced by your mental pathology in which case selectively speaking you lose and are surrounding yourselves with losers of the mating game which any female is capable of but will never manifest on a grand scale in some sort of female dominated utopia you have in your head. Otherwise as previously stated these males are extreme alphas in which case you are again not superior in the first place but serve as an appeaser to create an exaggerated dynamic based upon creating an imaginary lack of worthinesses they LACK IN THE REAL WORLD.

-"How many men understand how a DVD player or computer works, from front to back end, for that matter?

More men than women I can assure you of that. Would you like to challenge me to a debate upon the inner workings of a DVD player or computer system : ) Come on its ok....open your eyes.

-"Are you suggesting there are no Female computer scientists? Are you suggesting there are no Female engineers? Mechanics?."

No, but there are far fewer of them and this is so not only because of innate lack of female ability but lack of interest as well. As with many if not all things they will not be represented in the top percentiles either. As with everything else, nor do they want to be, or, sexually selectively speaking, nor do they need to be.

- (Affirmative Action "women first laws" and the myriad of female special privilege laws) "such special privileges for women serve to "counter-balance cultural bias."

Ahhh yes the vaunted imaginary patriarchy that serves to hold females down. Yes, that's it, the imaginary male monster. If it were about cultural bias they would simply remove the name of the person and gender from the entrance exam. You know as well as I do that it is not about merit at all but forcing "gender parity" and "equality". The only thing feminists seek equality in is the high paying professions and they seek to do so by force and not by female merit. As such, due to these policies females have accomplished nothing upon their merit. Furthermore if it were about fairness away from the mandates of an "oppressive patriarchy" and not forced superior or equal access to resources feminists would insist that there should be forced parity in such fields as car mechanics etc. Quite frankly If I were you I would be embarrassed. Typically male fields are higher paying fields for a reason...they produce i.e. the requisites to support life itself.

-"While there are of course abuses in any system, such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."

Well at least you admit these policies are abuses.

-"such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."

LOL these abuses invalidate "overall merit" itself LOL : )

Have a wonderful day : ) You have such a charming character! I wish you the best in your goal to enslave the entire male population. You are the perfect example of a feminist and likewise the proprietor of the innate female mindset of what I believe to be embodied in ALL WOMEN which has manifested itself into and has the goal of changing actual social, political and economic policy according to your gynocentric natures....a real disappointment your "equality" has been. I find solace in the knowledge that the foreign hordes will be here soon. Again as history has shown, matriarchies do not last long and historically speaking the development of such, through my studies, is correlated directly with the "death cycle" of great civilizations before us. http://saharaheve.com/blog/

Eek! A Male! by Lenore Skenazy: Wall Street Journal

2011-02-08T00:54:00.000-08:00

By LENORE SKENAZY

Last week, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, Timothy Murray, noticed smoke coming out of a minivan in his hometown of Worcester. He raced over and pulled out two small children, moments before the van's tire exploded into flames. At which point, according to the AP account, the kids' grandmother, who had been driving, nearly punched our hero in the face.

Why?

Mr. Murray said she told him she thought he might be a kidnapper.

And so it goes these days, when almost any man who has anything to do with a child can find himself suspected of being a creep. I call it "Worst-First" thinking: Gripped by pedophile panic, we jump to the very worst, even least likely, conclusion first. Then we congratulate ourselves for being so vigilant.

Consider the Iowa daycare center where Nichole Adkins works. The one male aide employed there, she told me in an interview, is not allowed to change diapers. "In fact," Ms. Adkins said, "he has been asked to leave the classroom when diapering was happening."

Now, a guy turned on by diaper changes has got to be even rarer than a guy turned on by Sponge Bob. But "Worst-First" thinking means suspecting the motives of any man who chooses to work around kids.

View Full Image

Corbis
Maybe the daycare center felt it had to be extra cautious, to avoid lawsuits. But regular folk are suspicious, too. Last February, a woman followed a man around at a store berating him for clutching a pile of girls' panties. "I can't believe this! You're disgusting. This is a public place, you pervert!" she said—until the guy, who posted about the episode on a website, fished out his ID. He was a clerk restocking the underwear department.

Given the level of distrust, is it any wonder that, as the London Telegraph reported last month, the British Musicians' Union warned its members they are no longer to touch a child's fingers, even to position them correctly on the keys? Or that a public pool in Sydney, Australia last fall prohibited boys from changing in the same locker room as the men? (According to the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, the men demanded this, fearing false accusations.)

What's really ironic about all this emphasis on perverts is that it's making us think like them. Remember the story that broke right before Christmas? The FBI warned law-enforcement agencies that the new Video Barbie could be used to make kiddie porn. The warning was not intended for the public but it leaked out. TV news celebrated the joy of the season by telling parents that any man nice enough to play dolls with their daughters could really be videotaping "under their little skirts!" as one Fox News reporter said.

This queasy climate is making men think twice about things they used to do unselfconsciously. A friend of mine, Eric Kozak, was working for a while as a courier. Driving around an unfamiliar neighborhood, he says, "I got lost. I saw a couple kids by the side of the road and rolled down my window to ask, 'Where is such-and-such road?' They ran off screaming."

Another dad told me about taking his three-year-old to play football in the local park, where he'd help organize the slightly older kids into a game. Over time, one of the kids started to look up to him. "He wanted to stand close to me, wanted approval, Dad stuff, I guess. And because of this whole 'stranger danger' mentality, I could sense this sort of wary disapproval from the few other parents at the playground. So I just stopped going."

And that's not the worst. In England in 2006, BBC News reported the story of a bricklayer who spotted a toddler at the side of the road. As he later testified at a hearing, he didn't stop to help for fear he'd be accused of trying to abduct her. You know: A man driving around with a little girl in his car? She ended up at a pond and drowned.

We think we're protecting our kids by treating all men as potential predators. But that's not a society that's safe. Just sick.

Ms. Skenazy is a public speaker and author of the blog and book, "Free-Range Kids" (Wiley, 2010).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073752925629440.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Men's Rights Radio Is On The Horizon.

