Thursday, July 30, 2009

Sperm Banks Men for Sale


Just have your doctor sign the quick and easy A1 form and our exclusive collection of males await your choice! Why waste your time with no-fault divorce, alimony woman support and child support! Yes women get custody of children by default, yes the man is forced to support you outside of marriage but we cut to the chase. With all the government benefits to single mothers and the rise of the independent woman, you to can have the male genes of your dreams without the hassle! Act now!

oooooooh! how much is male number 03409? I can't wait to come in and see his mug shot in the male albums they set at the coffee table. Let's see 03409....ohhhh wow he's a looker! Your one stop source for the best male genes! Order yours today, no man necessary, no father needed! Act now, opening an account with us is easy!

Once registered we will ship your male genes next day air! It's that easy!
You can even select your male genes by what Hollywood celebrity the male looks like.
Single motherhood and the best gene quality has never been easier!

"I think that women who want to get married and have children, may have to compromise on the GENE QUALITY of the man for his ability to financially support the child.
however women who have stable careers and think they can support the child alone, are in a unique position to get the BEST GENES for their children if they are willing to be single mothers. Single motherhood is increasingly becoming an option for women."

"Most women may not be able to marry the tall, attractive, guy with good proportions and health and have his kids, but having such a guy to donate his sperm may be easier. for this reason, young Nordic and Mediterranean men are in great demand"

(and their sperm goes for a decent price -added exemplification).

"The point is that if you have decided to raise the child alone and dont bother that the biological father is legally absolved of the responsiblity then why not choose the genes of best quality for your child?"

"Just imagine how good it will be for women if we had more state benefits for child support, if only we had a system where the state was responsible for bringing up the kids and women would not have to chase after men to marry them and share the burden of supporting and in the process compromising on genetic quality, choosing ugly, fat, bald, short unattractive men only because they were willing to be good supporters.
this is not FREEDOM of choice for women. women are forced to choose these men."

(The law says that men have to support us but they don't always send us all the money they are supposed to even when they are sent to jail or pay interest payments to us for punishment. The problem is that we only get more money from men the more they feel involved in their child's life. -added exemplification)

The stats:
90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.

(The fact is that women now have complete control over conception and all the reproductive rights. Men don't even have paternity fraud laws to protect them much less abortion or even the right to custody of their own children. Men are to be taken or left out and we still get supported by them. -exemplification)

"In the ideal society i talk about where there is 100% state child support, women would be free to choose the men they really want to conceive from and the genes they really think would create the healthy, beautiful babies they want."

(Single motherhood is your choice and every independent woman's choice, this is the reason we fought for equality, so that we won't need men or to keep or commit to men anymore as husbands or fathers. Men don't really have any vital importance anymore nor are they necessary to be happy. That's what equality is all about to give us choices and freedoms -added exemplification).

"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." (The single woman birth rate is at an all time high of 40% of all births)

"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. 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."


(We don't really need men for anything. I'm looking for a soul mate, a man that can make me happy. I've worked to hard to have this type of freedom and am not going to compromise that. I've worked to hard to get to where I am, to be independent. Women today can have a man in or out of marriage and it's not a big deal, he still has to send us alimony and child support. With the rise of affordable, quality child care and even the prospect of paid maternity leave I'm able to pursue true individual freedom. Being a single women or a single mother is a choice and it's empowering to women, it's men's job to help us do it, not that we need their money anyway, but it's nice to have the extra income.

Men must know that we don't need them and that they must compete amongst each other for something else now, namely how they can please us and make us happy. Women can have offspring and reproduce anytime we want and in many different ways, with men or without them. It's men who have to have something to offer us, now a days this can be anything we want. Men are intimidated by successful women for a reason, we are competing for and taking away the things we demand they offer us. I'm sure it's humiliating but I require that they still pay for my food and drinks and other entertainment on dates. If I feel like it I'll throw in a token offer to pay something but they always know the safer bet is to pay up and they always do...LOL.

If I wanted to be married and let a man commit and propose to me I would. I've actually turned down several men. Today, men are panderers and useless as husbands or fathers. Don't you see, the whole point of "independence" is to not need a man and the whole point of not needing a man is to make them want and need us more than we need them.

If I do have kids it will be later on. I'm not going to get off this ride for a while. Besides I am never short of a date and men "know how to treat a woman" when their courting us to be a good suitor. My advise is to wait until about 30 years old. Men are so marginalized they go for older women now. I think the best insurance for a woman when she decides to do so is to get married, divorce, find another guy but stay single. That way I can enjoy the benefits of my new man while still receiving alimony from the old one.


"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?"

Women today have all the choices and this is what equality for women is all about. We don't need men and are independent but they still have to support us and even pay for us on dates, in marriage and most importantly after we leave them in no-fault divorce. Men are always there for us to lean on, lol. Feminist divorce laws implemented in the 70's or what these Men's Rights MRA freaks call "MARRIAGE 2.0" has done wonders for women's equality. Women initiate 70+% of all divorce for a reason and this does not include the growing number of women who decide to leave the increasing amount of cohabitant relationships. If a man does not make me happy I take the home, his money and his children and force him to support me. It's really that simple and yes it's really that empowering.

