Monday, March 30, 2009

Cohabitation: Divorce Declining, But So Is Marriage: By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

Divorce declining, but so is marriage

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

Divorce is on the decline in the USA, but a report to be released today suggests that may be due more to an increase in people living together than to more lasting marriages.

Couples who once might have wed and then divorced now are not marrying at all, according to The State of our Unions 2005. The annual report, which analyzes Census and other data, is issued by the National Marriage Project at New Jersey's Rutgers University.

The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, says the report, whose calculations are based on an internationally used measurement.

"Cohabitation is here to stay," says David Popenoe, a Rutgers sociology professor and report co-author. "I don't think it's good news, especially for children," he says. "As society shifts from marriage to cohabitation — which is what's happening — you have an increase in family instability."

Cohabiting couples have twice the breakup rate of married couples, the report's authors say. And in the USA, 40% bring kids into these often-shaky live-in relationships which have reached an all time high with no downswing in sight.

"It is important now to think beyond the divorce rate to other kinds of couple unions and look at how stable they are," says Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, a social historian and report co-author.

"It's a pretty short period of time for that change (cohabitation) to have occurred and to have taken hold in the way it has," she says.

In the USA, 8.1% of coupled households are made up of unmarried, heterosexual partners. Although many European countries have higher cohabitation rates, divorce rates in those countries are lower, and more children grow up with both biological parents, even though the parents may not be married, Popenoe says.

The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63% in fact, the report says.

"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," (In the United States this means single mother parenting and fatherless children. The United States has the second from last UNICEF child well being rating of all developed nations.)
(There is a growing Men's Rights Movement that has sprung up around the increasing voices of men who demand the right to have a child and to be a father, joint custody is the goal men are trying to achieve in this broken family model. It is not by choice that men find themselves supporting a woman that is not their wife and a child they are not allowed to see as 70% of divorces are filed by women. Men's Rights seeks to make divorce and custody laws more equal. Feminist have stated for many years that a child does not need a father and that families can take many forms and that of lesbian couples as well are just as healthy for children. Feminist have recently stated that a "positive male role model" is of some importance, this slight change in thought has been a small victory for men in our society. The voice of women represented by feminists has been what government and society have listened to that has created the disparity between men women children and family.

It is believed that isolation of the male while subject to resource provision to the female is unjust. It is increasingly believed and studies show that fathers play an important role in a childs life. That despite being portrayed as useless child like animals on many TV commercials and in popular culture fathers are important to a family and children. Government and society is starting to realize that fatherhood and a child's right to have a father is important. I believe that it is everyones hope that men and women will come back together to form families. It has also been widely and falsely proported that men don't want to be fathers and are happy, motivated, proud and willing to be isolated resource producing males.

Increased efforts have been made by government to force men to continue supporting their ex-wifes and children as states are rewarded for how many men are tracked down and forced to produce. It is now more common for male garnishment of wages directly from his paycheck. The amount men pay is not based on a median standard of living but the standard of living he is and was able to produce when he was selected as a mate by the female.

The movement itself is growing and increasingly organizing. Getting off the ground in 2000 the scattered grass roots movement has increasingly been united from individual "MRA's" and small conglomerates to organized efforts such as Fathers 4 Justice have taken shape while more men continue to join the ranks. Leadership is starting to emerge with men such as Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell and others making their voices known on the internet as well.

Men are trying to find their honorable and rightful place in a world where divorce, cohabitation and fatherlessness is the norm and 70% of married women who divorce abandon their marriages leaving men to utter financial and emotional devastation, fatherlessness as well as long term forced indentured servitude to a resource receiving female. Feminists have repeatedly objected to numerous iterations of the Fathers Count Bill initiatives and the like to promote marriage information initiatives for our people. Women, represented by the Feminist Party have instead been pushing for increased support and diversion of these funds to support single mothers through "government husbandry" organizations and welfare to work programs. It is widely stated by feminists that the best predictor for single mother poverty is divorce and single motherhood. How ironic it is as any scholar of feminist doctrine is aware that marriage is detested by feminists, divorce is encouraged and rewarding through biased divorce laws and then more of societies tax revenue is requested to support this "choice" benefit of women.

Pressure is increasingly being put on legislators by Men's Rights groups to realize the actual source of the problem rather than attending to the results caused by destructive policies and divorce laws. To in fact try to restore the American family unit and the growing conflict between men and women.

MRAs and the Men's Movement has spearheaded the approach to this restoration and pro family fatherhood initiatives. I am sure it is everyones hope that women and men a like work together to restore our families.

The graph below illustrates the astronomical rise in divorce rates following the the start of the second wave feminist movement. At first look it would appear to those who are not informed of the cohabitation issue that divorce is on the decline when in actuality people are simply not marrying at all anymore.

(One can see from the graph below the rampant rise in divorce rates starting when second wave feminism began and the apex at which the devastating fall out of cohabitation began to take place.. )

Men and women are being driven apart at both ends. It is speculated that men are turning away from marriage and commitment to women because of the devastating consequences of fatherlessness, financial and emotional devastation. The phenomenon has been labeled "The Marriage Strike". It is speculated that women initiate 70% of divorces simply because they can with not only no consequence but full custody and the financial rewards are lucrative as well. In essence the consequence from divorce falls disproportionally upon men.

Example: "Vickie of Orlando e-mailed, "I receive a nice alimony check each month, eventually 50 percent of his Social Security, and upon his death, hundreds of thousands in life insurance. So why would I even think of getting married again?" --As she would loose the indentured servant that is her ex-husband. This happens to a great many men, by laws entitling women to the fruits of men's labor during their work life, their retirement money and even after their death men are forced to support women who by todays standards are supposed to be "independent" and self supporting, this could be no further from the truth.

I myself was amazed that upon my step fathers death his social security was given to his ex-wife of 20 years ago as it was the case that she never remarried and as such was entitled to be supported by the labors of a man. Why feminism does not fight against this is clear, thus the Men's Rights Movement, The Marriage Strike among modern men and the dissolution of the American Family is the result of such inequalities between the sexes and one of many sources of the increasing subjugation of men to women.