2011-02-08T00:51:00.000-08:00

Paul Elam, (you may know him from CBS News or The New York Times news coverage) and many others have come together to launch a men's internet radio station. It is a magnificent move forward in the continued march toward intellectual coalescence and effectual advocacy for men and boys as a gender class.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/avfm-radio/

Congratulations to all those who contributed to this effort and those who will certainly benefit form it! We are moving forward!

Barbara Kay On Institutional Feminism and Misandry

2011-01-31T01:59:00.000-08:00

Barbara Kay On Institutional Feminism and Misandry

The quiet feminist takeover of society... the pernicious misandry... the militant and divisive zero-sum, win-lose assumptions of the ruling feminist movement... Unfair treatment of males as disposable. The apparently shocking notion that women are capable of violence.

‎"I consider feminism a very pernicious ideology. I think it is the ruling ideology of our time" -Barbara Kay

‎"President Obama spoke about creating jobs through building our country's physical infrastructure, investing in research and development, and reinventing our energy industry. Worthy objectives -- but currently these fields are dominated by men." -President of The National Organization for Women Terry O,Neil

Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD on Men's Rights and Interview with MRA luminary Mr. Paul Elam.

2011-01-18T03:35:00.000-08:00

She makes some very good points:

--"The post-feminist pendulum has swung too far to the other extreme. How is it just that a man can be forcibly removed from a home he paid for based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim of abuse? (Just do a search for ‘how do I get my husband out of the house.’) How is it just that one adult, by virtue of his sex, is financially responsible for another able-bodied adult just by virtue of her sex after the relationship ends and often for the rest of his lifetime? Even child support ends when a child becomes an adult. Why isn’t custody automatically presumed 50/50 in every state? Why aren’t women required to pay support for the 50% of the time the children are with their fathers (if the father is lucky enough to get 50/50 custody)? Why aren’t women prosecuted for making false abuse claims and violating court orders?"--

Somehow we must figure out a way to get women to support shared financial responsibility and shared parental responsibility. We must put our foot down and get women to take on adult responsibilities, obligations and liabilities. We have to make this law so that men can be treated as human beings and obtain rights over our bodies and the God given right to fatherhood as well. Women have no right to do what they have done and I expect them to take responsibility in changing it.

Full Article:
http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/introduction-to-the-mens-movement-interview-with-paul-elam-of-a-voice-for-men/

More On Female Supremacy and Matriarchy

2011-01-07T13:05:00.001-08:00

“Poison in, poison out” -Fidelbogen

There is someone over on the Reddit forum thread who thinks there is no connection between feminism and the fact that these sort of women support it and actively fund it (See: Next article below this blog post.) I highly doubt this guy has put the pieces together. Watch Hanna Rosin's Video at the TED Women’s Conference, go to the archive that I've provided and make the connection yourself. He clearly has outlined the connection that Femdom radicals have to the Feminist Establishment.

Femdom Radicals are the Feminist Establishment’s most ardent supporters. There is a reason they see those documents in the feminist archive as supremacist and leading to the subjugation of men…..it is because it does lead to it. The goal of Feminists and their associated cadre in Femdom is to CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. This, as any social justice person such as Karl Marx would tell you IS THE KEY TO CLASS EQUALITY (COMMUNISM) BUT ALSO CLASS OPPRESSION.

In Marxist terms, the bourgeois plans of feminists are crystal clear i.e. control the means of human production i.e. sex which is their biological mandate already but ALSO to control access to resources by owning the means of production of resources through totalitarian feminist law over male production and the transference of resources to females by way of men, directly in their personal lives and directly from the public treasury. Feminists also plan to usurp male production capacity all together. In fact, the economy has been homogenized toward the service sector and female dominated industry. Women now control 60% of the nations wealth and outearn men in all major metropolitan cities.

When females are the primary means of resource production themselves, when they own the means to male production (and thus transference of male resources without a fair social contract between men and women in marriage and thus divorce) plus own the means of human production i.e. total control over reproduction and conception the Matriarchy and dream of female supremacy will be complete.

WOMEN ARE LARGELY THERE NOW AND THEY WILL NOT STOP WITH THIS AGENDA. We as men can find solace in the fact that the system will end up consuming itself of its own means of production. Female supremacy and matriarchy is unsustainable.

I have no doubt that there is something in female nature that is all consumptious all consummate. If males served no other purpose than as food after mating she would surely consume us. It is this aspect of female nature which has been obscured as of late but men have known it since the beginning of time. If we continue on course with the dominate social, political and economic agency and agenda of women, the worst is yet to come before the system collapses or is conquered by a balanced culture with highly enfranchised, highly motivated males with families.

We all know the definition of Matriarchy: Men are not members of the family or the lives of our children.

China's Mosuo Tribe: The World's Last Matriarchy? Women from the Mosuo tribe do not marry, take as many lovers as they wish and have no word for "father" or "husband."

More on the matriarchal social construct Here

See: Father's Day....No fathers

Female Supremacist Organizations & Feminist Front Groups

2011-01-04T18:13:00.000-08:00

---"We support the institutionalization of the on-going shift of authority to the female sex as males become accustomed and increasingly eager to cover a secondary, support role, relying on female guidance. We promote open debate of this transition so that its effects can be properly absorbed by society and its benefits not held back by outdated legislature.

To this end, as soon as it becomes financially possible we plan to begin donating a part of our revenues to feminist organizations who aggressively promote specific, strategic policy changes."

-DreamLover Labs makers of the Dreamlover 2000 male torture device

I often do research into Female Supremacist organizations and their connection to the Feminist establishment.

I have noticed many feminists are involved in a type of lifestyle called Femdom in which they believe in "sole female authority"

Above is a statement from a website which produces electrocution devices designed to be placed and locked upon the male genitalia to repeatedly shock and electrocute the man so as to induce pain and discomfort in order to "train your male". It is to be used in conjunction with "animal training techniques" and "brain washing".

Interesting to me is their link to lesbian sex clubs which serve as front groups that operate legally to fund feminist organizations responsible for forming political and judicial policy.