Think about it, Marsha, we earn 60% of ALL college degrees, and still have Affirmative Action, Title IX, women only loans, women only full scholarships etc. Competitive learning has been banned from our schools in favor of cooperative learning. Just put the boys on drugs like Ritalin and give it some name like Attention Deficit HyperActivity Disorder or ADHD. Boys aren't even allowed to play dodge ball anymore. Teach them that they have a disease where they can't pay attention and are hyperactive and make everyone think boys just have this disease. Just tell them to shut up or go to detention.

Women have been earning more bachelor’s degrees than men since 1982, and more master’s degrees than men since 1981. In 2006, women earned 57% of all bachelor’s degrees, 58% of all master’s, and 47% of all doctorates and first professional degrees. But guess what women are projected to EXCEED 50% of enrollment for doctorates and first professional degrees for the first time in 2006. Who will these women marry, I don't really care but I can tell you one thing, not a man less successful and educated than I am, but I'm sure we will find a use for them, they won't like it but they really will have no other choice ; )

By 2016 women are projected to receive over 60% of bachelor degrees, 61% of master’s degrees and over 53% of all doctorate and first professional degrees We live 7 years longer AND have 7 federal offices for women's health, men have not 1 though they suffer from all health aliments more than we do, are 80% of all suicides and 85% of the homeless, 96% of workplace deaths and combat deaths. All this and the president just opened up The Council on Women and Girls to help us even more. Men just won't stop being chivalrous, protecting and providing for us, what pansies they are.

Listen, women make 80% of all consumer purchases in this country and by 2010 will have 60% of the nations wealth. Think about it, women don't get paid less for the same job, we get paid less as a whole of the population because we don't have the same obligations men do and make different choices, we are not forced by law to support them. The wage gap of 22 cents (78 cents to the dollar) is the Raw Wage Gap or adding up how much men and women make in the entire work force. Besides where do you think government money and men's money goes guessed it, right into our pocket in government entitlements and forced male labor to support us which more than makes up for those 22 cents.

We don't have to defend the country, can have a man removed from the home or his child and thrown in jail by word alone and best of all men don't have any rights in divorce. I remember a time when I got pissed at my boyfriend, threw plates at him, broke glasses, slapped and hit him and then called the police to take him to jail, lol. All I have to do is call the big strong police men to help protect are so stupid. That's why we have the Violence Against Women Act : ) Do you think we will ever replace "women's shelters" with counseling centers for families? Men don't even have assault laws to protect them nor domestic violence services, heck boys of 12 years of age or older can't even enter a shelter. That's why we put these ads up in order to show little boys as criminals and little girls as victims. It's our way of saying that family violence is always the fault of men and is always perpetrated by men and we like it that way.

We are able to cast men out of the home and family and there is nothing he can do about it. That's the big trick, even though women hold 54% percent of the vote, if you look at the voting numbers at all levels of government we still vote for men, why, because men will provide, protect and die for us into their own oblivion, they always have, it's their instinct.

They won't put up a fight, male suicide has tripled since 1970 so they will just kill themselves off. We've got them between a rock and a hard place and there is nothing they will do about it! In 1964, 72 percent of men voted for president, while that number today has dropped to 53 percent today. Add men's retreat from the public sphere and our 54% voting majority and there you have it, a country run by women and our needs and the men who serve them! Do you think were going to open up an office on men's health or give them anything like shared custody of our children, hell no, we still have a long way to go and are still oppressed by men who insist on providing for us and protecting us even though we are independent. We've fought long and hard to be independent and not need men for anything and we are not about to give that up. We can have our cake and eat it to! ; ) Men are simply being shut out and dropping out of society. Look at their labor force participation not to mention their only 40% of earned college degrees and falling.

They won't save themselves from this and women of course will not save them either, the end game has been played and of course as always, men provided and protected us without a fight. I don't feel a bit of pity for them, that's what men are for, to provide and protect us while being expendable and disposable and they know their place in society and what happens in marriage if the do not please me....bye bye provider man, provide from an empty apartment for now on, oh and I hope you miss your children.... LOL ; ). We as women have managed to create so many law, rights and privileges for ourselves we are now a separate class away from men and family. Class warfare with men is evident. Men know they have a lot of pleasing to do or else, the stupid dotes don't have any rights, just look at the link below....LOL -exemplification)

------------BELOW:----------A FEMINIST TELLS THE TRUTH-------------------------------
Below: A feminist writes.....

OK. Time to put men out of your misery. Feminism was and is the biggest con in history. We talked endlessly about "equality" yet that was the last thing we wanted. You men have yet to realise that women never say what we mean. It is always shrouded in hyperbole and imagery.

