Friday, January 30, 2009

Feminists demand a Women's Office at Cabinet-Level in the highest element of government!

N.O.W. and feminists urge Obama to Establish a "Women's Office" at Cabinet-Level in the highest office of the nation.

N.O.W Statement:

"Imagine an Office on Women in the Obama-Biden administration -- not just any old office, but one at the Cabinet level, putting women "at the table" in a very tangible way. We can make it happen!

Recently NOW helped organize a coalition of nearly 50 national groups which sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden urging gender balance in executive appointments and advocating the creation of this new Office on Women. This office would address not only the status of women, but also the many inequities that women face in our society"

Below is the Official Letter that is being sent to The President of The United States:

"This Office on Women should seek new ways to foster the full potential of tens of millions of women and girls of all races and from all walks of life -- through policies, budgeting, inter-agency coordination and special initiatives.

Because women, especially women of color, are differently affected by so many laws and policies -- from health care to the economy -- it is critical that women be taken into account as your administration makes key decisions. Women need an advocate at the policy-making table whose specific responsibility is considering and weighing in on the possible impact of these decisions on women's opportunities for advancement. A Cabinet-level office is the most effective way to accomplish this goal.

This office should address not only the status of women, but also the many inequities that women face in our society, our nation, and our world. The director should hold cabinet rank and report directly to the president. Establishing this office would be another historic first for your administration and a giant leap toward equality.

I also call on you to restore and strengthen the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach and the Interagency Council on Women, both of which existed under the Clinton administration but could stand a few upgrades this time around, and include both of these entities under the cabinet-level leadership of an Office on Women.

The women of the United States and the world are counting on your leadership to reverse the damage of the last eight years and move women closer to full equality."

Further more women's groups along with NOW are angry that Obama hasn't picked more women to his cabinet.

Though his cabinet choices are 5 women, 4 African-Americas, 3 Latinos, 2 Asians, 2 in GOP: This goes to show you the voracious appetite for power and greed!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Feminism has driven men, women and family apart. A Cabinet post created in the highest element of government for the benefit of one gender alone, laws and representation to the president for one gender alone or any race or religion alone will divide and destroy my nation.

I am afraid that with all the issues facing our nation my President made his first mode of actions and first executive order regarding abortion and next order the "FAIR PAY ACT". I am afraid my leader has the ear of special interest and is in their pocket. I am waiting to find out more about the FAIR PAY ACT to see if there are any inequalities by gender or by inequitable gender circumstance that gives women authority over that of the rights of men in such circumstance.

Men like the President of Harvard University, Dr. (Lawrence) Larry Summers are publicly executed for discussing scientific data illustrating human dimorphisms between males and females. This EXTREMELY intelligent man was relegated to the back alleys of our civilization. I am thankful that the situation was brought to my Presidents attention and Dr. Summers was taken under my Presidents wing in the highest office of our land. He has been given the most prestigious position in these trying times of Top Economic Advisor of the United States. I am so thankful for this. Free speech and private discourse in the highest of our chambers of academia has been outlawed by social order of the feminist party. Any man who makes scientific conversation on human dimorphisms is destroyed both publicly and personally. One need only to review FMRI and PET scans of the male brain and latest research journals to understand that our gender differences and dimorphisms extend beyond our physical gender differences. That indeed perhaps the male sex is different somehow and this difference may extend into our social construct causing differing choices and abilities in certain areas. That differences do not extend from the deliberate discrimination of women.

It is imperative that the voice of science not be hidden, outlawed or convoluted to suit the agenda of The Feminist Party. Men and women alike must stand together to defeat them. Our voices must not be silenced. To allow such is to support the infrastructure of any fascist ideology. What happened to Lawrence Summers is the death of liberty, freedom of thought and speech and the individual soverenty that is the hallmark of our founding beliefs as a nation. We must stand up to The Feminist Party and those who stand with them or be silenced and defeated. We must fight this. Do your part!

No one can make a greater mistake than an individual who did nothing because they could do only a little. I ask my country men and women, I ask my British, Canadian and European brothers in arms to remember what is at stake. I ask you now to fight with me!

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Prevailence of territory and resource aquisition simulators (video games) for boys and effect

Hmmm actual societal socialization structures for boys have mostly disappeared and suffer from lack of funding and support. I remember back in the 80's you would at least see Boy Scouts of America commercials and YMCA commercials...

Now boys are socialized within artificial and virtual worlds and their socialization
for male male competition and competitive advantage is satisfied through artificial and violent means. Please see my blog post below entitled "MALE BRAINS-FUNCTIONAL MRI SCAN-TERRITORY" to see how the uniquely male reward circuits in the brain as revealed by FMRI brain scans help illustrate how video games satisfy and artificially hinder a boys motivation to do so in other aspects of their lives and in social organizations that foster the proper development of masculinity and socialization. Make no mistake, it stands to my common sense that if a significant socialization and uniquely male reward circuits are fulfilled, stimulated and reinforced by these games and what takes place in them what makes anyone think this can not become a problem and at very least passify a young man's desire to fulfill these reward centers in a healthier way?

For every 100 tenth grade girls who play video or computer games one or more hours per day 322 boys play video or computer games one or more hours per day.

I will be listing proper socialization organizations for boys as they become available to me. It is imperative with 39% of boys coming from single mother homes
with little or no contact in all forms of socialization with other males we must make
an effort to rescue boys from the situation I will inform of throughout my blog. I want to make it clear that this feminist and malformed socialization of boys will grow exponentially if something is not done NOW! It is your duty to rescue our women and our children, our boys from the poisoned view of men.

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Feminist Theory

The text extract below from a feminist website correlates with the video created by Men's Rights Activists above. Chance, I don't think so, there is little dialog with N.O.W. & women's groups and Men's Rights groups that are now trying to form ranks but both sides have made their views known and men increasingly are making a voice for ourselves, to defend ourselves and young boys.

Though the extract below comes from a radical gender feminist website I find they are less reserved and more likely to feel free to use such outspoken dialog. I use this to serve as a base of exemplification to create contrast and facilitate my observation of real world patterns and activity, A kind of amplification that allows me to see the implemented subtleties that extend from the extreme base of this ideological archetype. The true implementation in our culture is somewhere in the middle but often times the extreme. You will see then how it correlates then with the video issued by mens rights group above, my own experiences in my Women's Studies class, and the school psychologist from Men4Change below. This woman is a radical but what she speaks of in our schools is very real. She also recruits women trained in psychology from prestigious institutions for her own abusive purpose to capitalize on the results of ill male socialization. Please do not delve to far into her site at this time. IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME THAT PEOPLE HEAR MY MESSAGE. PLEASE READ MY BLOG. The link to her site will be posted later on..

Feminist doctrine extract:
"Society has been trying to develop a model where these men can be reached when they are children and thus re-programmed to be submissive and not aggressive. There are all kinds of pilot programs in schools (most developed my feminists) to teach young boys to be less aggressive. Most of these programs fail because being aggressive is a part of being a boy. But if these boys can be taught and encouraged to be submissive to the female gender and to view the female gender with respect and admiration, studies show they stand a great chance of growing up to be law abiding and less violent."

All competitive learning has been entirely replaced with cooperative learning models designed for girls only.
Even recess has been taken away in some U.S. schools and when there is recess competitive sports are not allowed for legal and liability issues all boys can not play dodge ball. An increasingly large amount of boys are diagnosed with Hyperactivity Disorder or ADD ADHD and placed on drugs like Ritalin. Boys are shamed and discouraged every where they turn.