The feminist rabbit hole and those that are attracted to its ideology go into a very deep and dark place indeed. Yes it is a dark dark place in the belly of the beast. What we are lucky enough to see illustrated on this site is something that most feminist front groups will not usually admit openly as this one did.

However, this is only the beginning. Dreamloverlabs.com (manufacturer of the DreamLover 2000 male torture device) is a primary sponsor of Club Pedestal which regularly holds events that involve the opportunity for feminists to express their deep seated mental pathology upon equally ill and disturbed males.

Feminization and sissification of men:

Male as dog humiliation:

Face crushing, foot trampling and humiliation:

It is scary and astonishing how many connections these organizations have to the financial capital money flow that supports the feminist political establishment. These women are involved in real political policy that affects our entire society and the lives of men and boys everywhere. Ultimately Female Supremacist and matriarchal social, political and judicial policy affects the wellbeing of women as well.

The interesting thing I find so relevant to feminism and Female Supremacist organizations is the real life connections these women draw to legitimize their ideology. Ironically enough they serve as a wonderful resource to illustrate and reveal some premises that detail the real life challenges men and boys face to overcome the adversity of Female Supremacy in our political system, judicial system, social system and Western culture itself. The connections and feminist agenda are clearly illustrated by documentation of the policies feminists enact into law. As you will see below, they love to keep records of their handy work.....

Feel free to view the archives and news articles feminists have gathered as trophies of their victories on the link below:

http://elisesutton.homestead.com/Articles1.html

Update: The link appears to be under maintenance to expand their archive but I've taken the liberty to download virtually every last article from the site prior to this and will upload it shortly to a shared repository for ALL TO SEE : )

Here we go: Enjoy my copy of their archive in the meantime while the Feminists update their archive. http://www.4shared.com/file/RHZrISIb/FEMALE_SUPERIORITY.html

NAWALT: NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT

2011-01-03T12:00:00.000-08:00

I found this guy on YouTube: Interesting stuff. I'm glad that men are increasingly speaking out about the injustices we face and how complicit women have been in implementing them against us. I started this blog on my own and it was months later that I started to realize that this was a growing movement and that there were so many others out there. This video reflects my sentiments in regard to something women should have more of, HONOR AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

HONOR AND ACCOUNTABILITY are masculine values I know but I'm hoping women can earn respect. I'm hoping women will take action and see themselves as more than passive beneficiaries to the feminist onslaught. Women and society are beginning to bear the consequences of feminism. Women deserve the men they are creating. Continued Complicit inaction will reveal the true intentions and character of women.

Channel Link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/barbarossaaaa#p/a

No Maternal Instincts

2011-01-01T16:30:00.000-08:00

She said she works in the "infant room" at her school...interesting. What has happened to our women and the family is quite interesting. I often spend a lot of time socializing, especially with women. So many women have told me that they don't want children. They tell me that children are a burden to women. I finally decided to video tape this phenomenon. I think it must have much to do with the fact that our birthrate and marriage rates are at historical lows and falling. Our birth rate, in fact, is below replacement levels This is a demographic nightmare which has deleterious and dire social, economic and political ramifications. I believe Western culture and civilization, particularly America, is in a state of precipitous decline.

I particularly liked the part where the young man says "That's good actually". I understand his motive but do not respect men for this. The socio-sexual dichotomy plays out into the larger cultural context and is an element of what MRAs describe as a Mangina.

Anyway, It's interesting how far along we have come toward implementing the ideals propagated by the American Cultural Revolution, The Sexual Revolution and Marxist Gender Feminism i.e. Marxist class "equality". The results are increasingly making themselves apparent and have not resulted in the utopian society women sought to create.

Hmmm "infant room"......

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

-Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

Favoring Women Is Good for Business

2010-12-28T14:31:00.000-08:00

The Mangina

2010-12-26T02:47:00.000-08:00

After reading a discussion on The-Spearhead.com I began to realize how important it is to define more clearly the phenomenon of the Mangina.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/21/all-we-have-to-do-is-stay-male-and-fail

We have to accept that male value in sexual selection is external and as such we are the primary variable from which to choose. This being the case men will always be a class divided in this gender war we find ourselves in. Mangina is the term MRAs use to identify men who support an anti-male stance because it is male biology to do so. Mangina is a very important designation for men who (because of our lack of inherent value and as the variable in sexual selection) take the side of feminists in order to be worthy of women and thus mating opportunity.

We will find ourselves on two sides of the fence for this very reason. Men like Garcia join the women’s team. He is adapting to be selected for by females. In MRA vernacular it’s called a “Mangina” though I believe we should take from Paul Elam’s dichotomy and begin to use something more palatable as we move forward. Anyway, the point is that men WILL NEVER organize as a collective class for our interests as women are able to do, it is simply biology at work… It is important that we define and recognize this phenomenon.

It is important that we begin to deconstruct the Mangina into respective components or “tells” so that the MRA can define and identify them. A major one being that NO CULPABILITY OR CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IS ALOUD IN REGARD TO WOMEN, this is always the most definitive give away. The mangina phenomenon is something unique to male biology in regard to sexual selection.

Moving forward it is important that we define the Mangina so as not to delegitimize our argument into ad-hominem when we identify such a man. This is very important.

More examples of a Mangina: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arjuna-ardagh/the-art-of-goddess-worshi_b_772726.html#postComment

Extract:

-"Even if you've never disrespected the feminine yourself, the first step is still to say "I'm sorry. I'm sorry for what we have done. I'm sorry for what my gender has done. And I come to you with a fresh start."

I think as male studies moves forward, men will be able to slowly but surely reconstruct history to reflect reality. A real holocaust has happened here and it is up to men to rebuild from the rubble.

“The first took place less than 100 years ago with suffragettes demanding the right to vote. At that time men moved from denial and ridicule, to violent opposition, to acquiescence and finally to support.”

Actually IN REALITY, the largest objection to women’s right to vote was OTHER WOMEN. Men never organized against women’s REQUEST to vote.