So now, we are so close to having our cake and eating it. Here are just a few examples.

1) We can take you to the cleaners in divorce. No suggestion of equality there. We can have affairs and divorce you and we STILL get the house and maintenance for as long as we need. There is now absolutely no risk in a woman filing for divorce. You men don't even have the right to shag us any more. More and more women are making their husbands live celebate lives in marriage. Once we have that ring on our finger we rule! I am only 27. I have been married three times. Each one I stayed with for three years and then took for every penny I could get. You see, we only have to convince a judge of "irretreivable breakdown" of the relationship. And how is that determined? Easy. When ONE party does not wish the relationship to continue. My current husband needs another year I would say. The business he has built up is not quite where I need it to be yet. When it is, he will go the same way as the others. The house is already mine "for tazx reasons". At least thats what he thinks. I "allowed" my name to be put on the deeds, but he will find come the day that this just means the house is mine already. I tend to go for cash settlements with regard to maintenance which leaves me free to start again. Not that I need to now. By the time I have ditched this poor sap, I will have more than enough to live a very good lifestyle with for the rest of my life. Even if money starts to run short I can always do it again. It's not as if I have to have sex much either. I pick men who are on the way up building their buisnesses. The hours they put in mean they are usually too tired and if they have affairs with their secretaries, well, that just makes it easier for me.

2) We get far less severe prison sentences for the same crimes. We can even murder our new born children and it is written off as Post Natal Depression. Women's groups all over the world are working for the day when no woman will ever be sent to prison for any crime. ANd trust me, that day will come. Take a look..

(British home secretary Baroness Corston has proposed that all women's prisons should be shut down and converted to prisons for men. If adopted by the home secretary, Baroness Corston's approach would see Holloway and about 14 other all-female prisons in England and Wales shut down or converted into jails for men.)

3) In the work place not only do we get paid for taking time off to have children, but now we even get pay rises while we are off, an absolute right in law to return to the job we left and in some cases now, we even get promoted while we are on leave. Employers have to invest in our training, but we are free to screw them over by taking all the training and qualifications we can get of of them and then leaving.

4) We now have senior politicians who advocate "positive descrimination" . In other words, if you are a white male, you are where you belong. At the bottom of the heap. Women are eased into top jobs and ministerial positions in Government. The Sisterhood is alive and well and working beautifully. The Labour Government, always breathtakingly stupid has actually gone as far as prohibiting the selection of male candidates in some wards. Fantastic.

And you poor men. What can one say? All you need is a little show of panty now and then and you are putty in our hands. You and you alone have allowed us to take this supremecy and you have done so without a whimper. When I joined the feminist movement, I didnt really buy into the more vitriolic mantras of "all men are pigs" and "the only good man is a doormat", but now I see you for what you are. A means of providing what I want.

(You are the servant sex, the male-male competition for female sexually selective choice universal to all the animal kingdom, the protectors and providers to your own demise and death, now suffering in health, dying to protect us, competing amongst each other, easily manipulated, you are expendable, disposable, worthless and killing yourself for us, just the way we planned it. Look now, behold all the sniveling dribbling metrosexual feminized men pandering for mating opportunity, desperately trying to find a way now to be of some use to us when we've taken everything you try to provide to us for ourselves. The further we advance the further you will be subjugated to women, the females servant to our own increasingly powerful instituted and ordained entitlements.

We now rule politics, education, healthcare, have all the rights in divorce, conception, reproduction, the justice system you name it. All because you can't help but to provide and protect us to your own demise. The more you resist the more men will restrain other men and create more laws and be rewarded by gaining political power to those that serve females. Yes, that's right we have the voting majority. Men think they are in power when they are simply doing our bidding for us, the work horses for the growing matriarchy. The gates of male subjugation to the female sex are open and not even females ourselves can stop it now! Your plight is hopeless and you don't even know it, victims of your own purpose of utility to the female, your brainless instinct of servitude! Your simply not valued as much and value yourselves less than us. That's why you elect to die to save us and die you will. In our promise of equality to you we have convinced you to eat the apple once again but this time I hope you choke on it. No matter how independent we get, we will always seek out the same things we always have from you and with ever mounting competition with your new and most formidable competitor, not other males but females. We will compete against you for the very things we demand from you until you die.

Look at our big man, our mommas boy, breed with sole female authority. Stand back and watch what happens next.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009





There is currently a proposition within the Responsible Father's and Healthy Families Act of 2009 WHICH SEEKS TO CREATE THE NATIONS FIRST OFFICE OF MEN'S HEALTH!! The above petition is a part of this bill! WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

WOMEN HAVE CREATED 7 FEDERAL OFFICES FOR THEIR HEALTH though men suffer from poorer health, are 85% of the homeless, 80% of suicides which has increased 3x since 1970. Male health has been on the decline in all realms.

The shared parenting petition seeks to presume that men should have equal and shared custody of their children and are not left childless by default full custody given to the woman. Currently it is the case that 90% of men loose their children in divorce and are only able to see them 4 days a month. There are only two hurdles that we need to remove.