It is this type of socialization of boys that leads to the below statements of boys in the image below which you will view in a moment. Ironically enough the image below comes from a pro feminist website and the author exclaims that these feeling of boys come from ill conceived notions by boys of the true purpose of feminism and as such they are holding on to a masculine identity that leads to these feelings. Indeed he suggests feminism is here to help these boys. He explains that the commonly accepted paradigm of young boys developing by separation of his identity of the mother when he begins to associate himself first as a separate individual and then as boy or girl is not necessary. What he is suggesting if you notice is that this bond or disconnect from the feminine need not take place. Let me make clear that the larger psychological community understands that masculine identity is indeed formed by relation to the existing masculine and males around him. The combination of isolation of the male from his father,sole mother authority, sole female authority in schools along with the implementation of adverse socialization techniques in schools has grave consequences for the development of boys. (THIS MAN IS IN OUR SCHOOLS ON A DAILY BASIS AT THIS VERY MOMENT I MIND YOU! AND IS A MEMBER OF WHAT IS CALLED MEN4CHANGE)

See the image below to see how this socialization process is enacted and the reactionary statements of boys. He is making the suggestion that these statements from boys stem from not aligning with the feminine or what he calls
insufficient relational-ization to the feminine. You will also see how he proclaims
the development of masculine identity as a social construct stating "pressures in culture demand that a little boy disconnect from relational socialization from the mother" Those briefed in modern psychology know that it is not a social construct that causes this in a boy and no where do we say "disconnect from your mother young man" Little boys naturally yearn to connect with the masculine and adult males. This is imperative to proper male development. If you are a trained psychologist or psychiatrist IT IS YOUR DUTY to help the Men's Rights movement and pass this information to your colleagues. The socialization of boys has been ignored for to long. Boys are shamed and socialized to view themselves in a horrible way from a very young age.

The below link contains more theory on why feminists believe that males should not form identity from the masculine and should be shielded from it. This same ideology is taught in schools which you can see from the Men-4-Change group above.

AND NOW I ASK YOU TO PLEASE LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS BY WHAT THE PRO FEMINIST MAN STATES ON HIS WEBSITE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONSENSUS OF 8TH GRADE BOYS FEELINGS AND SEE HOW IT LEADS TO FURTHER SUBJUGATION TO THE FEMALE IN ADULT LIFE BY READING AN EXCERPT FROM A FEMALE SUPREMACIST WEBSITE BELOW. THIS PSYCHOANALYSIS OF THIS TRAINED PSYCHOLOGIST AND FEMINIST WAS DEVELOPED TO GET INSIDE THE HEAD OF MALES WHO WERE SOCIALIZED LIKE THE BOYS ABOVE AND USES THIS TO HARM THEM. PLEASE DO NOT DELVE FURTHER AT THE MOMENT INTO HER SITE AND RETURN TO KEEP READING HERE. A SUFFICIENT EXCERPT IS LISTED BELOW. You will see that as she is a trained psychologist as well she understand the effect of male socialization in our society. You will see how this socialization indeed leads males with trauma from this wide spread socialization to gravitate to this type of life style and abuse from females. This socialization is wide spread and affects men and boys in our society well beyond the extreme ends. Can you see how the psychoanalysis below corresponds with the male socialization of sole mother authority, sole female authority, feminist indoctrination or "relational-ization" and shaming tactics that takes place in our schools and absence of a father in a young boys life to form his masculine identity?

3. What kind of relationship did you have with your Mother when you were a child?
(Stroke his face and hair)
3a)-Was she the one who would discipline you when you misbehaved?
3b)-Can you recall any intense experiences that you had with her when she was disciplining you? Like was she ever extra forceful or physical with you?
3c)-How is your relationship with your Mother today?
3d)-How do you feel about your Mother?
4.-Do you have an older sister (or older sisters)?
(Continue with face and hair stroking)
4a)-What kind of a relationship did you have with her (or with them) when you were growing up?
4b)-Can you recall any experiences with her (them) that you would classify as female domination?
5.-Can you recall having submissive feelings toward any other women when you were growing up?
5e)-Other female authority figures?


>>The elements of modern male socialization are very real. Though the author of the above site is a radical gender feminist her tenacious radical views have led her to say more than most feminists would want you to know. I would ordinarily declare her insane and a nut case but what she has divulged completed a picture for me that I have been struggling to put together. From experience both personal and researched I have put the picture together. She as well as many feminists in the inner ranks believe that men and male biological purpose to the pair bond is increasingly becoming unnecessary. At this point it has been made possible that men are to be kept either as an accessory within a marriage or disposed of in divorce while bound to the subservient obligation to provide her alimony as well as child support while completely being ostracized and isolated from the family unit and denied the right to be a father. In terms of resource provision there is no difference in or out of a marriage. They dynamic and battle plan is two fold and begins with the elimination of the father. This is seen as instrumental to the feminist movement. It is imperative during the transition to female supremacy that male resource provision continue to be transfered to the female while the male remains in isolation from the children, especially boys.

Contemporary feminist thought mildly advocates the necessity of a "positive male role model" but clearly states that a father is unnecessary to the raising of healthy children. In fact she states that the lack of a father or males in a boys life is instrumental in instilling in boys respect for sole mother authority and indeed is further reinforced by the exposure of the male to predominantly female teachers, authority figures and feminist socialization curriculum. Once this is accomplished The plan is then followed up with continued tactics within schools to shame and humiliate and socialize boys into subservient positions. This occurs from end to end through our educational system and into the college level curriculum (Please see video above). The author and many feminists believe that once male biological purpose to a pair bond is nullified in actuality or systemically, as women are completely independent for reliance on a male to the pair bond the gates will then be open for full and complete male submission for female choice in any way deemed useful. Since male resource provision is not needed and with the continued goal of out performing males in the economic realm males will then clamor for acceptance of female choice by any means deemed useful to females up to and including complete and utter domination of every aspect of his life.

Indeed it is speculated that boys have slipped to 42% of college admissions because of a natural process or shift toward female self sufficiency and early socialization of boys for failure which is performed by the isolation of a young male from contact with other males. As such the author states that there are no factors in play that are lowering boys performance but this is a natural shift toward women's preference which is also advocated and socialized to women in Women's Studies classes of leaving and isolating males from other males and their father thus serving to influence as the sole authorities in a young males life leading to scholastic decline. IT IS TAUGHT THAT MARRIAGE IS A PRISON. In my Women's Studies class we were told that women exhibit POW syndrome within marriage and it is explicitly denounced. Marriage is a something men have done to oppress women. (Place Fatherless family boys performance stat here)

She speculated that as males are taught sole female authority and begin to feel more useless as resource provision from the male is increasingly nullified and unnecessary to the female the transition to female supremacy will continute.

The incentive for ostrization of the male father from the pair bond in marriage is synthetic and systemic and women's option to leave the bond of marriage is subsidized by society, governmental husbandry and isolation of the the resource producing father. It is infact now the norm. It is further supported by synthetic organizations of government husbandry such as WIC Women Infants Children and organizations of the like.

Feminism in Schools-

Please leave a comment to let me know what you think. To let me know in some way I am making a difference!

Sunday, January 25, 2009

The Marriage Strike among men,2933,94415,00.html
By Wendy McElroy
Why do fewer people marry?

According to a 1999 National Vital Statistics Report from the CDC, 7.4 per 1,000 Americans married in 1998. From 1990 to 1995, the marriage rate dropped from 9.8 to 7.6. Different sources render other statistics but the trend remains sharply downward.

There is never a single or comprehensive explanation for complex phenomena that are rooted deeply in human psychology. Non-marriage is a particularly difficult issue to address because, as a recent paper from Rutgers University entitled "Why Men Won't Commit" explains, official sources are scarce. "The federal government issues thousands of reports on nearly every dimension of American life. ... But it provides no annual index or report on the state of marriage." Much of the discussion of the motives surrounding non-marriage must be anecdotal, therefore, relying on statistics to provide framework and perspective.

In examining reasons for the current decline of marriage, one question usually receives short shrift. Why are men reluctant to marry?

The Rutgers report — admittedly based on a small sample — found ten prevalent reasons. The first three:

— They can get sex without marriage;

— They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation; and,

— They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.

As a critic of anti-male bias in the family courts, the reasons I hear most frequently from non-marrying men are fear of financial devastation in divorce and of losing meaningful contact with children afterward. (Such feedback is anecdotal evidence but, when you hear the same response over a period of years from several hundred different sources, it becomes prudent to listen.)