It is the job of MRAs to set the record straight and to develop concrete and factual historical curriculum in male studies. The male gender owes women an apology for nothing. Men are limping around wounded and confused from the gender war battle field. We need to collect our wounded and evacuate them to the small plot of territory called Male Studies to nurse men and boys back to health from the gendercide that has taken place against us.
———————————————————————————————-
Male Studies IS MOVING FORWARD! MAKE YOUR DONATIONS…..

By helping the Foundation for Male Studies with a tax-deductible gift, you will be personally responsible for making a change which will help our sons, fathers, brothers, grandfathers, husbands, and uncles, as well as the women in their lives.

Simply visit http://www.malestudies.org/donate.html and fill in the form to choose your 100% tax-deductible gift as allowed by law. You can also mail a check here:

The Foundation for Male Studies

333 Mamaroneck Avenue – 444

White Plains, NY 10605 USA

Dear Supporters of Male Studies

2010-12-22T18:26:00.000-08:00

From The Foundation for Male s Studies

Dear Supporter of Male Studies,

As the holidays approach, there has never been a better time for good spirit and for supporting a good cause - especially one that affects our entire population. The Foundation for Male Studies needs your help in putting an end to a serious, harmful trend in our society.

There is a rapidly-growing divide between genders happening right now. And it is everywhere—in our educational foundations, families, employment, our legal system and health care.

Looking at what is happening to boys and men, it is apparent that this divide is not limited to any one continent but now spans the globe.

Statistics paint a grim picture of what is happening to boys and men today:

According to the US Census Bureau, more women are going to college today than they did a decade ago, while the percentage of men attending college is decreasing relative to women. The number of females enrolling in college after high school increased by 20 percent from 1967 to 2000, while the number of men has decreased by 4 percent. This, combined with women graduating at a significantly higher rate than men, currently result in 1.5 million more women than men graduating from college each year. The psychological and sociological consequences of this have not been fully assessed, but are appalling and potentially harmful to our society;

More than two million adult males, over nine times the two hundred thousand adult females, are now in state and federal prison, according to the Pew Center on the States. This represents the highest incarceration rate along the industrialized nations;

The suicide rate for males is 300% higher than that of females, according to the National Institute for Mental Health. From the most recent data available, there were 24,672 male suicides and 5,950 female suicides during that year;

Boys regularly fail academically, repeat grades and are punished more often than girls in elementary and secondary schools; Boys are expelled from high school in record numbers, and in some districts have only a 50% graduation rate; Men accounted for 82% of the US jobs lost in the current economic downturn and now for the first time in US history comprise a minority (49%) of the nation’s work force—according to the US Department of Labor;

At last accounting, the National Institute of Health established that government grant monies at all levels devoted to the study of health problems (physical and emotional) unique to women totaled $3.4 billion, while those grants specific to general health problems suffered by both male and female totaled only $340 million;

International politics continue to require the service of American males in the military. Those who die or are maimed become an outgrowth of the attitude that males are disposable;

Our legal and family systems fail to honor the importance of men in families by awarding 90% of custody of children to mothers, effectively limiting fathers from family participation;

Boys now represent 73% of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and 76% of those classified as emotionally disturbed—according to the US Department of Education;8 out of 10 children being medicated for behavioral problems are boys. Often these drugs are prescribed to quash the kinetics of boys in schools, while the real problem lies in the schools themselves—geared to the learning styles of girls.
How can we start turning things around for the benefit of everyone in our increasingly global society?

A better understanding of boys and men in their physical and psychological lives will have a profound impact, and this is the fundamental objective of the Foundation for Male Studies. We are working to foster intellectually rigorous and groundbreaking research on the state of males throughout the world.

And by helping the Foundation for Male Studies with a tax-deductible gift, you will be personally responsible for making a change which will help our sons, fathers, brothers, grandfathers, husbands, and uncles, as well as the women in their lives.

Simply visit http://www.malestudies.org/donate.html and fill in the form to choose your 100% tax-deductible gift as allowed by law. You can also mail a check here:

The Foundation for Male Studies

333 Mamaroneck Avenue – 444

White Plains, NY 10605 USA

We are working hard to address the gap in scholarship and scientific research that exists between the study of males and females. We are investigating, reporting on and teaching about the state of males within disciplines including anthropology, biology, economics, education, law, literature, law, media studies, medicine, political science, psychology, public policy and sociology.

Some of the crucial projects The Foundation for Male Studies is planning or actively working on:

Dr. Judith Kleinfeld's US study of Alaskan youth, No Map for Manhood revealed severe difficulties in the life-coping skills of boys graduating high school. The Foundation for Male Studies seeks to create educational programming to reverse this trend;
To organize conferences that bring scholars together to create courses and programs at colleges, which will increase our understanding of the educational and life needs of men and boys;
To create educational courses directed at changing public policy and achieving urgently-needed reform at schools and family courts;
To use Webcast technology to reach the greatest number of professionals, academics and researchers, and create a network of scholars and scholarship relating to the needs of men and boys;
To create studies that promote the understanding of fatherhood, and the place for males in the family;
To fund an international symposium that will lay the groundwork for the creation of a Male Studies Department or Chair at a major educational institution;
To fund the creation of department of male studies at a major educational institution;
To fund the creation of a Chair of Male Studies at a major institution of higher education.
We face significant challenge to carry out this work. Getting the attention of universities, professional organizations and corporate and philanthropic organizations worldwide is a daunting and costly task.

That is why we desperately need your help.

Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan once wrote: “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” This remarkable statement is one example of the views of those committed to the hatred of males. Such voices are already inside the very institutions we trust. Matters are not improving.

Please send us your gift in any amount. Whether $5,000.00 or $5.00, your gift will be wisely invested in meeting enormous and crucial objectives.

Simply visit http://www.malestudies.org/donate and fill in the form to choose your gift online. You can also mail a check here:

The Foundation for Male Studies

333 Mamaroneck Avenue - 444

White Plains, NY 10605 USA

We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, so if you donate before December 31, your gift is fully tax-deductible for your 2010 tax returns as allowed by law.

Looking Forward,
Edward M. Stephens, MD

Breastfeeding and Male Development

2010-12-22T00:43:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article (link below) that indicates breast feeding helps boys brains develope in ways and proportions that are different from girls. It shows that breast fed boys make better grades in school. I'd like to know more about this. The same variable was not found to be a correlated with girls.