1: There is a profit driven model from the federal government to the states based on how many men they can separate from their children. Once there is a parent\visitor model the visitor (usually the father) is made to pay child support. Federal rewards are given to states based on how much money is collected from men and how many men they have collected money from. As of late the primary opposition from state legislatures has been "if we pass shared parenting laws we will loose revenue from the government" "shared parenting is just not profitable" Thus we must keep the profit driven model. There is another way!

2: Women's groups claim that men are more of a danger to women and children when they are in to close or to frequent contact with the father. They claim the benefits of allowing men to have children do not outweigh the risk to both women and children.
It is said that most men are just to violent and harmful to women and children. There is another way! We must show that men are good and second we are human beings who have the right to have the blessings of being a father.

Why are there no conferences, petitions, workshops, congressional hearings, or presidential councils to help men close the education gap, the health care gap, the insurance gap, the job-loss gap, the death gap, the homeless gap, the suicide gap, the workplace fatality gap, the divorce law and child custody gap? Because, unlike women, men do not have hundreds of men's studies departments, research institutes, policy centers, and lobby groups working tirelessly to promote their challenges as political causes."

MEN, WE ARE ALL ALONE, WE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN BUT WE MUST FORM RANKS NOW. IF YOU DO NOT STAND UP AND FIGHT YOU WILL LOSE. Women do not spend much time worrying about the well-being of men. Their natural inclination is to let men look after themselves and take their chances in life. At the same time, they count on men to shield them from the harsher aspects of reality, and become extremely indignant at any men who fail to do so. In other words, women are naturally inclined to assume that men must take responsibility for everyone, while they are only responsible for themselves and "their" children. INCREASINGLY THOUGH WE ARE STICKING TOGETHER, ORGANIZING AND MAKING A VOICE FOR OURSELVES AND GOING OUR OWN WAY AS WELL. SUCH IS THE MODO OF THE "MGTOW" FACTION OF THE MOVEMENT. THERE IS A GROWING PRESENCE OF MEN ON YOUTUBE, YAHOO ANSWERS GENDER FORUMS AND THE BLOGOSPHERE. CREATE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BLOGS AND SHARE LINKS TO OTHERS BLOGS ON YOURS.




According to a conference I attended with the there are three major sources of feminist opposition and funding of the anit-shared parenting lobby and these are as follows:

VAWA or Violence Against Women Act


Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Counter Feminist Women's Groups

Here is a list of women's groups to follow. These women seem to be counter feminists
that want harmony between men and women and seem to believe more so toward equality. It seems anyway that these women are interested in the health and maintenance of our social fabric as a whole!?! They even mention the health of men and boys sometimes as if they see men and women as having mutual interests toward a common end and not just women or what benefits women and at others expense?!? Though I am skeptical and distrustful they give me a little hope..

It's always a good thing to get a woman's perspective on just about anything, especially since they are 50% of the battle in the problems we face. If women are not involved with Men's and Father's Rights NOTHING will get accomplished.

These women seem to identify with a more moderate faction known as individual feminism or individualist feminist. Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers define individualist feminism in opposition to what they call political or gender feminism. Scholars and critics have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism.[4][5] -

Independent Women's Forum ( --recommended ------------recommended

AUTHOR INTERVIEW: Kathleen Parker in her new book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care.

DR. HELEN's_Day!_How_The_Traditional_Family_Became_an_Alternative_Lifestyle/2049/

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Harvard University: Lawrence Summers Replacement

I am sure everyone knows the fate of the former President of Harvard University when he discussed human gender dimorphisms in an Academic Conference. I'd like to present his replacement a Women's Studies Department Head, Feminist and new President of Harvard University, Drew Faust. Summers was forced to resign, and Harvard has pledged $50,000,000 to the promotion of women only.

"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"
-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

All open discourse in the highest chambers of academia, freedom of opinion and speech that contradicts feminist doctrine will not and is not tolerated. All that express differently have and will be socially executed by the order of the Feminist Party.

Below: Unofficial Transcript of Lawrence Summers actual speech that lead to his exile
Neither exact transcripts nor the tape recording of Summers' comments have been released. For some reason, the records have been sealed to public or private inquiry. Harvard and its president Drew Faust have allowed the following to be hosted on the Harvard website.

"The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society"
-=President John F. Kennedy=-

WOW, A woman who understands Dr. Summers Presentation of data:
HELENA CRONIN: Philosopher, London School of Economics; director and founder Darwin@LSE; author, The Ant and the Peacock

More dumbbells but more Nobels: Why men are at the top

What gives rise to the most salient, contested and misunderstood of sex differences… differences that see men persistently walk off with the top positions and prizes, whether influence or income, whether heads of state or CEOs… differences that infuriate feminists, preoccupy policy-makers, galvanize legislators and spawn 'diversity' committees and degrees in gender studies?