In a similar vein, the Rutgers report finds: "Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce. They say that their financial assets are better protected if they cohabit rather than marry. They fear that an ex-wife will 'take you for all you’ve got' and that 'men have more to lose financially than women' from a divorce."

Increasingly, men are stating their reasons for not marrying on the Internet. In an article entitled "The Marriage Strike," Matthew Weeks expresses a sentiment common to such sites, "If we accept the old feminist argument that marriage is slavery for women, then it is undeniable that — given the current state of the nation's family courts — divorce is slavery for men."

Weeks provides the math. One in two marriages will fail with the wife being twice as likely to initiate the proceedings on grounds of "general discontent" — the minimum requirement of no-fault divorce. The odds of the woman receiving custody of children are overwhelming, with many fathers effectively being denied visitation. The wife usually keeps the "family" assets and, perhaps, receives alimony as well as child support. Many men confront continuing poverty to pay for the former marriage.

Weeks concludes: "Over five million divorced men in America are currently experiencing the situation I just outlined. Without a doubt, their stories and experiences are heard by unmarried men. Can anyone truly blame the men for having apprehension?"

He uses what has become a new term — at least in the mouths of men: "the marriage strike." Most of the men who go "on strike" undoubtedly do so quietly but others are making a loud political statement. For example, the Joint Parenting Association declares, "An international 'marriage strike' by men is set to continue indefinitely until Family Law is reformed to recognize that fathers love their children too."

The apprehension of men — along with other significant factors — is dramatically changing the face of marriage and the family. The best statistics we have indicate that, from 1960 to 2000:

— The number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women age 15-plus has declined from 73.5 to 46.5.

— The number of divorces per 1,000 married women age 15-plus has risen from 9.2 to 18.9.

One impact: The presence of single women has increased remarkably — women who must choose either to remain childless or to raise children by themselves.

— The number of births per 1,000 women age 15-44 has declined from 118.0 to 67.5.

— The percentage of live births to unmarried women rose from 5.3 to 33.2.

— The percentage of children under 18 living with a single parent rose from 9 to 27.

Some point to the steep rise in cohabitation as causing the devastation of marriage and families. The number of unmarried adults cohabiting with the opposite sex has soared from 439,000 in 1960 to 4,736,000 in 2000. But blaming cohabitation misses the point. Why do people choose that alternative?

A significant number of men are loudly stating their reasons: anti-male bias in the current marriage law and in the family courts. Solving this piece of the "marriage crisis" is not difficult. Allow people to draw up their own private marriage contracts, without government law acting as a third party; have unbiased family courts adjudicate breaches of contracts.

If men participated equally in forging the terms of the most important commitment in their lives, perhaps they would cease to view marriage as a form of indentured servitude and divorce as slavery.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Below are some extracts from I believe they represent our damaged social fabric and resentment that men have toward women and vice versa. I believe that aspects within "chivalry" are actually natural courtship behaviors of males and indeed as courtship behavior wanes so to does marriage.

StarlessEyes says:
"men are pathetic pigs, using women for sex, and dumping them. still a rare breed of man exsist, and i'm glad for the the man i have.
most men are just playing women these days, and it's sick."

Ryan R. says:
I'm back to add my 2 cents again. Modern women see men as expendable. We are expected to court women and prove devotion and for what? They still procure our money and resources in or out of marriage. There is no need to retain a man or marriage. Male resource provision is transfered to women in courtship, marriage and divorce. There is no distinction between the three anymore. What man now a days is motivated to do anything but the bear minimum. There is no hope or reward of honor and commitment from women. Men bear all the cost and risk. Women are a liability and a risk to us. They can take all our things away and our dear children. They can jail us without due process of law by word alone through VAWA and in Canada obtain all rights to a man's property when doing so. Who wants that???

Dingus says:
"I understand what Chivalry used to be and that it still lives with some people but Chivalry was killed by women who wanted the double standard when they started burning their bra's and wanting to be independent career people. Men are Hunter/Gatherer/Protector-Providers and somewhere women decided that they didn't wanted some of that anymore but we still need to pay for everything and open the door for them only when they feel like they wanted to be treated like a princess. But when they feel like GI Jane we are supposed to read their minds to know what they want. Yea, how selfish and insensitive is that. Sorry its 50/50 until they want their men to be men again. I'm taking this generation off. Lets call it mens generation vacation."

Yankee16charlie5 says:
"Well I think that men get the message that they are not needed. I mean just watch the commercials now a days. I mean I watched a movie about a family and their dog and when the dog got neutered the guys buddy said "you know we all have to loose our balls sometime" I don't think that women realize that in real life men don't submit to emasculation and are increasingly withdrawing from women. The only form of control we have left is to just not have any commitment to women much less get married. I mean come on it's a trap. Men deeply love women and secretly want to provide and protect them. No matter how independent women get they still want us to provide and protect them. It is a double standard, fend for yourself I think. There is no honor in being a man now a days and men know this."

"niceguy you are a total tool. Go ahead open doors for women. Your being humiliated by women and don't even know it. Eternal Bachelor has it right. Your one of those men who get married and screwed to end up with your children, your house, your money taken from you and relegated to an empty apartment paying alimony to support a woman who left you. Many men just kill themselves and others. You can't even afford to buy another women. Get it straight jack chivalry is dead and feminists killed it. Women are on their own from here and booty calls are the norm. F(^*% marriage."

quimby says:
"thats not being nice 'niceguy'. i can see where eternal bachelor is coming from though. despite the feminist movement asking for equal gender rights, they pick the best parts of equality and turn a blind eye to the rest. if women want to be treated equally and not wish to be demeaned, then they need to take in all forms of equality. meh, just my two cents"

EternalBachelor says:
"Are you guys serious? I don't treat women any more better than anyone else don't be pulled into it. Why should I have to do everything for a woman like pull the chair for her or hold the door for her? New flash women aren't better or more precious than us men! The truth is many women bang jerk badboy types but want a so called "gentleman" when they want to settle down and have a lifestyle provided for them."

AmericanGothic says:
"no, chivalry isn't dead at least in the heart of every hot blooded real woman. want proof? look at the phenomenon of "Twilight". it is mostly young girls that are evidently enamoured by the character of Edward, the vampire boy. examine his characteristics as a vampire, and you will see he IS a knight fighting with his very life to protect and save his beloved Bella. if young teen girls in the XXI century are in love with Edward, given the family backgrounds the majority surely comes from, with working moms and absent dads, where is this craving for chivalry coming from? maybe it's biological. observe yeh the animal kingdom as a whole. blame the big bang. chivalry is only dormant, because people have become selfish, self centered, confused, and know nothing about higher codes of..."

raymond says:
"Listen cut and dry, women gave all this courtship thing up when they told us they didn't need us for squat. No roses, no door opening, no paying for meals, no proving myself to these independent women. All my guys friends are this way to and now we kick back and let em have their own life. We meet on equal terms. You have a job why do you want me to prove anything to you. We meet, text back and forth and meet up for sex. Women do their own thing now and we do ours. "I don't need no man" guess what "we don't need you" makes the booty call easy now a days, no commitment, no marriage, no baby, no getting robbed by a woman no way. I seen what happens.....naaw naaaw naaaw that baby don't look like"
From the above I get the message that men want to do these things but feel resentful and in some of the comments the anger surfaces so much that it is palatable. It seems like they want to make the extra effort of chivalrous behavior. I think as women have pulled away from us, men don't feel as equals and are withdrawing as well. This is very sad to me. Something is terribly wrong here and quite frankly I'm worried. No one seems to be talking about this but to me this issue is an epidemic! I believe as feminist theory believes that gender is a social construct this is just resistance from men before we submit to some sort of matriarchal female dominated society. I don't believe this is true but rather have reached some sort of optional evolutionary but mainly ideologically induced paradox in which both sexes are not only having a hard time adapting but it is driving us apart from both ends. More importantly the human male is going his own way. He is increasingly becoming a vagabond, a drifter coming in and out of miscellaneous women's lives. He is learning however to self actualize and to empower himself within this new norm. Yet he is increasingly becoming aware of his subjugation to resource provision out side of a pair bond and as such harnessing his anger and resentment the best he knows how.