Although our president understands we have a problem I am afraid he is unaware of the cause.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

What Happened to Equality for All? by Cathy Young


Cathy Young | March 26, 2009

Amidst troubling reports of our nation's economic woes and pressing national security issues, one news story earlier this month received fairly little attention: President Obama's March 11 executive order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls. While the Council's role is likely to be more symbolic than practical, its creation, and the accompanying rhetoric, suggests that the Obama White House is bringing a blinkered, outdated approach to gender issues—one that, far from transcending ideological divisions, takes us back to a narrow and dogmatic feminist ideology.

According to the White House press release, the purpose of the Council is to "ensure that agencies across the federal government...take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls." Specifically, it will focus on "improving women's economic security," promoting policies that help balance work and family, preventing violence against women, and furthering women's health care.

In his remarks at the signing, Barack Obama noted that women have made great strides since the days when his grandmother encountered a glass ceiling (after reaching the level of bank vice president.) Yet, despite the broken barriers, he argued that "inequalities stubbornly persist": "women still earn just 78 cents for every dollar men make"; "one in four women still experiences domestic violence in their lifetimes"; and, despite being close to half the workforce, women make up only 17 percent of members of Congress and 3 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs.

But are these inequalities rooted in discrimination and fixable by the government? Numerous studies show that when differences in training, work hours, and continuity of employment are taken into account, the pay gap all but disappears. Most economists, including liberal feminists such as Harvard's Claudia Goldin, agree that while sex discrimination exists, male-female disparities in earnings and achievement are due primarily to personal choices and priorities. Women are far more likely than men to avoid jobs with 60-hour workweeks and to scale down their careers while raising children. They are also more likely to choose less lucrative but more fulfilling jobs.

There is an ongoing debate on whether these differences are biological or cultural. Many scientists argue that men in general are innately more competitive and aggressive, while women are more risk-averse, more interested in interpersonal connections, and more intensely bonded to small children. (There are, of course, numerous exceptions to these tendencies.) Others stress the role of socialization, pointing out that people's choices and preferences are influenced by gender stereotypes and cultural expectations from early childhood.

The jury is still out on the nature-vs.-nurture debate; most likely, differences between the sexes are shaped by a mix of biology and culture (as well as sexual selection and mate preference biology.) Certainly, cultural pressures and double standards persist. A woman is far more likely to encounter societal disapproval if she works long hours and leaves her children in someone else's care—even if that someone else is the children's father. A man is far more likely to encounter disapproval if he is not the family breadwinner. (Feminists urge for more men to stay home, feed infants from man made formula instead of breast milk and take more care of children with the woman in the bread winner role as well as more accommodating child care facilities)

Yet focusing on job discrimination will not help us address these deep-seated prejudices. Indeed, making work-family policy a part of the agenda of the Council on Women and Girls seems to reinforce the stereotype that family issues are a female domain. (Why not a Council on Families instead?)

As for combating violence against women, it is, of course, a worthy goal. But plenty of men and boys are victims of family violence as well. The same federal study which found that one in four women in the United States have been assaulted by a partner at least once also found that nearly 40 percent of domestic assault victims every year are men. (The United States CDC and American Psychiatric Association found that women commit 50.3% of domestic violence.) Women face higher risk of injury due to disparities in size and strength; but the problem of abused men, though largely neglected, is hardly negligible. (Men are turned away from shelters and women with boys of 12 years or older are not allowed to accompany the mother into a shelter.) (There are also no domestic violence laws such as VAWA that protect men)(Boys upon burgeoning into men are seen as a threat to all women)(There are now two international airlines, both Qantas and British Airways which do not allow men to sit next to children as everyone knows men are inherently a danger to women and children by nature. (

Nor is it clear why women's health care deserves special focus, given that in many areas of health men are doing worse than women. (Men now die 7 years earlier than women as opposed to 1-2 years in 1920) As a result of women's health activism, medical issues specific to women have already been receiving disproportionate attention and funding since the 1990s. (No governmental agency spends as much on men's health as women's health 5% of National Institute of Health budget is spent on men and 10% is spent on women's health. Out of all 3000 medical journals listed in index medicus, medical articles cover women's health 23 to 1.) (There are now 7 Federal offices on Women's Health, 6 in the Dept. of Health and Human Services and 1 in the Dept of Agriculture. Men make up 56% of all citizens without health insurance. Men suffer from birth defects and disabilities in greater proportion to women.)

Indeed, one might ask why the only gender-specific issues that seem to deserve federal attention are ones that affect women. Why not look at the fact that men account for 80 percent of suicides and 90 percent of workplace fatalities (as well as 70 percent of nonfatal on-the-job injuries) and (85% of the homeless) What about the troubling trend of boys and young men lagging substantially behind their female peers in education, with women earning nearly 60 percent of college degrees at a time when a college diploma is increasingly essential in the job market? (Women have affirmative action giving automatic admission preference over males, female only scholarships, loans and funding as well as school curriculum and policy that has been changed drastically over the years to promote the educational needs of girls only) Why not talk about the marginalization of fatherhood and the fact that many men who want to be involved in their children's lives are denied that chance? 90% of men loose their children in a divorce.

(Why not speak of inequitable divorce laws that are in favor of women as the possible cause of the ever increasing polorization of men and women rather than the needs of a family, Marriage rates are on a 45 degree angle decline and single mother birth rates are at an all time high at 40% of all births. Loose knit and fatherless families are epidemic. Numerous studies show the devastating effects on fatherlessness on children.)

This is not a call for a new federal bureaucracy for "men's issues." However, the discussion of gender equality in our culture needs to include these issues. For the White House to exclude them while calling for a new effort to combat inequality is at best myopic.

The Bush White House was often assailed for building its policies on ideological myths rather than facts and "reality-based" thinking. So far, the Obama administration's initiatives on women are not exactly reality-based.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Gender Gap in college education extrapolated to graphs. 1969-present & projected 2016

The graphs above illustrate male failure in proportion to female advancement. This is an excellent example to illustrate that the problem is systemic and subsidized and of course unnatural. The war on boys must stop.. The government just formed the Cabinet level Council of Women to subsidize the advancement and special needs of girls and women only. (Please see my blog post below) I am very concerned about this. Here in Colorado women have affirmative action and must be given admission first as their 60% representation in our colleges and attainment of the vast majority of degrees is not enough. The male must be discriminated against at all costs to allow women to advance. He must be defeated....