I used to think that these patterns of sex differences resulted mainly from average differences between men and women in innate talents, tastes and temperaments. After all, in talents men are on average more mathematical, more technically minded, women more verbal; in tastes, men are more interested in things, women in people; in temperaments, men are more competitive, risk-taking, single-minded, status-conscious, women far less so. And therefore, even where such differences are modest, the distribution of these 3 Ts among males will necessarily be different from that among females — and so will give rise to notable differences between the two groups. Add to this some bias and barriers — a sexist attitude here, a lack of child-care there. And the sex differences are explained. Or so I thought.

But I have now changed my mind. Talents, tastes and temperaments play fundamental roles. But they alone don't fully explain the differences. It is a fourth T that most decisively shapes the distinctive structure of male — female differences. That T is Tails — the tails of these statistical distributions. Females are much of a muchness, clustering round the mean. But, among males, the variance — the difference between the most and the least, the best and the worst — can be vast. So males are almost bound to be over-represented both at the bottom and at the top. I think of this as 'more dumbbells but more Nobels'.

Consider the mathematics sections in the USA's National Academy of Sciences: 95% male. Which contributes most to this predominance — higher means or larger variance? One calculation yields the following answer. If the sex difference between the means was obliterated but the variance was left intact, male membership would drop modestly to 91%. But if the means were left intact but the difference in the variance was obliterated, male membership would plummet to 64%. The overwhelming male predominance stems largely from greater variance.

Similarly, consider the most intellectually gifted of the USA population, an elite 1%. The difference between their bottom and top quartiles is so wide that it encompasses one-third of the entire ability range in the American population, from IQs above 137 to IQs beyond 200. And who's overwhelmingly in the top quartile? Males. Look, for instance, at the boy:girl ratios among adolescents for scores in mathematical-reasoning tests: scores of at least 500, 2:1; scores of at least 600, 4:1; scores of at least 700, 13.1.

Admittedly, those examples are writ large — exceptionally high aptitude and a talent that strongly favours males and with a notably long right-hand tail. Nevertheless, the same combined causes — the forces of natural selection and the facts of statistical distribution — ensure that this is the default template for male-female differences.

Let's look at those causes. The legacy of natural selection is twofold: mean differences in the 3 Ts and males generally being more variable; these two features hold for most sex differences in our species and, as Darwin noted, greater male variance is ubiquitous across the entire animal kingdom. As to the facts of statistical distribution, they are three-fold … and watch what happens at the end of the right tail: first, for overlapping bell-curves, even with only a small difference in the means, the ratios become more inflated as one goes further out along the tail; second, where there's greater variance, there's likely to be a dumbbells-and-Nobels effect; and third, when one group has both greater mean and greater variance, that group becomes even more over-represented at the far end of the right tail.

The upshot? When we're dealing with evolved sex differences, we should expect that the further out we go along the right curve, the more we will find men predominating. So there we are: whether or not there are more male dumbbells, there will certainly be — both figuratively and actually — more male Nobels.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the prevailing perspective in current debates, particularly where policy is concerned. On the contrary, discussions standardly zoom in on the means and blithely ignore the tails. So sex differences are judged to be small. And thus it seems that there's a gaping discrepancy: if women are as good on average as men, why are men overwhelmingly at the top? The answer must be systematic unfairness — bias and barriers. Therefore, so the argument runs, it is to bias and barriers that policy should be directed. And so the results of straightforward facts of statistical distribution get treated as political problems — as 'evidence' of bias and barriers that keep women back and sweep men to the top. (Though how this explains the men at the bottom is an unacknowledged mystery.)

But science has given us biological insights, statistical rules and empirical findings … surely sufficient reason to change one's mind about men at the top.


---Above was her response to the exile of Dr. Lawrence Summers the former president of Harvard University, his subsequent replacement with Drew Faust, Women's Studies Dept head, Feminist and new president of Harvard , the dedication of $50,000,000 to promote women only and the Obama administrations plan to enact forced women only affirmative action and Title IX in all science, technical, computer and engineering departments nation wide.

Ultimately the goal is to destroy the American science, technical, computer and engineering base in the name of equality and political correctness. To enforce not equal opportunity but equal outcome between men and women by unequal means. The goal of these initiatives is to enact sanctioned discrimination against men so that women may take their place. Dr Roy Baumeister points out "Research using DNA shows that todays human population is decendend from twice as many women as men." "This difference is the single most under appreciated fact about gender" "About 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced" or more specifically our DNA composition shows that only the most successful males mated, supported and sired the most offspring and disseminated their genetic fitness over less apt males. Indeed that sexual selection, male-male competition for female selective choice is not only an element of the animal world but in humans as well. (Link at bottom)

Such selective pressures have not only created dimorphisms and differences between males and females but more specifically between males as is evident by male representation at extreeme ends of the selective trait performance spectrum. Given the selective pressure upon males and their biological value to the mated pair bond is more heavily weighted in external utility, males are represented at the top and bottom of the mesurable trait spectrum. The theory correlates correctly, if females are the constant and males the variables from which to choose one could speculate that males will have a propensity to mate with almost any willing female. It makes sense that male specific selective traits choosen by the female compound upon themselves and are carried through and amplified in succeeding generations of males and over time an extreme dichotomy and disparity of these traits will be represented in the male.