Females in this new paradigm indeed are nothing to dedicate or commit oneself to. Nothing to court in the truest of intentions of commitment but an exchange a brief payment if you will for the opportunity for sex and that is all. Marriage and especially children are a liability to him through the bonds of alimony and child support without the benefit of a wife and child to love. He is necessary yet unnecessary due to this systemic transference of his labor. He is caught in limbo with no where to go on each side. This is something he struggles to deal with as he does indeed want to reproduce, he does indeed want love, commitment, a wife, child and family. Motivation to produce and be of value as a long term mate are waining. A lower incentive has been created and the male male competitive echelon is waining. Indeed dedicated courtship behavior is waining. Incentive has been destroyed and indeed the formation of a model of incentive toward as little dedication as possible for reproductive access to the female has been created. Again he is going his own way as the female no longer needs him indeed he no longer wants to need her and is trying to find himself in this new model.

This idea is supported by a growing element of men who identify as MGTOW or Men Going Their Own Way. I was surprised at the results that the google predictive analysis populated by only typing in as much as "men going" which the google database immediately and predictively turned up 52,600,000 results for Men Going Their Own Way along with other telling predictive analytic results based off human inputs.

Looking at the cumulative results one can see that typing only "men going" brought up> =their own way+extinct+divorce
were in the top results of what everyone knows is googles world class and stellar predictive analytic algorithms. It is alarming that the verb men "going" predicts the prepositional response =their own way+extinct+divorce It goes to illustrate the magnitude of the issues facing us in our culture.

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

This propaganda was so widely disseminated as evidenced by the google predictive analysis database algorithms but also Forbes Magazine, a primarily financial and business journal, felt it necessary to interrupt our daily commute with a page or more of top MIT science studies to reassure us men that we are ok and not going extinct.

This incident has illustrated the forces we are up against and the extremely well developed social and communications infrastructure these women have created! I find it imperative that people of the Men's Rights Movement make extra effort to link up to other elements of our growing movement and create links of communication everywhere we can and that includes posting links to my blog here, and the websites and blogs of others, emailing information, phone calls by Skype VOIP and all other forms of communication, publishing and public relations. Leaders are emerging already like Dr. Warren Farrell, Glenn Sacks and others. We are growing and forming by the day but we need everyones help!

But also importantly attention must be given to this Men Going Their Own Way with 52,600,000 results. I've written this blog based off my own experiences and observations of my culture and and while exploring these feelings I REALIZED I AM NOT ALONE:

I have seen what appears to be a slight radical resistance force in this developing element and hope it does not become a central hub to develop the Men's Movements reactionary intelligent response. However Given the 52,600,000 link ups returned by google I believe it is possible through this comglomerate to build a communications and intelligence infrastructure that is instrumental to the Men's Movement or at very least as a hub to link up with other elements. Leadership and supporting elements must be developed and I at some point plan to illustrate the schematic design of what needs to be built. The wheels are already turning and it is our job to take part in any way we can and know how. During my experience in my Women's Studies class I had no where to go, and no one to talk to but feminist forums. We had nothing in 2000. We are growing and forming ranks. I feel justice and the voice of men will finally come in response to feminism. My direct experience with feminism has made me passionate and I will never give up, I will never stop fighting.

One must understand the importance of these findings as the google algorithms are unbiased and not subject to subjective feelings and observations of myself or human beings. Imagine sitting is a room in the future and asking the collective intelligent consciousness that is the internet "Computer, tell me of men, where are they going and it replies with pure, unbiased non subjective logical reply and in a clear voice "Their own way,,,extinct,,,divorce followed by stark silence as the inquiring human ponders the gravity of such a response. Working in the computer industry myself and understanding how predictive analysis and search engine algorithms work I am very concerned by these findings. This is the future and this is our current reality, this is alarming to me as i realize how epidemic our social issues are as a society.

The Marriage Strike Among Women

According to Time Magazine They are simply happier without men and fathers are unnecessary. "61% of women say they will consider raising a child on their own from a sperm donor." While 40% of all births are to single women.

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

"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."

By TAMALA M. EDWARDS: Time Magazine,8816,997804,00.html

Jodie Hannaman grew up in Houston, a city as fond of formal weddings as of barbecues and rodeos. So it was saying something at Duschene Academy, her Roman Catholic girls' school, that Hannaman was chosen as Most Likely to Be Married First. But her teenage fantasies of buttercream frosting and silky bridesmaids dresses first began to crack with her high school sweetheart. He dated her for more than a decade before she finally got tired of waiting for a marriage proposal that was never going to come. There were other men after that, but it was Hannaman who repeatedly decided against a life built for two. Marriage, it began to dawn on her, wasn't an end in itself but rather something she wanted only if she found the right guy.

Now Hannaman, 32, spends 60 hours a week in her job as project manager for Chase Bank of Texas in Houston, in an office decorated with art-museum magnets and Cathy cartoons. She extends her business trips into the weekends for solo mini-vacations, enjoys the social whirl of the Junior League volunteer circuit, and has started looking for a house. While she would love a great romance that would lead to marriage, she no longer feels she has to apologize for being single. "I've finally matured enough to acknowledge that there's more to life than being married," she says. "I'd like to get married and have kids, but something in the past few years has changed. I'm happier being single."

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

The single woman has come into her own. Not too long ago, she would live a temporary existence: a rented apartment shared with a girlfriend or two and a job she could easily ditch. Adult life--a house, a car, travel, children--only came with a husband. Well, gone are the days. Forty-three million women are currently single--more than 40% of all adult females, up from about 30% in 1960. (The ranks of single men have grown at roughly the same rate.) If you separate out women of the most marriageable age, the numbers are even more head snapping: in 1963, 83% of women 25 to 55 were married; by 1997 that figure had dropped to 65%. "Are you kidding? An 18% to 20% point change? This is huge," says Linda Waite, a sociologist at the University of Chicago.

To be sure, the rise in single women encompasses some other important trends. An estimated 4 million of these unmarried women are cohabiting with their lovers, and a growing number are being more open about gay relationships. Nevertheless, single women as a group are wielding more and more clout. A Young and Rubicam study released earlier this summer labeled single women the yuppies of this decade, the blockbuster consumer group whose tastes will matter most to retailers and dictate our trends. The report found that nearly 60% of single women own their own home, buying them faster than single men; that single women fuel the home-renovation market; and that unmarried women are giving a big boost to the travel industry, making up half the adventure travelers and 2 out of 5 business travelers.

Equally important is the attitudinal change. The dictionary once defined a spinster as an unmarried woman above a certain age: 30. If you passed that milestone without a partner, your best hope was to be seen as an eccentric Auntie Mame; your worst fear was to grow old like Miss Havisham, locked in her cavernous mansion, bitter after being ditched at the altar. Not anymore. "We've ended the spinster era," says Philadelphia psychotherapist Diana Adile Kirschner, who has made single women a focus of her practice. "Women used to tell me about isolation, living alone, low level of activity, feeling different. Now there's family, lots of friends, they're less isolated and more integrated into social lives."

More confident, more self-sufficient, and more choosy than ever, women no longer see marriage as a matter of survival and acceptance. They feel free to start and end relationships at will--more like, say, men. In a Yankelovich poll for TIME and CNN, nearly 80% of men and women said they thought they would eventually find the perfect mate. But when asked, if they didn't find Mr. Perfect, whether they would marry someone else, only 34% of women said yes, in contrast to 41% of men. "Let's face it. You don't just want a man in your life," says author Bank, 39. "You only want a great man in your life."

Single by choice--it's an empowering statement for many women. Yet it's not a choice that all women arrive at easily or without some angst, and it raises a multitude of questions. Are women too unrealistic about marriage--so picky about men that they're denying themselves and society the benefits of marriage while they pursue an impossible ideal? Does the rejection of marriage by more women reflect a widening gender gap--as daughters of the women's movement discover that men, all too often, have a far less liberated view of the wife's role in marriage? Do the burgeoning ranks of single women mean an outbreak of Sex and the City promiscuity? And what about children? When a woman makes the empowering decision to rear a child on her own, what are the consequences, for mother and child?