The American Sociological Review 2006 reports that the male disadvantage in earning a college degree is largest for those who grew up in households with a low-educated or absent father. But the findings showed that women from families with a low-educated or absent father had the biggest increase in college enrollment and graduation. Claudia Buchmann conducted the research with Thomas DiPrete, professor of sociology at Columbia University . Their results appear in the August 2006 issue of the American Sociological Review, and the February 2006 issue of Demography.

Men haven't kept up, and this might have consequences down the line. In a few years, for example, the women who populate today's colleges and universities might drastically outnumber educated men in their age groups. Women generally seek equally or higher educated marriage partners, and many experts fear that female college students will soon face a shortage of eligible bachelors.

Most experts also concur that undereducated, ill-prepared men are a net drain on society's resources. Males are three times more likely to commit suicide now than in 1970 (when second wave feminism began), and the decrease in the percentage of men in college has accompanied a clear decline in male participation in public life: in 1964, 72 percent of men voted for president, while that number today has dropped to 53 percent. Men are dropping out of society and giving up on life at a young age.

Engineering, physical science and MBA programs generally retain a male majority, even as other academic fields develop double-digit female leads. Many researchers note that the fields in which men still dominate tend to be higher-paying than those favored by women, which may account for some, but not all, of the overall wage gap. The investigation of the Obama adminsitration to expand Title IX gender parity law enforcement into science, technical and engineering classes in collges will further exacerbate the issue. These areas of academia are the only place left in which men outnumber women. This may soon change by force of gender feminist doctrine instituted as law.

Male Suicide rates on epidemic climb

Male suicide rates have tripled since 1970. This has been a victory for feminists. I implore you to view the other graphs I've published here on marriage rates, divorce rates, single mother birth rates and government husbandry welfare. These massive shifts are due to an equally massive causational force. Ask yourself what changes took place in American culture at this one point in time. How did our country change? Did we change our value system? What new laws were implemented by feminists regarding the family? How did our perceptions of marriage, husbands and fathers change? How has our perception of men and how men are supposed to fit into society changed? We must understand what has changed for males compared to females:

Source: Thomas Mortenson Postsecondary opportunity: Senior Scholar The Pell Institute

1965 was the birth of the Feminist Revolution that took place in America. It was at this point in time that male suicide which prior to this point almost exactly mirrored with symmetry the rate of women's had separated into it's own increasing trend trajectory. What changed for men and boys in relation to women and girls during this time?

Notice the reset of the upward trend momentum in 1995. This was the point where the psychological community declared suicide an epidemic. Those of you old enough to remember may recall the public service announcements and suicide hotlines that opened up. Though the attention of the psychological health community has helped men and boys and the decline in suicide is reflected in the graph it can not and has not solved the underlying CAUSES of male marginalization in all realms of society and the family. It is merely a patch for the underlying issue and not a solution. 

1995, Tom Mortenson had started Opportunity and had continued to watch the decline of males. The downward curve, if anything, had grown steeper. Something big was happening. Mortenson began writing about it, and he hasn't stopped.

These days he travels often, addressing education conferences on the subject, and usually begins with slides showing boys' greater dropout rates, lower grades in high school, and general drift away from academic achievement. Then he puts up what he calls the "show stopper." It's a slide of suicide rates among boys between the ages 15 and 24. The graph shows a horrific rise beginning in the 1960s and peaking in the 1990s, when the ratio of male to female suicides exceeded six to one. The rates are the highest ever recorded for that age group.

"You can sober up any audience when you lay out the suicide data," he said. "The room tends to go quiet. The audience is staring at figures showing young males giving up on life at the very beginning of life, and they understand that something dangerous is happening in our culture." In recent years several studies by the U.S. Department of Education, the American Council on Education, and others have confirmed Mortenson's findings.

Not that I advocate it but I think if more of the increasing amount of men and boys that are killing themselves were to kill others first society might start to try and help. The main demographic being boys 15-24 puts them at school and college age so most likely their targets would occur in school shootings but a mass shooting of a general public target is also a possibility. 

Interestingly enough we have seen a marginal increase in boys doing this. Every one knows that no one cares about dead men and boys. The lives of men and boys are just not as valued as women and girls. This is particularly evident in that women and girls have 7 federal offices for the health of women and girls only. 85% of the homeless are men. Society would not stand for 85% of the homeless being women and girls. If suicide rates were to increase 3x for women and girls society would surly address the issue right away and the problem would take a national and political stage.

Again, I am not advocating murder but I do think it would bring attention to a class of people who are not cared for or as highly valued as women and girls and perhaps never will be. Will it change probably not. However, this drive to kill others seems to have the same impetus behind the increasing amount of school shootings and suicide by boys. I believe men and boys recognize that no one cares about our welfare. Killing others is a desperate attempt to kill something of value as it is in their own view that their own lives are meaningless to a society who shits upon them in disregard.

I don't know if the Council on Women and Girls can help but maybe a Council on Men and Boys could if they were to create one. I think the first step would be to create the nations first office on the health of men and boys and if we are lucky a Council as Women and girls have.





Divorce and male suicide rates:

One of the most common predictors of male suicide is divorce and the loss of a man's children.

In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father.

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. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts."

There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past few years. For example, New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient, hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested 15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts deemed frivolous. Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations , committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week.

Darrin White, a Canadian father who was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take home pay, hung himself. His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her nation's Prime Minister, saying, "this country's justice system has robbed me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father."
Fathers' rights groups contend court bias plays a direct role. One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office. Fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court system could be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Feminism & Propganda Posters and Ideology

United States: Actual poster from Women's Day Mar 2009 "If only I had a hammer" "smash patriarchy (the male world) at midnight" engineering and schematic design in background.

Russian Revolution Soviet propaganda. MARCH 1932 Anger women! Divide and conquer men, women and family in favor of dependence on the state and working industry.