I've also read studies which show that boys whom come from fatherless homes fair worse in school than girls from fatherless homes.

Combine such factors with all the special programs, funding, Affirmative Action + Title IX policy for girls and you will have the current results i.e."The Boy Crisis" in academic achievement.

We also need to look into the rise in Autism and other factors.

The Y chromosome is susceptible to mutation and as such it is more vulnerable to environmental toxins, endocrine disruptors, dioxins, synthetic and phyto estrogens along with other toxins. All these things have had severe detrimental effects upon males.

Sperm counts have declined 40%! The human species is well on its way to extinction.

The female XX is our base blueprint. It has cross redundant backups to prevent damage to this.

It is my contention that if we do not focus on male health and factors which affect males and the Y chromosome there will be dire consequences to the human race.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/12/20/Breastfeeding-linked-to-better-grades/UPI-75281292895623/

Women Devote All New Heathcare Funding To Themselves

2010-12-21T00:16:00.000-08:00

A Syndication from Yahoo News:

Does Obamacare discriminate against men?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously told the American people that Congress needed “to pass the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] so that you can find out what is in it,” and with each passing day Americans are learning more and more about what their government has planned for them.
Among the many expressed frustrations of the new health care law’s opponents has been the addition of more unwieldy bureaucracies to the already bloated federal government. The massive law creates 159 new government agencies.

Of the many new boards, agencies, and programs the law creates, those implemented for the benefit of women are among the most common, a fact some say renders the law inherently unequal.

There are at least 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women while there is not one office for men or male specific ailments. Men’s health advocates long have pushed for an Office of Men’s Health to act as a companion to the Office on Women’s Health, established in 1991. Instead of rectifying that disparity, the new health care law intensified it.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, has been critical of Obama’s gender policies, charging that his administration has pushed initiatives that favor women over men. According to Roth, the health care bill was no different.
“[The women’s] lobby is very well funded, active and vocal. It is really paradoxical because women in many ways are doing better than men, so for example, if you do a search in the health care bill there is not one mention of ‘prostate’ and are over 40 mentions of ‘breast’ and men are tax payers, they should get equal health treatment,” Roth told The Daily Caller Hadley Heath, health care policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, said that women got more consideration because it was politically expedient.

“Women came out big in 2008, and they were a very big voting bloc for [Obama],” Heath told TheDC. “Women as voters really care about health care, health reform because we often make decisions for ourselves, our families and dependents about health care. So clearly this is an issue that is important to women, women are important as voters to any politician.”

Roth stressed that the high number of women’s agencies and lack of corresponding men’s offices was not just a symbolic display of inequality, but one that would have real world repercussions, namely in the distribution of research funding.
“What is interesting is that all these offices for women in the health care bill, that generates grants for research of women’s health issues,” Roth said. “So it is not just that they have those offices, but those offices are accompanied by pots of money for research. So it means that they are skewing the research in favor of women over men.”

Scott Williams, vice-president of the Men’s Health Network, told TheDC that women have done a fantastic job raising awareness for their health concerns and have left men in the proverbial dust. Williams believes that much of the blame for the lack of focus on men lays squarely at the feet of, well, men. “I think for years the women’s health movement and women’s health advocates have been a lot more effective than we have as men’s health advocates,” Williams said. “They certainly beat a louder drum than we do. So I think the onus is on us to make more noise but I think it is also a lack of awareness around men’s health issues in general.”

Williams added that while the current agencies are doing good work, men’s health needs more attention.“People don’t understand that men on average live about 5 less years than women. That 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women in their lifetime will be diagnosed with cancer. That men lead in 9 out of the 10 top ten causes of death. When you look at the data and the facts it is really not part of the debate in health care and I think those are statistics and facts that need to be brought to light,”
he said.

But men’s health advocates are cheering any victory they can get. Williams said that one of the most exciting pieces of legislation passed this year was the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) because it created an Office of Indian Men’s Health to mirror the existing Office of Indian Women’s Health within the Indian Health Service. Advocates see the Act as the first step toward their larger vision of an Office of Men’s Health, which Williams believes would rectify some of the perceived neglect of the Obama administration towards Men’s health issues. “The administration can easily fill this gap by creating an Office of Men’s Health at HHS, and should do so with the utmost speed,” Williams concluded.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/doesobamacarediscriminateagainstmen

Women Declare Victory Over Men.

2010-12-15T14:45:00.000-08:00

Here are the largest growing jobs projected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to the year 2016. ALL of them are WOMEN'S JOBS except one or two according to Ms. Rosin but that's ok, women are working on expanding Affirmative Action and Title IX to all the S.T.E.M. fields (Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics). The feminized economy is here. Women are all excited that they are now the majority of the workforce and that men have no jobs..Go figure. I guess they got what they wanted aye?

Why women believe that the above jobs being the top growing jobs in the country is a good thing I don't know. I'm pretty sure it is because they don't understand economics. Below is our trade deficit which is much larger now than in (2005):

I'm not sure women understand what a trade deficit means but in short it means that we don't produce anything of tangible value to offer on the global market. Women are excited about all this and the fact that men are out of work but they have little clue of what this all means for the future of our country. Women are excited about the homogeneous service sector feminized economy but they don't understand the economic impact of marginalizing the nations men.....strange isn't it?? They don't seem to understand what the production of goods and tangible products is. Women are welcome to service everyone in our service economy, this is fine by me. I only wish with as much political agency as women now have that they would have directed the government to do something that would have gotten us out of this. After all, our government does what ever women tell them to do.

There is really nothing we can do now. Women have announced they will get us out of this mess and that men don't have to produce anything any more. They insisted that the Stimulus Package be devoted to them....and it was... There is really nothing men should do except drink beer, watch sports, play video games and collect unemployment until women rescue the economy as they say they will.

Ms. Rosin was right, women lied to us about "the wage gap". They have been out earning men for years. It is only when they decide to have men take care of them does the gap show up at all.
More on the wage gap HERE.