Society, to be sure, is far more accepting of single women than it was even a few years ago. When Barbara Baldwin, the director of Planned Parenthood in Tennessee, divorced her husband in 1981, she needed her father's help before anyone would give the then 29-year-old single mother a car loan and a credit card. Beverley DeJulio, a divorced Chicago mother who hosts Handy Ma'am, a weekly home-improvement show on pbs, says she dreaded the hardware store for years, because salespeople kept asking, "Where's your husband?" And the Stone Age year when Anne Elizabeth, a Chicago artist, then 35, had to fight to not be listed as spinster on the mortgage application for her lakeside home? It was 1984.

Business has wised up. Now some auto manufacturers train salespeople to aim their pitches at women, going for the softer sell rather than the hard-nosed, macho wrangling of yesteryear. More than 100 travel companies have started to take women-only trekkers across deserts, up mountains and into volcanoes. Ace Hardware (where the slogan "Home of the Helpful Hardware Man" has been replaced by "Home of the Helpful Hardware Folks") now offers drills that are lighter with easy-grip handles, greenhouses full of flowers, and walls painted in pastels. They also run special seminars for women, who make up at least half their customers.

About a fifth of all home sales last year were to unmarried women, up from 10% in 1985. "Lenders don't presume single women can't make the mortgage anymore," says Mark Calabria, a senior economist at the National Association of Realtors. Orna Yaary, 42, a single mother and an interior designer, recalls that in the 1980s her single-women clients typically viewed their home as a temporary way station on the road to marriage. "It was like these single women with suitcases at the door, they wanted something but not anything permanent," says Yaary. Now she's decorating apartments for women like the 35-year-old investment banker who ordered built-in furniture and reconstructed the bathroom of her apartment. "She's doing what she wants. None of this attitude of 'I'll need to take it with me when I meet a guy.'"

Meanwhile, more single women--especially those watching their biological clocks run down--are resorting to solo pregnancies, sperm donors or adoption agencies. While the birthrate has fallen among teenagers, it has climbed 15% among unmarried thirtysomethings since 1990. In the TIME/CNN poll, fully 61% of single women ages 18 to 49 answered yes when asked whether they would consider rearing a child on their own.

Playwright Wendy Wasserstein recalls the clamor raised against her 1989 Pulitzer-prizewinning play, The Heidi Chronicles, because it concerns a woman who decides to have a baby alone. One female critic returned more than once to trash the play. "She said this was a cop-out, my saying women could be happy having a baby alone," the playwright says. Last year Wasserstein, still single at 49, gave birth to a daughter, Lucy Jane, conceived with the sperm of a friend she won't identify. "If I put Heidi out now, people would just say, 'Yeah, that's true,'" she says, shrugging.

And while many women who have embraced the single life are, like Wasserstein, well educated and economically independent, they cross social and class lines. Last year the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University released a report showing that the marriage rate among women had fallen one-third since 1970 and that young women had become more pessimistic about their chances of wedding. "The reality is that marriage is now the interlude and singlehood the state of affairs," says Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, a co-director of the center. For this summer's study, Whitehead chose to focus on blue-collar women in their 20s and expected more traditional attitudes. However, she found these women too were focused more on goals like college degrees, entrepreneurship and home ownership than on matrimony. "They wanted to be married, yet they were preparing as if that was not going to be the case," she says. "There was a sense they couldn't count on men and marriage."

The embrace of singlehood is, in some ways, a logical result of the expanding possibilities for women brought on by the women's movement. "Women get addicted to the possibilities of their lives, the idea that on any given day you have the freedom to do this or that," explains Melissa Roth, author of On the Loose, a chronicle of a year in the life of three thirtysomething women. And so, while still looking for love, many women today are slow to let go of their space and schedules for the daily compromises--and sacrifices--of marriage.

Debra DeLee, 52, who is divorced and the director of a nonprofit group in Washington, is so taken with her life--a gorgeous Capitol Hill town house, trips all over the world and a silver blue BMW roadster--that she's reluctant to change it even for the man of her dreams, Arnie Miller, 59, an executive recruiter who lives in Boston. "We talk about getting married, but this is so good right now," says DeLee, who ran the Democratic Convention in 1996. "Two minutes before he leaves, I think it's so hard to see him pick up and leave. But two minutes after he's gone, I think, Ahh, I've got my house back." Miller likes the arrangement too. "Why should this be off-putting? I'm high-powered too," he says. "We both like our space. And three days later, we're racing to be back together."

At the same time, there's been a change in attitude toward love and marriage. Previous generations of women made their barter as much around the need for male protection and financial help as affection. And if at some point the sizzle went south, well...But women today have a very different wish list from their mother's. "My single friends have their own life and money to bring to the table," says Sarah Jessica Parker, the star of Sex and the City. "It's the same as the characters on the show: my friends are looking for a relationship as fulfilling, challenging and fun as the one they have with their girlfriends."

Yet there are doubtless few women who recognize much about the wild, bed-hopping lifestyle that Sex and the City portrays every week. Indeed, only a fifth of single women who watch the show said in the TIME/CNN poll that their life mirrors the show's sexcapades. Yet when asked what they miss most from not being married, 75% of women said companionship, and only 4% said sex. While surveys show married people generally have more sex than supposedly "swinging" singles, it's clear that living alone does not mean a life of abstinence. Experiences vary widely, from women who go through long periods without sexual relationships to others who have regular, casual flings. "You can easily take care of your needs," notes a D.C. single woman. Many women enjoy comfortable relationships with men that include sex but no hint of marriage--like the fiftysomething Nashville, Tenn., woman whose male friend comes to town for a handful of visits each year. "He's someone I know and trust," she says. "The sex is great, and we stay up till 4 a.m. talking."

One thing women find more real about Sex and the City is the parade of sorry guys whom Carrie and her friends encounter each week. It's hard to find a woman without at least one horror story of a guy like the one Bank used to date, who in the middle of a fight blurted out the reason for his resentment of her: "You have never cleaned my bathroom." Says Bank: "I hate to feel like someone wants to control me. And I've ended up with a lot of men who do."

Yet the choice to be single involves more than just rejecting the inevitable boors and slouches. More often, women speak of affairs that lasted for months, if not years, with men they in many ways loved. But after much turmoil and tears, they ended things, deciding that being on their own was simply better than the alternative--being stuck with a man, and in a marriage, that didn't feel right.

"I totally adored him," says Lila Hicks, 32, a media producer, of the investment banker with whom she ended a seven-year romance not long ago, deciding life with him would be too limiting. "But I wasn't happy. I didn't think I could make him happy and retain my spirit, what makes me shine." Shawna Perry, an emergency-medicine doctor in Jacksonville, Fla., recently ended a 10-year relationship with a man whom she loves but feels is behind her in personal and professional growth. "His ups and downs were affecting our relationship and my security," she says. "I realized we were not building a life together and that this was not a good place to be considering marriage."

In many cases, women who choose the single life have looked at those around them and vowed not to make their mistakes. "My mother married her first boyfriend. All my relatives stayed in marriages that are really tough," says Pam Henneberry, 31, an accountant who lives in Manhattan. "When I looked at the unhappiness that was in my parents' marriage, I said, 'I can't do that.'" If Cynthia Rowe, 43, a Los Angeles-area store manager and divorce, gets depressed, she thinks of her five closest girlfriends. "They are all just existing in their marriages," she says. "Two of them got married when they were young. Twenty years later, they had outgrown each other. One has not got over her husband's affair. Two friends aren't even sleeping in the same bedroom with their husband anymore. Their personal happiness is placed last, and their kids know they are miserable."