Communism, Feminism, Socialism.
Origins of much of feminist ideology is rooted in socialist or communist theory in that equality is synonymous with a classless society. The advent of increasing political correctness is also synonymous with equality, classlessness and redistribution of capital productive capacity over the whole or between the sexes. Division of labor or differing gender roles is frowned upon. Put another way costs are asked to be offset by distribution over the whole of the population, between the sexes in the domestic and public sphere or is paid for outright by government provision and the peoples dependence on the state and working industry. With the level of corporate interest in government these have become one in the same. Our forefathers knew the importance of a division of church and state but never knew the importance of a division of corporation from state. Feminism does not seek equal opportunity but equal outcome through unequal means.

Most contemporary feminism, and almost the entirety of academic and political feminism, as Warren Farrel discovered at N.O.W, is what Christina Hoff Sommers has called "gender feminism," which is essentially based on a form of Marxist theory that substitutes "gender" for Marx's category of "class," or simply adds the two together, usually with "race" thrown in. This sort of "race, class, and gender" theory is typically a dangerous form of political moralism, with the same totalitarian characteristics as other versions of Marxism have proven to display. One consequence of this is that the substantive content of criticism is rarely addressed by feminists with intelligent formulated conjecture but rather it is considered sufficient to silence critics all together or vilify them as, "class enemies," i.e. directing ad hominem arguments such as "The Patriarchy" "The fragile male ego" and "misogynist" are often used in refutation as their supposed "oppressed" status, is supposed to be sufficient to refute objective arguments. When statistics are brought forth there is little substantiative substance to much of feminisms claim of female class oppression.

Any Men's Rights Activist will notice how free speech is censored in many feminist circles such as the group that identifies as Feministing, Yahoo Answers forums and elseware. Many MRA's have had their accounts suspended on YouTube, Yahoo Answers and elseware through collaborative feminist efforts of flagging the account for objectionable content.

Those who publicly express any other point of view other than to concede to feminist doctrine of female oppression will summarily be socially executed such as the former president of Harvard University Dr. Lawrence (Larry) Summers who was forced to resign upon the mention of physiological gender dimorphisms. Dr. Summers was then replaced by feminist and Women's Studies Department head Drew Faust. The Obama Administration is now seeking to extend Title IX mandates of gender equality to all science, technical and engineering departments in academia nation wide.

Excerpt from Wikipedia: International Women's Day "Started as a political event, the holiday blended in the culture of many countries (primarily Russia and the countries of former Soviet bloc)."

Through the feminine and in defense and provision for her, in being told she is not fairing well, her inherent entitlement to the labors of man and the state will emerge. In being told it is his fault men can be usurped. Women will surrender to their own needs, men will surrender to the needs of women and women to the provision of state and working industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is exactly what was done. Women changed marriage law to absolve them of all liabilities within the commitment of marriage and thus divorce.

Women leave no choice now but to offset the loss of mothers and domestic duties with communism. Women's entry to the workforce has offset their representation in the domestic sphere. Domestic duties and motherhood has no value to a capitalist system and produces no imediate or actual monetary productive capacity. The saturation of women in the workforce has diluted and divided the majority of production capacity and monetary return between men and women to a point that many women don't have a choice to work or stay home but must continue to work. This combined with the largest wealth and income distribution and disparity between the top 10% and bottom 90% of the population since the Great Depression. A dichotomy of rich and poor is becoming the norm. Families must work harder than ever before in this feminist world both at home and at work.

Women have entered the workforce but the loss of domestic duties and motherhood must be offset somewhere. As such duties are a necessity yet an externality to capitalist production we must distribute the expense or loss over the whole of the population to support PAID MATERNITY LEAVE AND OR PATERNITY LEAVE. We are quickly moving toward this new reality. We must socialize or communize the expenditure. Another option of course is to capitalize child care and motherhood as a paid service thus introducing motherhood as a function of the capitalist system and or that of the state or corporations i.e.
paid childcare facilities as the Soviets did. 

Either way, motherhood must be communized or capitalized and paid for in cost somewhere. As it is well known that many women and families can not afford to have a mother or that women simply do not want this for their families. 12 weeks unpaid time off is the norm. From this point the child must be ripped from the mothers breast and institutionalized at 12 weeks old, this is the norm. This is the feminist utopia with it's seen or unforeseen consequences. Such a dynamic is eerily similar to the Soviet model of child care by the state.

Even so, if a woman does choose to be a mother the cost or cost potential will ultimately fall upon men as if the marriage is dissolved the male will be required to offset lack of female capitalist productive capacity by support through alimony. The cost of motherhood is always factored in and paid for somewhere. Female as a liability to the male is not equality thus pure communism and equal female productive capacity with males is the only way feminism can be implemented. Only when she has equal capital productive capacity would it be fair to men to have state paid childcare. Women may think they are independent but all they have done was decrease their liabilities through "liberation" and kept by force men's side of obligations while making male obligations transferable to them after divorce. All they have done is socialize the cost of motherhood in the realm of policy. The fact is that women and children must be supported somewhere.

According to feminists, equal pay for women by any means necessary including the denigration of male opportunity through affirmative action for women, women only grants, full scholarships and women only business loans are now and must continue to be implemented. The Cabinet level Council of Women and Girls must continue "special initiatives" for women and girls. Though the pay gap as measured over the whole of the male and female workforce comes to 78 cents to every dollar men as a whole of the workforce make (and not for doing the same job as is commonly stated) female productive capacity and representation must be made equal to males by any means necessary.This is the feminist marxist line of thought.

The pay gap has been shown to be the result of many different factors in women's choices in family planning and occupational interests leading to choices to work less or more flexible occupational roles and the choice of less lucrative but more personally fulfilling jobs. The feminist agenda is for not only equal and increased productive capacity by women but equal representation in all aspects of capital production in all occupations. Efforts have been made to get women into the high paying engineering and technical fields in order to make women equal to men.

(Update: The Obama Administration is investigating the expansion of Title IX gender parity policy that has shut down so many men's sports teams in collges to all science, technical and engineering departments nation wide.)

"Equality" to men and ambiguity not only in gender roles but ones gender identity as male or female as well as sexual preferences is the feminist agenda or what feminists refer to as androgynous and equal beings. A type of undifferentiated unisex being is the feminist utopia.