Besides, women have Affirmative Action in job hirings and college admissions anyway.

She was also correct about male college degrees earned. This is a good thing according to Ms. Rosin.

She also mentioned that women's "empowerment" has affected marriage....indeed it has Ms. Rosin, we now have the lowest marriage rate in American history:

....and the highest single mother birth rate in American history:

(Sorry the graph is a little dated we now have a 40% single mother birth rate and growing with significant trend momentum)

This is fine by me, women are getting exactly what they want apparently. Our birth rates have dropped below replacement levels anyway.
None of this is sustainable. In other words the United States is in grave danger.

In the meantime, I suggest we continue to liberate ourselves from the female dominated matriarchy we now live in. No alimony, no child support to women and their children. This is the moment of truth! Women should now provide for men and our children in this new order or not form families at all.

If women form families they must now pay men alimony and child support should we decide to divorce them. Otherwise women should raise their own families. Men should NOW make a full withdraw from women and their families. We will not have to worry about that though because female hypergamous mating behavior will take care of that for us. Apparently, the more educated a woman is, the more money she makes on average. The more money she makes on average, the less likely she is to ever get married or have children...Again, this is fine by me, this is what women want.

Affirmative action for women in job hirings and college admissions MUST NO LONGER BE TOLERATED. In fact, since it is the case that we now have separate and secular representation under law by gender in direct violation of The Constitution of The United States we should now create Affirmative Action for men in all fields of work or study which men are a minority.

Men need to continue to find independence and liberation from women and their matriarchal families. This means complete independence from female dependency upon men in any and every regard. True female independence and liberation is here!.....right????

The comments on the TED video are interesting. Men must now begin to mount an offensive while defending our rights and our wellbeing. THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING. From the comments, men understand clearly that women have finally proclaimed victory, and with it, "the end of men". Everything women have sought after has come true for them beyond their wildest dreams......Men must now liberate and empower ourselves as well, we must become independent from female dependency...anything less would be oppression and humiliating to men. Men's Rights will serve to compliment the end goal of women's feminism and everything women have sought to accomplish....mutual independence, dis-need, liberation from each other and self empowerment.
.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hanna_rosin_new_data_on_the_rise_of_women.html

There Are GREAT PRICES On Anti-Male Fleece Throw Rug At Bed Bath and Beyond If You All Want Some!

2010-11-26T17:33:00.000-08:00

There are GREAT PRICES on anti-male fleece throw rugs at Bed Bath and Beyond if you all want some!!! I like the one "Boys are Stupid Throw Rocks At Them". It is important that men and little boys learn how worthless they really are. They should all be beaten to death and trampled upon. What do you think?

Ok well, they don't go cheep, there is quite a demand for them.

David and Goliath® "Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them" Fleece Throw Blanket $29.99 ea.

Get them while you can, they are a hot seller. Women and girls can rest upon them, decorate with them or trample them below their feet. Single mother raised crush fetishists will love them as well!

http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/Product.asp?SKU=17856537

I was thinking of coming out with my own line of clothing and textiles. "Girls are stupid, strangle them" What do you all think???

I like the commercials where men, husbands and fathers are pigs, horses asses, donkeys asses, dogs, dragged upon women's heals, thrown into garbage cans and stabbed in the head with knives, vacuum cleaners shoved up their asses and blenders grinding out their brains. High healed shoes sure make the best cerebral hematomas. They are very fitting ads because for some reason this portrayal of men sells things to women like hot cakes.

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

Interesting our perceptions and place men, boys, husbands and fathers hold in the mind of ourselves, society and in the minds of women and girls. They sure do transcend these magnificent truths into popular culture don't they.

Enjoy: http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/end-of-men-discovered-feminists-rejoice.html

MORE COMMERCIALS FOR YOUR ANTI-MALE VIEWING PLEASURE!

UPDATE!

I've just been informed from an MRA that the product has been removed from sale due to numerous complaints. A thank you to Dawn Thomas for her tremendous efforts on behalf of men and boys. I am grateful for women like you Dawn Thomas!

A VICTORY! Paycheck Fairness Act Fails In Senate!

2010-11-19T19:54:00.000-08:00

A VICTORY! Paycheck Fairness Act Fails In Senate!

First I would like to say that as women are now as separate and secular class, with separate and secular representation under law and in violation of The Constitution of The United States, EVERY individual woman should take personal responsibility and accountability for what is being done in their name as a now separate gender class. I hold each and every women in this nation directly accountable for the actions of The Council On Women and Girls and for every gender secular law and policy in this country.

This is fantastic news for Capitalism, a free market economy, Freedom, Independence and Liberty! THIS IS A STUPENDOUS VICTORY AGAINST THE MARXIST GENDER FEMINISTS!

You see, the feminists want you to believe that the pay gap is measured by "the same job"

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

Source: American Association of (Marxist Gender Feminist)University Women
(Hmmmm interesting, I guess even the feminists tell the truth once in awhile)

The part that "remains unexplained" is 5.85 cents. Feminist attribute this to the sexist anti-woman male dominated patriarchy.

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

"Research shows that the gap arises out of a multitude of factors that reflect the individual preferences of men and women, such as occupational choice, time spent at work, and non-wage benefits, among others." -Independent Women's Forum

“The Paycheck Fairness bill would set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in a precarious job market. It is 1970s-style gender-war feminism" -CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS

Women already implemented "comparable worth" wage redistribution in Canada. They said that construction work was just as hard as maid work and had to be paid the same. The men quit their construction jobs to become maids.

It was a disaster and had to be repealed. Canadian women also forced employers to count every penny in wages and disclose them.

The wage gap when women's choices were factored out added up to pennies! If women pass this law here the free market will be destroyed. Wages will be driven down across the entire labor market. It will cause more downward pressure upon the middle class and wages will be driven down. It will stratify the labor market and force us all under the roof of the contract and temp companies.

The fate of our economy always depends on what women do next. Labor will become a class divided. I urge you all to see what happened when women did this to the Canadian system. Please have mercy upon your country women. The government will do whatever you say. You are the single largest constituency. Please God spare us from our women!