Some women, of course, have learned from their own life. "At 28, I was terrified of the world," says Mary Lou Parsons, a Raleigh, N.C., professional fund raiser, recalling her 1980 divorce. "I'd been raised a Southern woman, sheltered and protected by my family, then by my husband." In the ensuing 20 years she learned to raise her kids on her own--and how to start her own business, buy a town house, move to Alaska and back and, most of all, relish life on her own. "I had to get beyond that thinking in a lot of women's minds that aloneness is not O.K. But now I find solitude exhilarating." Marcelle Clements, author of The Improvised Woman: Single Women Reinventing the Single Life, notes that there are many women, like Parsons, who were "taken by surprise. They were in relationships that broke up, hit what they thought was catastrophe, only to find that they were O.K., and [they] adopt an attitude that said, I'm fine, I don't need to be with anyone else."

Not surprisingly, many conservatives are disturbed at this growing acceptance of singlehood and its implied rejection of marriage. Danielle Crittenden, author of What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us, argues that women have set themselves up for disappointment, putting off marriage until their 30s only to find themselves unskilled in the art of compatibility and surrounded by male peers looking over their Chardonnays at women in their 20s. "Modern people approach marriage like it's a Bosnia-Serbia negotiation. Marriage is no longer as attractive to men," she says. "No one's telling college girls it's easier to have kids in your 20s than in your 30s."

Women who have chosen the single life sometimes have their own qualms. Singlehood does not yield itself to a simple, blithe embrace. It's complicated, messy terrain because not needing a man is not the same as not wanting one. For all the laughs on Sex and the City, one can feel the ache that comes when yet another episode ends with the heart still a lonely hunter. And if you think being a single woman is all fun and games, just listen to star Parker, who is married to actor Matthew Broderick. Even as she's become a mascot for the feisty new single woman, Parker says she often stands on the set in her spike Jimmy Choo open-toes and see-through shirts, worried that she isn't being a good traditional wife. "I know he doesn't have his laundry done, that he hasn't had a hot meal in days," she says of her husband. "That stuff weighs on my mind." Parker regales single friends with tales of how boring married life is and how much luckier they are to have freedom and fun. Does she really believe it? "Well, no," she admits. "It's just a fun thing to say to make single people feel better."

Even women who generally reflect on their choices with assurance find themselves sometimes in the valley of what-ifs: What if I made the wrong choice to walk away? What if singlehood turns out to be not a temporary choice but an enforced state? "My sister knows that I'm good for a call every couple of months just crying, 'What's wrong with me?'" says Henneberry. "I'm not willing to accept someone who's going to make me unhappy. But there are days when I have a physical need to go to sleep and wake up with someone there." Mary Mayotte, 49, has a successful bicoastal career as a public-speaking coach. But she admits the occasional pang of regret. "There was a point where I had men coming out of my ears," she says. "I don't think I was so nice to some of them. Every now and then I wonder if God is punishing me. Sometimes I look back and say, 'I wish I had made a different decision there.'"

Some feel women are on an impossible search for the perfect man, the one who not only makes you feel, as Julia Roberts said of meeting Benjamin Bratt, "hit in the head with a bat," but also better for it. "Marriage is not what it used to be, getting stability or economic help," says the National Marriage Project's Whitehead. "Marriage has become this spiritualized thing, with labels like 'best friend' and 'soul mate'" Some sociologists say these lofty standards make sense at a time when the high divorce rate hisses in the background like Darth Vader. But others suggest the marriage pendulum has swung from the hollowly pragmatic to an unhealthy romantic ideal.

Michael Broder, a Philadelphia psychotherapist and author of The Art of Living Single, decries what he calls the "perfect-person problem," in which women refuse to engage unless they're immediately taken with a man, failing to give a relationship a chance to develop. "Few women can't tell you about someone they turned down, and I'm not talking about some grotesque monster," he says. "But there's the idea that there has to be this great degree of passion to get involved, which isn't always functional. So you have people saying things like, 'If I can't have my soul mate, I'd rather be alone.' And after that, I say, 'Well, you got your second choice.'"

Single women are used to hearing this complaint, and most don't buy it. "Some in my family think I'm not stopping till I find perfection," says Henneberry. "I don't feel like that. I just want the one who makes me go, 'Finally.'" Harvard sociologist Carol Gilligan notes, "There's now a pressure to create relationships that both men and women want to be in, and that's great. This is revolutionary." Even Ellen Fein, co-author of the notorious 1996 dating guide The Rules, says her man-chasing disciples don't settle for just anyone. "Most of my clients have jobs; they can pay the rent; they can take themselves out to dinner," says Fein. "They want men to value them."

Many women can tell the story of a friend or relative who looked at her and said, "If you really wanted to be married, you'd be married." The comment can sometimes slap like a wet towel, in part because it is true and in part because of its implicit message: You could have compromised, perhaps settled, and been among the married. And so, the logic follows, you have no one to blame but yourself.

But these women have fought for years to be themselves--self-reliant, successful, clever, funny, willful, spirited--and for all the angst that the single life can bring, they're not willing to give it up for any arrangement that would stifle them. "It would be great if I found a relationship that allowed me to be as I am and added something to that," says documentary producer Pam Wolfe, 33, sitting in her one-bedroom condo in New York City. "But I'm not going to do anything to attract a person that means changing. I've worked long and hard to be myself."

I understand, their public identity is that of one with legs spread open. Women are unable to get men to commit to them because their hypergamous nature attracts them to men above their stature that will f**k them and heck he will even be nice to them as a girlfriend but nothing more. Women go through their fertile years with their internal filter broken and their subjective concept of their value on the mating market is over valued and confused by the men above their station willing to engage in a relationship with them but nothing long term. They will ride this cock carousel of men until the twilight of their fertile years until the have to settle for someone who is actually on par with them. This to many women is unacceptable so they would rather get knocked up by one of the non committed "alpha" men that bang her. Others would rather do so through artificial insemination. Others simply do not want a family at all.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Men's Rights

The men's rights movement (also known as the Men's Movement) seeks to develop parity for men in the law and in society. Over the past 30 years, men have lost equality in several areas, feminists have managed to rewrite the laws to their preference and in favor of women. The ultimate goal being that male resource provision is transfered systemically and government husbandry infrastructure has also becomes the resource provider. As such the male is ostracized from the pair bond and sanctity of marriage and his place in society becomes nothing more than an isolated resource provider. The result is the increasing isolation and subjugation of men to provide to women that are not their wives and children they are not able to see by government mandate. 75% of men in the U.K. loose contact with their children within two years as laws permit women to cut contact with the father with impunity and with geographic isolation away from the father. In the United States, Hilary Clinton who is overwhelmingly liberal has stated that the dissolution of the two parent traditional marriage has reached a point of "critical mass". Marriage rates in the U.S. are on a 45 degree angle decline. Fathers rights activists point out the overwhelming evidence from government and other sources that a child without a father has many health issues. The United States and U.K have been rated by UNICEF as the poorest of all developed nations for child wellbeing. Overall, the movement focuses on the following areas:

Custody Law Reform: Custody laws and family courts are often stacked against men. It is rare that a man will win custody over a woman, even if it is shown that the father is the better parent. In addition, there are several tactics used by women against men to make sure that they retain custody (such as getting a restraining order under false pretenses, then using them as a means to coerce) that are underhanded, if not illegal - yet if such tactics are discovered, women rarely suffer any penalty. VAWA has been instrumental to this inequity. Lawyers refer to VAWA as "the silver bullet" to begin a divorce and custody battle. Men are taken out of their homes and held inside jail cages and are unable to return home. Police agents have authority to search the home and remove and confiscate family firearms. VAWA goes above and beyond human rights and give special privilege to women. It takes away men's constitutional rights and he is guilty until innocent. Men must confess to any accused crime against him in order to see his children again. This is Orwellian in manner and a gross neglect of human rights. In Great Britain fathers have taken to the streets in large numbers in protest for the right to have a child and to be a father. In the U.S. groups like RADAR have sprung up to amend VAWA. Sisters, Mothers, Grandmothers fill the ranks demanding change to protect men and boys.

Most importantly, though, is the treatment of non-custodial parents, who tend to be disproportionately male. Laws instituted regarding child support have made it difficult (if not impossible) for child support amounts to be modified down, while there are few laws protecting the non-custodial parent's right to see their children. The result has been the viewing of fathers as nothing more than walking ATMs.