As I've experienced in my Women's Studies class in college all biological differences and development of gender roles or division of labor between men and women are explicitly denounced and attributed to socialization and products of human reason and that of male design or "The Patriarchy" or collectively expressed male incentive or propensity to subjugate and oppress women by providing for and protecting women, children, the family unit and providing for and giving forth to women, children and the family the fruits of his labor.

The goal being that in order to be free women must reach equal capital productive capacity and equal representation in all occupations as men. Reject male resource provision in all regard and become independent from the male in the mated pair bond accept where beneficial to the female in courtship, marriage and divorce.

The male should be exploited to such capacity as desired but not explicitly needed. To in fact not need from the male but take gladly from him is the ideal of female independence. While parity in productive capacity and representation is being reached the male can be used as an isolated resource provider through alimony and child support if he is no longer wanted for any other purpose. Alimony as it stands is not based on a median standard of living but is based on how much a man can make i.e. his productive capacity that must be handed over to the female. Usually alimony\ matriarchal family child support consists of approx 60% of the isolated resource producing males income. It is not necessary for him to be a father as fathers are not needed. Visitation of 4 days a month or every other weekend is the default. It is speculated that this is just enough contact with offspring to keep him producing for a female that is not his wife and a child he is not allowed to be a father to.

Once female productive capacity and occupational representation is equal to the males there will be no proletariat or bourgeoisie within a mated pair bond of marriage or in society between men and women. This is what Gloria Steinem was referring to in her quote I've cited above. The one power inequality left then is male-male competition and female choice in sexual selection. The male can then be used at her discretion and subjugated to provide resources in courtship, marriage, divorce or even against him in prostitution or any other use or service to the female in any means desired by the female. This then can be anything she wants. Whether we actually reach this point of denigration or if it is even possible is anyone's guess. Divorce is now the norm and marriage is on the decline in favor of cohabitation and the single mother home so it is my guess that men are responding appropriately and accordingly in perpetual withdraw. Men indeed must and need to go their own way. A return to equality and perhaps a division of labor and rights between men and women is essential. Men must begin to fight.

This is a first for our civilization to have such a norm of dissolved pair bonds between men and women, such a rate of dissolved families, what Hilary Clinton has described as a state of critical mass has been reached.

"Every society requires a critical mass of families that fit the traditional ideal, both to meet the needs of most children and to serve as a model for other adults who are raising children in difficult settings. We are at risk of losing that critical mass in America today."
Hillary R. Clinton, It Takes a Village, p. 50

As such the ultimate goal of creating parity, ambiguity and androgynous beings of the sexes will fail as indeed gender is not a social construct. Though female work of mother can not be measured by capitalist productive capacity, gender roles and the work exchange between male and female in their traditional roles have and always will be equal. To maintain the vestige of family autonomy from the powers of the state, working industry and feminism is crucial.

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

A Woman's Lament: Dreams of Motherhood Deffered

By Zoe Lewis

I never thought I would be saying this, but being a free woman isn't all it's cracked up to be. Is that the rustle of taffeta I hear as the suffragettes turn in their graves? Possibly. My mother was a hippy who kept a pile of (dusty) books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bed (like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning). She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation. I fought with my older brother and won; at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.

Now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. I want love and children but they are nowhere to be seen. I feel like a UN inspector sent in to Iraq only to find that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.

Ten years ago The Times ran a piece about my play Paradise Syndrome. It was based on my girlfriends in the music business. All we did was party, work and drink. The play sold out and I thought: “This is it! I'm going to have it all: success, power and men are going to adore me for it.” In reality it was the beginning of years of hard slog, rejection letters and living on the breadline. A decade on, I have written the follow-up play Touched for the Very First Time in which Lesley, played by Sadie Frost, is an ordinary 14-year-old from Manchester who falls in love with Madonna in 1984 after hearing the song Like a Virgin. She religiously follows her icon through the years, as Madonna sells her the ultimate dream: “You can do anything - be anything - go girl.” Lesley discovers, along with Madonna, that trying to “have it all” is a huge gamble. I wrote the play because so many of my girlfriends were inspired by this bullish woman who allowed us to be strong and sexy. I still love her and always will, but she has encouraged us to chase a fantasy and it's a huge disappointment.

I may be an extreme case. My views may not represent those of other women of my generation. Perhaps I am just a spoilt middle-class girl who had a career and who has now changed her mind? I don't think so. This month the General Household Survey found that the number of unmarried women under 50 has more than doubled over the past 30 years. And by the age of 30, one in five of these “freemales”, who have chosen independence over husband and family, has gone through a broken cohabitation.

I argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront, trampling the traditional role of women underneath their Doc Martens. I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother wasn't such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of yesteryear.

Increasing numbers of my feminist friends are giving up their careers for love and children and baking. I wish I'd had kids ten years ago, when time was on my side, but the problem is not so much time as mentality. I made a conscious decision not to have serious relationships because I thought I had all the time in the world. Many of my friends did the same. It's about understanding what is important in life, and from what I see and feel, loving relationships and children bring more happiness than work ever can.

Natasha Hidvegi, 37, has left her job as a surgeon to look after her son. “I found it impossible to be a good surgeon and a good mother. Though it was a horrendous decision, I don't regret it.”

I thought that men would love independent, strong women, but (in general) they don't appear to. Men are programmed to like their women soft and feminine. It's not their fault - it's in the genes. Holly Kendrick, 34, who holds a high-status job in the theatre, agrees: “Men tend to be freaked out if you work as hard as them.” This is why many of my girlfriends are still alone. The truth, though, is not that men haven't accepted women's modernity - the alpha woman who never questions her entitlement to the same jobs, fun and sexual gratification as them - but that women haven't either. I feel a great pressure from other women of my generation, who have partners and kids, to join their club. In their eyes I am not the trailblazer but the failure. My friend Rita Arnold, 36, works in marketing. “It's not men who judge me for being a careerist. It's other women. The claws come out.”