The Atlantic predicts that, if men don't bridge the gap and successfully integrate into a post-industrial society, more of American society will reflect the current situation in African American communities where women are the main breadwinners and decision makers who raise their children without men.

The sociologist Kathryn Edin spent five years talking with low-income mothers in the inner suburbs of Philadelphia. Many of these neighborhoods, she found, had turned into matriarchies, with women making all the decisions and dictating what the men should and should not do.

The women, she explained, "make every important decision"-whether to have a baby, how to raise it, where to live. "It's definitely ‘my way or the highway,'" she said. "Thirty years ago, cultural norms were such that the fathers might have said, ‘Great, catch me if you can.' Now they are desperate to father, but they are pessimistic about whether they can meet her expectations." The women don't want them as husbands, and they have no steady income to provide. So what do they have?

Edin thinks the most compelling theory is that marriage has disappeared because women are setting the terms-and setting them too high for the men around them to reach. "I want that white-picket-fence dream," one woman told Edin, and the men she knew just didn't measure up, so she had become her own one-woman mother/father/nurturer/provider.

The whole country's future could look much as the present does for many lower-class African Americans: the mothers pull themselves up, but the men don't follow. First-generation college-educated white women may join their black counterparts in a new kind of middle class, where marriage is increasingly rare.

FOR NOW AND IF WE CONTINUE ON THE COURSE THAT WOMEN HAVE SET:

Men, my Countrymen, my brothers, it is ok not to form families with women in our growing matriarchy.

Sociologists are worried that as we become a female centered matriarchy, female hypergamic behavior will remove men from the family.

This is in fact the case. I know this from my own studies.

Men need to look out FOR OURSELVES ONLY. REMEMBER MEN, YOU DON'T OWE WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ANYTHING!!!!!!!

LET WOMEN AND THE STATE TAKE CARE OF THE MATRIARCHAL FAMILY!

Mate with as many women as you want. Learn from men who live under matriarchy such as the African American community. Keep rollin playas!

Men MUST become liberated in order to complete the feminist construct! This is what female independence and liberation is all about.

True female independence is accomplished by lack of dependency upon men.

We should embrace this. This is what women want. It is what they have worked hard to accomplish for the last 45 years. It is what the Women's Party seeks by its political agency. If we can't be part of the family then we must fight for true Independence for men! Men should have nothing to do with the matriarchal family. Women own children both pre and post conception, women own their own bodies, women own the male body and thus the fruits of its labor even in no-fault divorce. DO NOT MARRY MEN! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PAY GAP WITH THESE VIDEOS:

A THANKS TO www.manwomanmyth.com

How's that Wage Gap Working Out For Ya Ladies?

2010-11-16T00:06:00.000-08:00

ABOVE is a picture from Time Magazine (Issue Nov 22 2010 pg.61) showing that women out earn men in 47 of 50 major metropolitan cities.

Time Magazine also says women control 51.3% of the nations wealth. This is only a partial truth. Women control 60% of the nations wealth.

After men die the fruits of our labor go to any "independent" woman we were married to.

If our wife is dead it goes to our ex wife of 30 or more years ago like my step-fathers social security money did.

The law states implicitly that women are invalids who are incapable of taking care of themselves, grown up children. This is why men have no rights to our bodies and the fruits of it's labor. This is why men have no right to be a Father to our children after divorce and are forced to support a woman and "HER" children.

Marriage is a commitment from a man to a woman. Women do not even bear a man children. We have no right to children both pre and post conception.

I'm glad marriage rates have declined to record lows since women changed marriage and family law among many other laws they've created for themselves:

I'm glad single mother births are at record highs:

I want nothing to do with the feminist matriarchal family. Women should support their own family. You all deserve to wallow in your gluttony and the matriarchal government husband State until you consume yourselves of your own means of production and the Republic is destroyed.

I'm glad the Stimulus Package was devoted to women.

I'm glad they have Affirmative Action "women first" laws in college admissions and job hirings.

I'm glad men have no property rights to our bodies and the fruits of its labor.

I'm glad we have no rights to fatherhood or rights within the marriage contract and thus no rights in divorce.

I'm glad the generation of fatherless boys are being turned out into our society.

I'm glad men are a minority in colleges and the ranks of male acquisition of college degrees is on a precipitous decline.

I'm glad male participation in the labor force is on a continual decline and our prisons are overflowing with the results of errant masculinity.

Our young men are turned out into a society where masculine culture has been destroyed. A society where males are raised with sole female authority at home and at school.

I'm glad male suicide has tripped since 1970.

I'm glad marriage is on a precipitous decline.

I'm glad the single mother birth rate is at an all time high of 42% of all births and growing.

It will all speed up the demise of my country toward a new beginning. It will be men who will rebuild from the rubble. But it will be men who suffer, die and shed blood to do so.

It makes me wonder how that Wage Gap is working out for women...quite well it seems..

Want to know the truth about the wage gap? POP QUIZ ladies, do you know how The number for the Raw Wage Gap is generated? Enlighten yourselves.

2nd. Annual Male Studies Conference: Men Form Ranks For Round 2!

2010-11-05T19:24:00.000-07:00

Good news, against feminist opposition, men are forming ranks for round 2! The goal.... to establish a means of defense for men and boys against the feminist war machine.

The Second Annual International Conference on Male Studies is set to convene at the New York Academy of Medicine on April 6, 2011. Paul Nathanson, PhD, and Katherine Young, PhD, will be there to discuss the negative affects feminism has had upon culture as well as the mainstream elements of the female supremacist movement and associated memes which have infected modern American culture.

This type of intellectual coalescence will soon become a formidable force against feminism and our associated matriarchal society. I believe perhaps that sometime in the future men may gain equal rights to property, education, business hirings, sex and conception laws, our bodies and our children. Perhaps we will also be able to restore the Constitution of The United States and the equal representation and rights of men and boys it is supposed to protect.

The Foundation for Male Studies is sponsoring the event, which will be co-chaired by Marianne Legato and Thomas Mortenson.