Although he did not go into detail when he presented such knowledge
I believe Dr. Summers assumed people namely women in academia would be open to the idea of gender differences or even preferences given the data, g factors and dimorphic curve information that is known to science. Instead he was forced to resign...

"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free." -=President Thomas Jefferson=-


I believe the above distribution is responsible for girls performing well in the median average and making better grades per capita in general. There are two variable offsets within the median average that equalize the performance disparity or make for "gender equality" within this range. That is, contrary to popular belief instituted by feminists, males and females have gender specific aptitudes and deficientcies in specific subjects. Females consistently perform better at reading, writing and language while boys consistently perform better at math.

Over all boys are represented at the bottom of performance relative to girls but this is offset by males predominating the upper end of intelligence and performance.

So within the median range gender deficiencies are offset by unique proficientcies of each sex in different subjects. Females will predominate the higher aggregate of median performance or grade average in general but males will predominate in the highest percentiles of grade performance as well as the lowest. When the bottom performing boys and top performing boys grade performance is weighted however OVERALL performance of boys and girls shows very little if any disparity.

Feminists use the weighted average to argue that there are not differences between males and females and that representation in all fields of study should reflect likewise, that representation in the upper areas of performance should reflect likewise. It is argued the reason this is not so is a result of blatant discrimination against females.

Feminists seek to remove males from representation and employment of this upper range performance in all science, technical and engineering departments in colleges which will extend to the removal of upper performing males from the employment in these fields in the workforce.

When gender specific interests or aptitudes are employed by males, feminist claim that females are discriminated against in these subjects such as auto mechanics, computer science, architectural, structural, mechanical engineering,electricians, avionics, electronic technicians and the list goes on....


Interesting read. The general paper is also somewhat related to the creation of dimorphic disparity evidenced by DNA expressions:
Dr. Roy F. Baumeister: Is There Anything Good About Men?
Written in response to the forced exile of Dr. Lawrence Summers.

End Of Men Discovered Feminists Rejoice

-End Of Men Discovered, Feminists Rejoice. Why Do Women Feel This Way? Why is it acceptable and politically correct to speak of men this way? Notice this is the scientific technology Professor Laurie French is referring to in the article "Who Needs Men?" several blog posts down entitled "Article: The Cronicle of Higher Education" which was actually published in this prominent academic newspaper.

Men’s rights and fathers’ rights advocates identify a wide range
of injustices and harms suffered by men. Males have been displaced
from the labour market, schools and universities, deprived of their
role as fathers, and are now regarded only as ‘gene pool and cash
machines’. Men are subject to discrimination in health and
government policy, boys are marginalised in a feminised schooling
system, and ‘misandrist’ (man-hating) depictions are rife in popular
culture. There has been a "battle of the sexes" taking place for the
last 40 years. The results are in while the attack against men and boys
is still underway. It is time to counter attack. Thus the rise of the
Men's and Father's Rights Movement.

Prominent New York Times Columnist Mareen Dowds politically correct book:
Are Men Necessary:

Time Magazine:

Sony Cybershot Commercial Christmas 2008: Father and husband at parent teacher conference shown as filthy horses ass.

Roomba Robotic Vacuum Commercial: Depicting husband and father as useless ignorant and filthy jack ass.

Trojan Condom Commercial: Depicting men as filthy unevolved animal pigs

T-Shirt sold to little girls:

Credit card sold to adult women:

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."
-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

What do the above advertisements reveal about our culture in relation to the truth regarding our view of men? Since these ads are trying to sell something to women, what wide demographical, what aggregate truth of women's perception of men are they trying to appeal to?

Female empowerment through male denigration, unequal rights and special privledges:

The feminist movement has spearheaded the cultural acceptance of the routine disrespect of men. Instead of equitably quashing and discouraging misandry and working toward true mutual understanding and respect between the sexes, the feminist movement has succeeded in cheerleading a misandry that palpably permeates the culture. Jokes, television commercials, magazine advertisements and even greeting cards often put down men in a way that would be condemned as sexist if directed toward women. As men, become less needed as fathers and husbands, by forced servitude of resources to the female after leaving a cohabitant relationship, divorce or by simply living with a male long enough to mandate Common Law Marriage, default loss of the right to be a father, modern reproductive technology and government husbandry welfare men are increasingly disrespected by women. The goal is not to abolish marriage as earlier feminists postulated but to make men expendable and disposable.