This leaves me sick to the stomach. We are letting each other down but there is a worse betrayal than that. I am a failure in my own eyes. Somewhere inside lurks a woman I cannot control and she is in the kitchen with a baby on her hip and dough in her hand, staring me down. She is saying: “This is happiness, this is what it's all about.” It's an instinct that makes me a woman, an instinct that I can't ignore even if I wanted to.

Felicity Wren, 36, is an actress who has yet to find Mr Right. “I feel the pressure, but only from myself, about how I do not have a conventional life. Most people don't care.”

Had I this understanding of my psyche ten years ago I would have demoted my writing (and hedonism) and pursued a relationship with vigour. There were plenty of men and even a marriage offer, but I wouldn't give up my dreams.

I talked to the girls who were the subject of my play Paradise Syndrome in 1999. Sas Taylor, 38, single and childless, runs her own PR company: “In my twenties I felt I was invincible,” she says. “Now I wish I had done it all differently. I seem to scare men off because I am so capable. I have business success but it doesn't make you happy.” Nicki P, 35 and single, works in the music industry and adds: “It was all a game back then. Now I am panicking. No one told me that having fun is not as fun as I thought.”

As I write this I feel sad, as if the feminist principles that my mother brought me up on are being trashed. Am I betraying womanhood? No, I am revealing a shameful truth. Women are often the worst enemies of feminism because of our genetic make-up. We have only a finite time to be mothers and when that clock starts ticking we abandon our strength and jump into bed with whoever is left, forgetting talk of deadlines and PowerPoint presentations in favour of Mamas & Papas buggies and ovulation diaries. Not all women want children but I challenge any woman to say she doesn't want loving relationships. I wish I'd had the advice that I am giving to my 21-year-old sister: if you find a great guy, don't be afraid to settle down and have kids because there isn't anything to miss out on that you can't do later (apart from having kids).

In the future I hope that there can be a better understanding of women by women. The past 25 years have been confusing and I feel that I've been caught in the crossfire. As women we should accept each other rather than just appreciating “success”. I have always felt a huge pressure to be successful to show men that I am their equal. What a waste of time. Wife and mother should be given parity with the careerist role in the minds of feminists.

My mother had children early and has brilliantly juggled a career as a filmmaker and parent. She was part of the generation that overlapped, that had feminist values but had children early. She hasn't had the job opportunities of my generation, she had to make sacrifices and take lesser jobs to be at parents' evenings. Choice and careers are vital, of course, but they shouldn't be pursued relentlessly. I love being a writer and still have my dream but now I am facing facts. The thing that has made me feel best in life was being in love with my ex-boyfriend and the thing that makes me feel the most centred is being in the country with kids and dogs, and yes, maybe in the kitchen

NOTE--I don't think that women realize they become nearly infertile by 35 and if they do conceive the chance of birth defects is very high. After 27 it is down hill for women fertility wise. No one tells women this. News of women seeking fertility treatment has skyrocketed and front page headlines about women conceiving quintuplets as a by product of these treatments is not spoken about. Women are taught that marriage, motherhood, children and family will stifle them, that marriage is a prison. That independence and a career are more fulfilling than a loving relationship and family.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Cabinet Level Council "Office of Women" ESTABLISHED!

ABOVE: Valerie Jarrett will head a new White House "women's council" or "women's high council". AP photo by Evan Vucci

President Obama will sign an executive order tomorrow to establish a White House Council on Women and Girls, according to an administration official familiar with the move.

The Council will be chaired by Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser and personal friend to the president, and the day-to-day operations will be run by Tina Tchen, who is currently director of the White House Office of Public Liaison and was a major fundraiser for Obama during the campaign.

"The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families," reads a memo describing the move and obtained by The Fix.

The United States Government, policies, procedures and actions are subject to prior review by The Council of Women and Girls so as to ensure that any and all processes and functions of government will be reviewed in order to consider and meet the unique and special needs of women and girls and as such apart from men and boys.

Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Labor
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Transportation
Department of Energy
Department of Education
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Homeland Security

The announcement is designed to coincide with the celebration of national women's history month.

"Obama and his team know that if he can maintain his 2008 margin among women in his reelection race in three years time, he will be sitting pretty. Expect then more symbolic moves like the establishment of the Council to demonstrate Obama's commitment to women and women's issues"



"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."

"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."


"Women still earn just 78 cents for every dollar men make."
-(Please see my post(Women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes?)

"One in four women still experiences domestic violence in their lifetimes."
-(Please see my post Domestic Violence for the truth from the CDC and American Psychological Association.)

"are only 17% of our Congress."
-(Women hold the vote and elect men. Women do not run for office at any level of
government nearly as much as men by their own choice not oppression)

"and 49% of the workforce but only 3% of our fortune 500 CEOs"
-(Please read "Why Men Earn More" by Dr. Warren Farrell)

"When these inequalities stubbornly persist in this country in this century then I think we need to ask ourselves some hard question and we need to take a hard look at where were falling short and who were leaving out and what that means for the prosperity and the vitality of our nation."


Last night I went to the pub with my brother. I overheard a man stating to his friend that his ex-wife took his house, his children and that he had to pay alimony for the rest of his life. Yes indeed the law is on the books! I told him that my brother spent $120,000 to get joint custody of his beloved child and had to pay alimony as well. That my brother was out of work for awhile and was threatened to be thrown in jail unless he came up with money to support his ex-wife. I explained that when my brother found work again he had to pay her support at 22% interest as punishment and luckily had avoided jail time. I informed him that the Men's Rights Movement is growing and gave him a link to a blog.

I found this morning to my dismay that the President has signed an executive order to create a Cabinet Level Women's Council Office or Women's Supreme High Council for the special needs of Women and Girls that reports directly to the President.