The movement seeks to make family courts fairer in their assessments of who should be granted custody, as well as get laws that penalize the aquisition of restraining orders under false pretenses (usually by making restraining orders under penalty of perjury). Most important is getting child support reform, such as a lifting of laws preventing retroactive modification of child support owed and enforcement of visitation rights.

Domestic Violence Reform: The movement does not disavow the existance of domestic violence - just the way that feminists represent it. The movement points out that 30 years of studies have shown that domestic violence, contrary to what feminists have made common knowledge, is equally the province of men and women as abuser. As such, laws and policies that are predominately favorable to women in regards to domestic violence need to be changed.(PLEASE SEE my post on domestic violence)

The movement's goals are to make laws and policies regarding domestic violence more gender-neutral, and more fair. The policy of removing the man from the house by police on a domestic violence call is a major target, as are battered persons shelters or even counseling services that refuse to aid battered men. Under VAWA upon a woman's request men are seized by government agents and held inside jail cages with no evidence of violence and further more allows her the clause "I feel threatened seize him, hold him in a jail cage and enact a court order for him not to come back or see his children and more so without admitting guilt."

This process of forced guilt should it reach the point is also used as the basis of a custody battle and divorce. Lawyers support this injustice by recommending VAWA and it's Orwellian state of process to win custody of children.

More important is education - the movement seeks to expose the truth to the public, as a way to make the current policies regarding domestic violence untenable. Finally, there is a push to remove "battered woman's syndrome" as a legal defense for the murder of a man. A man convicted of murder is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman convicted of murder. In the U.S. since 1954 approximately 70,000 women have murdered 60,000 men but not one woman has been executed for killing only a man. Women in the U.K. are seeking to shut down women's prisons under the concern that women need to be mothers. "If adopted by the home secretary, Baroness Corston's approach would see Holloway and about 14 other all-female prisons in England and Wales shut down or converted into jails for men." >

Sexual Harassment Reform: While nobody is disputing that quid pro quo sexual harassment is wrong, the movement takes issue with laws that define sexual harassment as the creation of "hostile work environments". Such laws cast a chill over the workplace, as stray comments to the wrong person may be taken as harassment, and could cost a person their job. Again, if a woman so decides there are grave consequences for men in the work place. This has created an environment in which women, as having these sole privileges are threatening to a workplace environment and causes great harm in their integration into the workplace. In addition, such laws are unfair as they protect only one segment of society from a problem while allowing others to be subjected to the same problem - after all, hostility is NOT just subject to gender differences, but can be based on all sorts of differences.

The movement seeks here to have laws that allow for nebulous and subjective definitions of sexual harassment repealed, while keeping the laws regarding quid pro quo harassment intact.

There are other points as well, such as the male right to choose and abortion in terms of obligation and support for the child and a woman can make her decision to abort accordingly. Also of concern is paternity law reform, and family law to help support a woman's added choice in society to stay at home to wean an infant. Given the average -2 percent savings rate many couples in the U.S. struggle to do this and sometimes the burden is on a man's shoulders to support this choice as women have saturated the labor pool in the work force many families can not be supported during this time on a single income. Men are working harder than ever before to support a woman's choice.

Men's rights also seeks to repair the damage of female "independence". The affect on our social culture in courtship and male provision of resources such as paying for meals, opening doors etc has been a growing issue of confusion between the sexes and a growing resentment among men. Some want to restore our mutual devotion, trust and dependence rather than advocate "independence" from women as women have. Others want male independence and feel increasingly resentful toward the hypocrisy of female "independence" only when it is convenient but take gladly from men when it suits them. It is said that "chivalry is dead". The damage has been done but which way we will go from here is unknown....

Saturday, January 17, 2009







Scientist have sounded the alarm that use of birth control and the presence of environmental chemical estrogens is leading to the ubiquitous decline of health and
populations in all species and the feminization of all males including humans, lower fertility rates and sperm counts as well as female sexually selective preference for Effeminate males. THIS BLOG SECTION IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION::::::::::::

Exposure to estrogen puts fish at greater risk of disease and premature death, according to a new federal study.

The U.S. Geological Survey study showed that estrogen exposure reduces a fish's ability to produce proteins that help it ward off disease and pointed to a possible link between the occurrence of intersex fish and recent fish kills in the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers.

The report, published in the current issue of Fish & Shellfish Immunology, adds to a growing body of research pointing to problems with estrogen in the nation's waterways.

Other research has found evidence of estrogen exposure in freshwater and some marine fish populations. In a previous report, USGS scientists found widespread occurrences of fish in the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers with "intersex" characteristics -- male fish carrying immature female egg cells in their testes. Other scientists observed similar problems in fish in Southern California and in labs in Canada and the United States.

Scientists have not targeted the source of estrogen, but many suspect it stems from certain pollutants and drugs in waterways and from the use of birth control by women.(


--The Disappearing Male is a CBC documentary about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system. The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer. At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette's syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia. The Disappearing Male takes a close and disturbing look at what many doctors and researchers now suspect are responsible for many of these problems: a class of common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world. Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called "hormone mimicking" or "endocrine disrupting" chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development.

Friday, January 16, 2009



Domestic violence

Clinical & Research News

Statistics show that while men tend to inflict injury at higher rates, the majority of domestic violence overall is reciprocal.

Very few studies have shown men to aggress more frequently than women. However, until recently the bulk of domestic violence research did not even ask about woman-on-man violence. It has also been found that many kinds of behavior, such as pushing and slapping, are experienced by both genders, but are mainly called "violence" by female victims. Early studies that merely asked "have you been a victim of domestic violence" did find far lower levels of male victims; but when they asked about specific behaviors ("have you been slapped, punched,...), the numbers evened out. Justice Department studies show that men are 32 percent less likely than women to report any form of violent victimization.

In couples reporting spousal violence, 27 percent of the time the man struck the first blow; the woman in 24 percent. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.

Coramae Richey Mann, a researcher at the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University/Bloomington, found that only 59 percent of women jailed for spousal murder claimed self-defense and that 30 percent had previously been arrested for violent crimes.

Women charged with killing their husbands were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the cases, while husbands charged with killing their wives were acquitted only 1.4 percent of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years, according to an LA Times article citing Department of Justice data.

These findings, however, may have other problems. Women are far more likely to use weapons in their domestic violence, whether throwing a plate or firing a gun. Women are also much more likely than men to enlist help if they wish to kill their spouse; but such multiple-offender homicides are not counted toward domestic-violence statistics. In addition, Warren Farrell points out that there are several "female-only" defenses to murder charges, such as the posthumous allegation of abuse; in short, our data on rates of domestic homicide are incomplete.

There is a whole source of new evidence to suggest that some of the research into family abuse has been politicized. Sam and Bunny Sewell, Family Resources & Research state that "However, misleading statistics are a deliberate fund raising tactic for women's shelters. The shelter movement almost never mentions scientific studies.

I think women and men are equally responsible for any amount of domestic violence. After all, a woman has to ask herself why she is in an abusive relationship in the first place, doesn't she?

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

By Joan Arehart-Treichel
Psychiatric News August 3, 2007
Volume 42, Number 15, page 31
© 2007 American Psychiatric Association

An abstract of "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence" is posted at
Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD

Women Commit Over 50% of Domestic Violence:

DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE Florida State University Law Review: domestic violence is equally the province of women by LINDA KELLY:
Florida State University Law Review

Women Commit Most Child Murders:

"Perpetrator's Sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers"

Women Commit Over 58% Of Child Abuse: United States Department of Human Health and Services:

Domestic Violence is equally the province of women:
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., and Erin Pizzey

Domestic Violence is equally the province of women:

The actual answers from men on the Yahoo Answers forum gives you an insight into the socialization of males and supports the CDC and American Psychiatric Associations findings on domestic violence against men. Both of the men below were taught that it is ok for a woman to commit violence against them and to not reciprocate. As witnessed from the study above violence against men is very real yet a hidden part of our society. It is something that men think is ok and is under reported. Indeed men believe and are taught that if they are beaten, they deserve it. The phrase "you go girl, he probably had it coming" is rampant when violence against men is either witnessed or talked about.