Dr. Legato is the founder and director of Columbia’s College of Medicine Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine. She is the editor of The Journal of Gender-Specific Medicine. A widely acclaimed author of works on men’s and women’s health, her most current book is Why Men Die First.

Mr. Mortenson is a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, DC., and the recipient of major national awards for contributions to educational research.

Other panelists will include Florida International University Professor of Psychology, Gordon E. Finely, Ph.D., who will speak on the need for a national fatherhood policy; and Michael Gilbert, a Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California Annenberg School and author of The Disposable Male, who will speak on the effects of job loss on men.

Paul Nathanson, PhD, and Katherine Young, PhD, will round out the panel. Both of McGill University, Nathanson and Young are the authors of a series of books on misandry, collectively titled Beyond The Fall Of Man. The first volume, Spreading Misandry examines the concept of misandry popular culture; The second volumn, Legalizing Misandry gives consideration to trends in law; volume three, Sanctifying Misandry, explores the roots of modern goddess movement. A final volume, Transcending Misandry, is upcoming.

In addition, the Foundation for Male Studies has issued a call for academic research and programs focused on the need “to reverse the downward spiral now effecting virtually all aspects of the lives of men and boys,” said Dr. Edward M. Stephens, founder and Chairman of the Foundation for Male Studies. “The Foundation is calling for papers from academics on how to best deal with increasing levels of male unemployment, depression, suicides, high school and college dropout rates.”

Scholars seeking to submit papers for the conference may do so by writing to Dick Elfenbein, email: elfenbein |at| malestudies.org before March 15. 2011. Or call 845-362-0893.

Visit MaleStudies.org for more information.

It is my hope that men will continue to form ranks as a political class in order to mount an effective defense against feminism. Representation for men as a gender class is ESSENTIAL in a time where women have made "the personal political" and enacted laws and policy accordingly just as they said they would. When they stormed the beach front of gender harmony at the beginning of "second wave" feminism they refused to negotiate. It was a clean sweeping victory for them but the time has come for action.

This is a battle between men-government-women and women-government-men. Gender relations and related laws and policy can no longer go uncontested by men. We must defend ourselves and mount effective resistance in order to defend our gender from further assault.

Of primary concern to me is how men will either be given equal rights in the family, to our children, our bodies and the fruits of its labor so that we may form a family again or failing this, how men can liberate ourselves from the matriarchal family, women and "their" children so that men may be independent from female dependency. The goal then would be to continue the feminist construct of independence and mutual dis-need and thus equal rights. True independence for women is independence from dependency upon men, as such men will be equally liberated and independent.

United States Birth Rates At Historic Low.

2010-10-29T19:33:00.001-07:00

In 2009 the birthrate fell to 13.5 births for every 1,000 people—down from 14.3 in 2007—which set a record for the lowest rate in a century.-Newsweek Magazine

Interesting.... The end of the Roman Republic anyone? History repeats itself aye.

Do not let the government steal our women......Understand? Women are not the enemy, it is their relationship with the Government Husband and their hypergamous mating preference which has manifested itself by female political agency. I ask you quite sincerely to study the laws feminist organizations and related ferver and that of our Federal Council On Women and Girls.

I have found so many parallels between women's relationship with government and my own personal life experiences it is astounding.

At heart I really do adore women. God bless them they are such a blessing but I will tell you a story.

I stopped by a bar the other night with many beautiful college girls in their reproductive prime. Women are most fertile at 25. Anyway, two strange women on separate occasions walked right up and to me and told me to buy them a drink (sex on the beach). It must be a thing among college girls. The young males at that age are very beta and lack resources or status but must fork over drinks like you wouldn't believe. I wonder how many of these boys grew up in a single mother home? Anyway I told them "no thank you."

They liked being told no but I wanted nothing to do with them. Something hit me viscerally about this very interesting socio-sexual, socio-biological circumstance I found myself in. I believe perhaps women want to test if you're beta by arbitrarily demanding resources from men. God love them but I truly believe women are all consummate. Hmm unlike men, government can't tell women no....this is the problem.

Once I realized truly what was going on I looked around and realized an inordinate amount of college boys getting reprimanded and disciplined by their girlfriends over the course of the evening.

I intervened to help three young men that night. I told them women will be as demanding as you let them be. They will raise the bar to see if you'll break. Once they supplicate and dominate you they dump you for a dominate man. I think I helped these young men.

One girl came back around for another round of verbal interchange with her boyfriend and the guy took my advise. She changed her demeanor right away. Good for him. It really is tough living under a female dominated government and associated matriarchy. I am beginning to understand the writings of Roman men when marriage rates and family disintegration took place during the final days of their Republic as well. The intolerability of their women and associated rapid decline of marriage and birth rates.

I've said it before here but do you know where the expression "you can't live with them and you can't live without them came from" ???

Upon the dissolution of the Roman family, falling birth rates, female sexuality moving from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C....

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

"Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Wow, our birth rate in the U.S. is barely sustaining replacement levels.

So Quintus said the above in 131 B.C... It seems The Roman family really declined in the final century of the Republic--that is, the period from 146 BCE to 49 BCE when Julius Caesar was proclaimed sole dictator.

During the last century of the Roman Republic, no-fault divorce was introduced.

Following the complete end of Manus Marriage in the 1st century BC (100-1 B.C) and the emergence of Free Marriage Divorce, divorced ceased needing any reason, (No Fault Divorce).

Anyway, It's unfortunate....Unlike men, the government won't tell women no when they demand resources....It will be the death of this country if we don't stop this. I love women but they can be all consummate. They don't understand where the things around them come from. I really don't mean to be condescending. Perhaps they have as equally stimulating stipulations and postulations about men. I can tell you one thing though...feminism is certainly not it.

To me, feminism and female agency in government seems to elicit the worst of female and male nature. They form a relationship like no other that we as men can't compete with. Woman's relationship with Government Husband is unbearable. Her relationship with Government Husband is the most tortuous experiences for men to bear. It is an anguishing tyranny for sure. I love my country but I believe it is in grave danger and that we must do what we can to protect it. I don't like the division I sense in my country. I don't like what is in the air and pray that we can heal as a nation. I pray that we come together and make families again.....