Women now obtain 60% of all college degrees meanwhile men are continually slipping scholastically at all levels of education while also loosing scholarships and funding. According to the CDC and American Psychiatric Association men constitute 50.3% of domestic violence victims and 70.7% of domestic violence victims where the man does not hit back yet no special laws such as VAWA protect them nor are their services to help them. 85% of the homeless are men. 81% of suicides are men and boys. There is a disproportionate amount of funding for women's health over men's health, govt. services and shelters. Men have little rights in divorce and child custody. Men bear the majority of risk, resource provision and social obligation to women in courtship, marriage and divorce. Women have no societal expectations but "choices" and expansion of special privileges and benefits. "My body my choice" does not extend to the stacked piles of dead 18 year old boys subject to be drafted to war. Women have more special rights, laws, women only loans, special protections, affirmative action, grants, funding, government mandated contracts to businesses that are woman owned if the other business competing for the contract is owned by a male. Today, Women own more than half the nation's wealth and by 2010 will have 60% of the national wealth. They hold the majority of the vote. Here in Colorado all jobs must be given to women first and this goes for college admissions as well. All men are expected to pay for the privledge of a woman's company in courtship, open doors, and give his life or stay behind in a state of emergency. Women are privledged beyond any other and have the gaul to have bumper stickers and tea shirts announcing their princess status. Stickers such as "Vagina..INTIMIDATED?" AND "Abortion, don't like it? Cut off your balls" etc etc etc...Misandry and anti male hate is epidemic. I wonder what this Council of Women will do now! What do they want?

Feminism has driven men, women and family apart, destroyed economic principals of free market, incentive for individual free enterprise and created women as a separate class. A systemically created elevated class structure by gender,race or religion with separate civil liberties is a violation of our founding principals as a nation.

A Cabinet post created in the highest element of government for the benefit of one gender alone, laws and representation for one gender alone or any race or religion alone will divide and destroy my nation! Such division of class in such respects is the hallmark of fascism in actual definition and in historical practice.


I believe this council is for women and girls only and serves to define women and girls, especially single mothers as a separate class away from men, boys, fathers and husbands.

I expect this council to further subsidize government husbandry to support and encourage single motherhood and divorce.

I expect it to form more affirmative action and Title IX policies that catapult women to positions of power by force. To give them preferential treatment in college admission, scholarships and funding, business ownership loans and further mandated government contracts to women owned businesses.

I expect that the disparity of 5% of the National Institute of Health budget that is spent on men and 10% is spent on women's health will continue and grow wider. Thusly, out of all 3000 medical journals listed in index medicus, medical articles cover women's health 23 to 1. Breast cancer to prostate cancer funding disparity will remain at 660%

I expect that what is being called "The Boy Crisis" in educational achievement will continue and the denigration and hindrances for opportunities and welfare of boys will continue in all realms of education, curiculum development and policy.
Women will then maintain or surpass their current 60% representation of college students and continue to aquire the vast majority of degrees.

I expect inequities in divorce and child custody laws will continue to be in women's favor and the 39% of American homes that are single mother and fatherless homes will grow higher.

I expect that although the CDC and American Psychiatric Association found that domestic violence is 50.3% committed by women and 70.7% of cases which involve men who do not initiate or hit back laws will continue to favor women and men will continue to lack any support and constitutional rights.

I expect unconstitutional VAWA laws will continue where men are jailed without question and forced to admit to guilt to gain access to their children or prove that they are not violent or a threat without due process and on accusation alone.

I expect rape shield laws to continue and no punishment for those who make false accusations.

I expect this and so much more.........

Monday, March 9, 2009

Alimony (woman support) for life

I was in a bar spending time with my brother when I overheard a man speaking of to his friend than he has to pay Alimony for life. I as well as my brother took the time to approach him and informed him that the men's movement is growing and that I feel for him. That my brother spent $120,000 to get joint custody of his beloved child. That when he was out of work he was threatened to be thrown in jail if he did not come up with money for her. That he is now employed and must pay her at 22% interest for his failure to support her. I promised this man I would post on my blog the states that have laws on the books that allow for the mandate of payment of wages for woman support for the rest of a man's life.

Here this man explained to me that he was from Oregon and that the shackles of male slavery were placed upon him there by the state of Oregon. He explained to me that his children were grown and out of the house. I don't understand. I don't understand how it has gotten to this point. I will be researching state laws and will be posting a list of states that male slavery is legal. I hope to bring awareness of this issue to my people and to young men especially. Many a young man in love has not been informed of the obligations and risks he bears to todays "independent" woman. He has no idea of the entitlements and choices women have in courtship, marriage and divorce.

If a marriage fails he stands to loose everything and his children as well, as joint custody is still not the norm. If marrying, young men should be taught that a prenuptial agreement should be signed, that marriage is not about love in governments eyes but a legally binding contract of risk and obligation to a woman.

I hope that someday men will be freed from the bonds of servitude to women who have left them and are not their wives. It must be made known that it is very difficult for men to be in servitude to them as a provider as we once were and wanted to be. I am sorry but there is no turning back. Women have taken this to far. They now have all the choices. If divorce takes place in modern times, each self supporting individual should go their separate ways. I am afraid that men will continue to have obligations to provide resources to women in courtship, marriage and divorce, that things will not change unless we demand it. That women now have all the rights and choices. They now have the best of both worlds. Women initiate 2/3 of all divorce.

Feminism has made it so that male resource provision in courtship is demeaning to men. Obligations of such in all regards in marriage and divorce is demeaning to men. I wish it was not this way but it is.

I spend time at the local pub on occasion and I speak to men there. I inform them that I'm a Men's Rights activist and they open up to me, they tell me their stories. It is sad but fortunate how many men have told me that they never have been and don't plan to get married, that they have seen the devastation of fellow men. Men are withdrawing from the risk of commitment to women and it is very sad.

Others simply lead a relational life with women of rogue vagabonds brought in and out of the lives of mischelanious women and single mothers and that of the children of these women. Women who check their online dating profiles as if it were a bank account to exchange the 12 to 15 men they have lined up when they tire of the current suitor and his resources. Women who are living the independent, empowered, selfish and delusional feminist ideal of a woman who has it all and needs no man or family. Who's children need only the myriad of "positive male role models" that drift in and out of their lives.

These men do so while supporting an ex wife and the children they only get to see 4 days a month. Men relegated to the shadows of a family once their own and dreams of fatherhood deferred. Never again they tell me, "I can't afford to commit to another woman anyhow" "I lost everything".