Ironically, by reducing men's general status vis a vis women, women find to their disappointment fewer available men, especially in successive generations who can meet their high expectations for a potential husband and father of her children. The battle between the sexes is not an evolutionary paradox that we have reached but is systemically subsidized. Men and boys are under attack in all elements of society. Inherently it seems women resent the mutual dependence of a mated pair bond and any dependence on what men want to provide to them and what women need from men. What men need from women i.e mother, nurturer and fertile health is inherent and can not be taken away from them where as what women need from men can be taken by force and indeed it is. Now, by laws instituted by feminsits, male resources, male working labor and monetary capitol production is the property of women, children are the property of women and indeed complete control over reproduction and reproductive choice is the sole right, choice and property of women and women alone. The goal
is to allow women choices and men the responsibility to support those choices whether he like it or not.

Unfortunately, men are so predisposed to protect women, and protect what feminists say women's interests are, that men ignore their own interests as a group to their own peril. On a social level, several nascent men's movements have sputtered, and then sadly faded. Not until the early 2000's did the grass roots movements start to unite and being to form a more formidable voice for men. Apparently men's instincts to protect women are generally greater than their inclination to protect themselves. Innate male biology is inclined to put "women first" which has created a "women can have their cake and eat it to" dichotomy in our social order. Such has been the force used against men in our own subjugation to women.

On a more personal level, when a man finds himself unable to provide income than a woman can obtain via welfare and single mother government husbandry (or that she can provide through her own career), or through forced male resource provision after divorce, when he cannot have equal choices and equal control in conception of a child , when he is ordered to financially support a child that he never wanted (or even one that is not genetically his own), when he is not granted equal custody or parental authority for his children after a divorce, when he loses a job, promotion, a work contract or college admission to a less qualified woman due to affirmative action policies, when women reject him because they prefer a partner who has a higher status, he feels, at best, frustrated, despondent and alone. He knows something is a miss with feminist rhetoric about "equality," but he may have difficulty articulating it. Men today are befuddled -- they don't understand how equality for women came to result in sexual, reproductive, parental, legal and social inequality and a disrespect for men. It hurts him deeply to know that he is told everywhere he looks that men are not needed, are disposable and an accessory to independent women and "their" children.

The idea that reproduction, conception and parenting is a decision jointly made by both partners no longer exists. Examined more closely, it is clear that the choice of woman is always a prerequisite yet the consent or choice of the man is superfluous and disregarded. His sole existence now is bound by servitude, exploitation and expendability to the mated pair bond, as a supportive husband, and indeed his expendability, need and value as a father.

The one saving grace, as the statistics on fatherless children show is that children don't fare well without a father and men don't fare well without a family, wife and child. Eventually nature has a way of correcting imbalances. As the value of male contributions to reproduction, marriage and parenting have diminished by institution of a misandry in social culture, unequal property rights, unequal divorce and family law, and unequal civil liberties of "choice", protections, provisions and lack of privileges afforded to men in favor of women, so too has the general level of male status in society.

I am afraid though that if we do not act we must continue to move toward a state of destruction and critical mass to resolve this epidemic. Notice the abhorrent rise in divorce rates and the increase of not only age at first marriage but the decline of marriage itself in the graphs I've provided throughout my blog. NOTICE the time and date these changes occurred and their relation to the second wave feminist movement and the institution of feminist divorce laws.

Article: The Chronicle of Higher Education

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a newspaper that presents news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators. The Chronicle of Higher Education is the major news service in the United States academic world.

Who Needs Men?
By Prof. Laurie Fendrich
Professor of Arts: Hofstra University
Hofstra University is the largest private college on Long Island

No sooner did I digest the news that 40 percent of American babies are now born out of wedlock (the fathers are now quaintly known in newspaper announcements as “fianc├ęs”) than along comes an article by Sandra Tsing Loh in the current Atlantic revealing that she’s getting divorced. It turns out she’s unhappy with her otherwise happy marriage because of her sex life. With a hefty dose of pissed-offedness, the author excoriates the institution of marriage for failing to sustain romantic and sexual love. (Ultimately, to mix metaphors, she had to go off the ranch to get her ashes properly hauled.) Ms. Tsing Loh offers what she considers the stunning insight that traditional marriage is outdated and tells the rest of us—in considerably more words than Dorothy Parker needed to convey the same message—never to get married.

Whoa! Them’s big conclusions to draw from one particular divorce. But her musings got me thinking. Sandra Tsing Loh’s conclusion isn’t big enough. The real problem is, very simply, the existence of men. What the hell do we need them for anyway?

Granted, men are already here in the billions, and eradicating them would be a logistical challenge. And granted, civilization thus far was built mostly by male brainpower and testosterone. Now, building civilization was no mean feat, but it was accompanied by an awful lot of rape, pillage, beheadings, spearings, burnings-at-the-stake, you name it. Not many of those good deeds were performed by women.