"In my house, being raised with a sister and three
brothers, there was an absolute - it was a nuclear
sanction, if under any circumstances, for any reason,
no matter how justified, even self-defense - if you
ever touched your sister, not figuratively, literally.
My sister, who is my best friend, my campaign manager,
my confidante, grew up with absolute impunity in our
household." "And I have the bruises to prove it.
I mean that sincerely. I am not exaggerating when
I say that."

--Joseph Biden Vice President of The United States and founder
of the Violence Against Women Act--
Joe has not helped but harmed the situation as men are now even more less likely not only to raise question to the violence but the law does not protect men and further more perpetuates the false idea that men are the only ones that commit domestic violence. The law and the name of this bill alone serves to perpetuate inequality and the further denigration of men and our cultural views of men, not to mention our civil rights.


(The importance of men in the reports I suppose is simply to exemplify any violence against women but men are of no importance when we plaster billboards, radio and TV adds about domestic violence) There are no laws such as VAWA, outreach initiatives, Domestic violence services for men. In fact men are turned away from domestic violence shelters.) No one speaks of domestic violence against men by women.) I have seen myself adds on Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses stating "When I grow up my husband will kill me" These kind of of sexist ads leads EVERYONE to believe that violence against men by women does not happen. They lead to shock, outrage and finally a resentment and denigration of men. Please see for yourself whether you think anything should be done about this.....

First of all let's make clear that the federal government does not have any reliable data on domestic violence and its reports contradict each other. BUT there is good news!!

According to a July 2000 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, data from the Bureau of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey consistently show that women are at greater risk of intimate partner violence than are men.

However, data from the National Family Violence Survey, and from numerous peer-reviewed studies dating to as early as 1980 and a 2000 meta analysis contradict these data and consistently show that men and women suffer domestic abuse in at least equal rates.

NOTE!!! So the good news is that the scientific community only accepts peer reviewed and meta analysis studies as the only credible form of study and scientific data. AND NOT CRIME SURVEYS used to formulate the CDC, Bureau of Justice and National Crime Survey.. Further more you all will be excited to know that the image at the very top of this blog post was formulated by the CDC working closely with the American Psychiatric Association to gain more accurate results rather than relying on crime reports, random surveys and statisticians alone.

Either way, here is some of what I've been able to gather so far..

Below: Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women
United States Department of Justice

Intimate partner murder:
Total victims 51571
Male victim of female 20,311 murdered
Female victim of male 31,260 murdered
Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March 1998

"Each year, women experience about 4.8 million
intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes.
Men are the victims of about 2.9 million intimate
partner related physical assaults."

Source: 1. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner
violence: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Washington (DC): Department of Justice (US); 2000. Publication No. NCJ
181867. Available from: URL:

39.0 percent of female physical
assault victims, and 24.8 percent
of male physical assault victims, reported
being injured during their most recent
physical assault.

The survey found that men who were physically
assaulted by an intimate partner in the previous
12 months averaged 3.5 assaults. Thus, there
were about 2.9 million physical assaults perpetrated
against U.S. men by intimate partners in
the previous 12 months amd 4.5 million physical assaults
committed against U.S. women by intimate partners in the 12
months. Of the combined 7.4 million assaults A difference between men and women of only 1.6 million. Remember, there are NO domestic violence services, shelters or laws protecting men! Boys of 12 years of age or older are turned away from women's shelters as well.

NVAW Survey annual
rate of physical assault by an intimate was
44.2 per 1,000 women age 18 and older and
31.5 per 1,000 men age 18 and older.

In order to sort through all the madness below is part of the meta analysis and peer review project that scientists are working on in order to get to the truth of domestic violence. The results are compelling.

This bibliography examines 249 scholarly investigations: 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 241,700.

In a Los Angeles Times article about male victims of domestic violence, Fiebert suggests that "...consensus in the field is that women are as likely as men to strike their partner but that - as expected - women are more likely to be injured than men.

However, he noted, that when all these separate studies are added up, men are seriously injured in 38% of the cases. The present analyses indicate that men are among those who are likely to be on the receiving end of acts of physical aggression. Debate continues on the extent to which this involves mutual combat or the male equivalent to “battered women” is at present unresolved. It is unclear at this point if men should be provided any domestic violence services, assistance or equal treatment under law. Currently, in the case of reciprocal violence, and female initiated physical assault in many cases only the male perpetrator is arrested. Violence against men is seen as natural, acceptable and normal. Here a study has demonstrated a high degree of acceptance by women of aggression against men (

There is speculation that in our culture, violence against men is expected of men and that part of being a man is being able to take pain, hardship and abuse much like Joe Biden did when he spoke of having to lie still while being beaten and indeed bruised by female relatives. Abuse of men is simply seen as part of being a man. It is accepted as a part of the male experience and ignored and even laughed at when it is committed against a man by a woman. Remember 38% of cases of intimate partner violence against men involves serious injury... Should we do something about this?

Article: The violence we ignore
Published: BaltimoreSun
McNair tragedy underscores fact that men are often victimized by wives and girlfriends

Police recently concluded that former Baltimore Ravens star Steve McNair was shot dead in his sleep by girlfriend Sahel Kazemi in a murder-suicide. Yet while there are more than 10,000 media entries on Google News for "Steve McNair," only a few of them mention the phrase "domestic violence."

Violence by women against their male partners is often ignored or not recognized as domestic violence. Law enforcement, the judicial system, the media and the domestic violence establishment are still stuck in the outdated "man as perpetrator/woman as victim" conception of such violence. Yet more than 200 studies have found that women initiate at least as much violence against their male partners as vice-versa. Men make up about a third of domestic violence injuries and deaths in heterosexual relationships. Research shows that women often compensate for a disadvantage in physical strength by employing weapons and the element of surprise - just as Ms. Kazemi did.

The most recent large-scale study of domestic violence was conducted by Harvard researchers and published in 2007 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.

New research from domestic violence researcher Deborah Capaldi, a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, shows the most dangerous domestic violence scenario for both women and men is that of reciprocal violence, particularly if that violence is initiated by women.

There are solutions to protect all parties affected by domestic violence. For one, just as we've properly stigmatized men who hit women, we need to encourage women not to attack their men. Ms. Capaldi believes the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners, adding, "The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one ... much DV is mutual, and initiations - even that seem minor - may lead to escalation."

Second, when it is safe to do so, the domestic violence system needs to treat violent couples as violent couples, instead of shoe-horning them into the "man as perp/woman as victim" model. Counseling services for violent couples are rare. Domestic violence authority Lonnie R. Hazelwood says that the misguided domestic violence establishment "has been very effective in passing laws to prohibit couples counseling and eliminate programs which use gender-inclusive strategies."

Third, establish services and help for male domestic violence victims. Denise Hines of Clark University found that when an abused man calls the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner. This is partly the result of laws such as Maryland's primary aggressor law. Primary aggressor laws encourage police to discount who initiated and committed the violence but instead look at other factors (such as size and strength) that make them more likely to arrest men. When the men in Ms. Hines' study tried calling domestic violence hot lines, 64 percent were told that they only helped women, and more than half were referred to programs for male DV perpetrators.

Fourth, work to ensure that male domestic violence victims will not lose their children in child custody proceedings. Ms. Hines found that the biggest reason male victims hesitate to leave their wives/girlfriends is concern for their children. If they leave, their children are left unprotected in the hands of a violent mother. If they take their children, when they're found, the children will be taken away and given to the mother.

Perhaps none of these policies would have saved Steve McNair. But domestic violence by women isn't rare, it isn't trivial, and ignoring it harms couples and their children.

Dr. Ned Holstein is a public health specialist with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the founder of Fathers & Families. Glenn Sacks is the organization's executive director. Their Web site is,0,5844465.story

Battered women - and men
By Cathy Young
July 16, 2009