-------------LAST NIGHT GOD MAY HAVE SMILED UPON ME-------------------------

The very same night (last night) I approached three young ladies and began to speak with them in friendly conversation outside the pub. I noticed one of them wore a pin on her jacket that proudly stated "What does it take to do the job of 3 men? - 1 woman!" I immediately knew she was no sort of woman for me and a feminist. I spoke to her more beautiful and endearing friend instead. I found she loved horses as I do and liked to help disabled people and children as I do. How wonderful is that! It became clear that the ladies were getting cold outside and wanted to go in. I said "have fun ladies" and left with my brother to another pub.

Before entering, just outside the next pub I stopped to speak to a man in a wheel chair who had Cerebral Palsy, was mainly paralyzed and could barely speak. I spoke to him for awhile, had a few laughs and found that he loved horses and had ridden one once. I saw the half of his face that was functional light up and smile and a light in his eyes. I told him I knew of a friend that had a van and that we will all go together to an organization that helps disabled people by letting them ride horses. I gave him my email and made plans to hang out soon. We all went inside together grabbed a seat and a beer for my brother and I while my new friend sipped his vodka and cranberry juice through a straw.

Soon it was getting late and time to leave. We walked out and perhaps out of divine providence the beautiful endearing girl was there. She liked me I knew as she exclaimed excitedly with a smile "heeey!" I said "heeey there!" and gave her a hug. "Guess what I said" "I just met this man inside with CP and we're going to get him up on a horse at the center, perhaps you'd like to come to!"

She gave me her number and I hope to spend time with her soon to help a fellow human being, spend time with horses and a beautiful nurturing, kind and incredible woman! God was smiling upon me this night!

I hope to one day cohabitate with a woman. I will of course have the proper legal documents readied by lawyers to protect me from Common Law Marriage she is entitled to by living with me a certain amount of time. She will go from "independent woman" to a child like being that will fall into my care. If she leaves I will have to care for her as a parent and loose my children as well. I hope that I can have a family someday. I am afraid of loosing my children but I want so much to be a father. I am tortured by my desire for wife, family and children and the great risk that I bear that a woman can hold over me of fatherlessness, financial devastation and indentured servitude.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

What obligations do women have to men, dating, relationships, marriage, divorce and in society???

I've been asking myself and my friends, "What obligations do women have to men in dating, relationships, marriage, divorce and society???" What are women expected to do for men? What choices of ours are they supposed to support that fall on their shoulders? What risks do they bear? What is expected or sought for in women to be adequate mates, to be marriage material?

Let me start with men's obligations and perhaps someone can tell me women's.

Actively pursue the affections of women by taking them on dates and paying for them. Open both car and all other doors. Bring them gifts especially on Valentines Day (which is overwhelmingly biased toward showing women affection and spending money on them.) The saying goes "I want a man who knows how to treat a woman" and "always treat a woman with respect". If I were to suggest on a dating site "I want a woman who knows how to treat a man" what would this mean?? Would it be considered wrong or negative to ask for such things? Allow me to continue...

Propose marriage and purchase the rings. Provide for her if she "allows" you to or perhaps she would like to get out of the rat race and rely on a man. It is improper to refuse her sex when you don't want it and thus a man is supposed to be most always available. Support her right to abort your child even late in late term pregnancy. Protect her and give your life should there be life threatening danger. Go to war and fight on her behalf and interests by force of the draft. Provide male utility of strength, physical labor, mechanical or fix it ability where needed. Accept that all domestic responsibilities of the home are demeaning to women and hold such a connotation that to even expect or make it known that you desire such things of a woman is socially taboo and unacceptable. If she is not happy with your marriage financially support her right to leave by giving her half your things and give her money to support her through alimony after she leaves. Surrender the right to be a father and custody of your children yet pay to support the children as well through child support (which is hidden alimony). Surrender your right to due process. Should there be a domestic dispute he is jailed automatically and if for any reason she feels she needs to have him restrained away from her, a restraining order is automatically issued on the grounds that she feels threatened. Should she decide to enact VAWA he is held without question and guilty until proven innocent. If she is a foreign woman she is automatically granted citizenship if such allegations are made. In Canada in any such case she is given property rights of his property and his possessions.

AND NOW I ASK, What are Women's obligations, risks and choice support for men??? Do men have choices or is our choice simply to court and give money and resources to what is now perfectly capable women. What are their obligations and risks they bear to a man in dating, marriage, divorce, to family and society?? What are they expected to do for a man in marriage and family? What ever they want is my answer.

Ask yourself If you were make the statement on a dating profile "I want a woman who knows how to treat a man" as so many women state the inverse, what connotation would this carry? Does requesting respect from women have any meaning? Would this be a good or bad thing to ask?

Feminism is about choices and benefits without obligation, cost or expected reciprocation to and for the graces that men, society and government bestow upon women. Grace, commitment, honor, sacrifice, reciprocation and obligation of any kind is not expected of them. They are to be served and taken care of in all aspects.

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 bare minimum. There is no hope or reward of honor and commitment from women. Men bare 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??? This is equality???

In other news the father of joint custody Jim Cook has passes away last week. Jim was instrumental in fighting feminist law doctrine stating that men are psychologically and emotionally incapable of being a parent. He was a true patriot for equal rights and fought very hard against the Feminist Party. May he rest in peace.....

"As late as 1971, the Minnesota State Bar Association's handbook advised lawyers and judges that:

"except in very rare cases, the father should not have custody of the minor children. He is usually unqualified psychologically and emotionally."

When James (Jim) Cook, a Los Angeles real estate lobbyist, divorced in 1974 and sought shared custody of his son, "the judge thought it was preposterous," he recalls. "He told me, 'I don't have permission to do it.'" Outraged, Cook and some friends organized the Joint Custody Association and in 1979 pushed through the California legislature the first law encouraging joint custody. All 50 states eventually followed suit..."

Men gained a right that brings us one step closer to
being allowed to have a child and YES!, to be allowed to be a Father, to not have our beloved children ripped from our arms!! We have a fighting chance to share the sacred bond of fatherhood with our children. Still this is not often the case and men have along way to go from being the sperm and money donors feminism and women have relegated us to. Be careful men, you stand to loose everything. Keep your heads up
and keep fighting. The Men's Rights Movement is growing and you can be a part of it. You can have a voice!