But the building phase of civilization is by now more or less complete. (Nation-states? Check. Constitution? Check. Airliners? Check. Cable TV? Check? Internet? Check. Diet Coke? Check.) We’ve moved firmly into the maintenance and improvement phase, and it’s time for women to take over. They’ve proved themselves superb at keeping things going whenever men went marching off to kill each other. There’s no reason they can’t now be handed the reins of civilization itself. They already hog more than half the educational pie here in America, and are, when all is said and done, the smarter of the sexes.

By cutting to the chase, and getting rid of men entirely, women could care for and improve civilization very nicely by themselves, thank you. OK, a few male geniuses won’t get born. But who needs them at this point? All they’d do is discover some new thing that would make even more pollution or superweapons and end up making us even more miserable than we already are. And we’ve already loaded Mozart onto our i-Pods.

If we did away with men, we wouldn’t have to worry about women like Ms. Tsing Loh being unhappy in marriage. Why, there’d be no more marriage! No more self-absorbed loutish husbands, no more men who can’t sexually satisfy their wives, no more men who won’t take out the garbage or do the dishes or make the kids’ school lunches (like Mom does before she goes off to her 9-to-5 job). And, outside the issue of marriage, there’d be no need for highly-paid male statistician-nerds to track divorce rates, or wimpy education consultants to do studies on wiggly boys in junior high, or philandering politicians to defend the sanctity of marriage. Children (nice, orderly, studious female children, that is) would be happier, too. They’d never again be made miserable by the desertion of a father. And there’d be a reduction in the murder rate of approximately 93 percent.

Men may protest. They’ll say that they’re indispensable to the running of the world. Wrong. Male bodies aren’t necessary. We’ve still got water buffalo for the heavy hauling and robots for more complex tasks (men might have invented them, but women will be great at keeping them oiled). True, no more NFL or NBA, but only men watch that stuff, so it’s two birds with one stone there. Anyway, Candace Parker can dunk. Male minds? A no-brainer (pun intended.)

To perpetuate the species, only women are necessary. Sperm you can harvest now and freeze for later, storing it in big vats in Hackensack, New Jersey. And the Brits are about whip up an artificial (we’ll stop saying “man-made” right now) version. Women could order sperm online, and with the help of their female gynos, could give birth to only female babies. In a generation or two, the few remaining males on the planet could be rounded up and put into petting zoos. As for sex, that’s what all those toy stores in Greenwich Village are for: a couple of “D” batteries, and away you go! For those heterosexual women whose sexual tastes run to the nostalgic, maybe a few men could be kept on a Viagra drip in brothels.

Think of this wonderful new world! No more war, rape or pillage! No more “The Man Show,” Spike TV or Jerry Bruckheimer movies! No more women getting blamed for men getting lost when it’s a man driving. No more computer crashes due to hard drives clogged with porn. No more wide receiver touchdown dances. Five out of six prisons turned into hospitals or community colleges. No more commercials for Extenze, Hair Club for Men, or beer for men with no sense of touch who need the can to turn blue to know that it’s cold. Sure, women would still have hissy-fits and bad hair days, and there’d be the rise of the occasional threatening woman—a Sarah Palin or a Hillary Clinton. But since women—even studies conducted by males prove—are by nature more cooperative, caring, loving and nurturing than men, it’d all end in a big hugfest on Oprah.

Sorry, men, but the writing’s on the wall, right above the urinal: The world no longer needs you.

Only women are allowed to speak this way in our colleges. I don't even think men have ever spoken this way about women. Misandry and open anti-male hate is ok. This woman spoke in such a manner with a feeling of impunity and with no reservation. Men if they ever did want to speak like this risk loosing their jobs and worse. If a man even so much as speaks about anything in relation to women he looses his job even when speaking of science data and gender dimorphisms or even gender preferences as Dr. Lawrence Summers did.

Destroy White Males

One man's story:

I was unable to get a job in the fortune 500 or Government service since I graduated summacum laude from a top university. I am a white male.

I had a friend that ran a recruiter agency and he was able to get the answer to why I was always getting to the final interviews but failed to be hired.

He would call the human resource people that were not allowed to tell me my why because they were afraid of being sued.

In every company the answer was the same; “we need a minority your guy scored the highest but we need a woman or a minority or both”. They apologized profusely to him but said corporate has told us we need to beef up our numbers.

Have any of you looked at the faces in companies today, they are becoming devoid of males and white males are becoming extinct.

I finally gave up. For people that think this is a bunch of bull, here is a link with the facts just in the US Government which are too common in the corporate world as well:

The fact that discrimination is illegal and it can be documented that it is occurring does not seem to bother some people as evidenced by some of the comments. I was lucky enough to start my own business and survive the blatant reverse and illegal discrimination.

The EEOC refused to take a complaint from me btw with no reason given for the rejection. The Federal Government is the biggest offender of white male discrimination.

With all the white males that are unemployed there just may be a powder keg that is about to explode. Can you blame them when discrimination so blatant exists in the workplace?

Where is the ACLU and all the grievance groups when you need them.

Affirmative Action is in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We can not discriminate by race, religion, gender or age. Discrimination against white males is against our founding principals as a nation.