Friday, December 25, 2009

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves: by Phyllis Schlafly

A Syndication:

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves
November 2009
Written by Phyllis Schlafly:
Report SATURDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2009 21:29

The feminists are going through one of their periodic soul-searching psychological examinations of what the women's liberation movement did or did not do for them, and why they are not happy with the result. Feminist dominance in newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television and academia makes it easy to command a full media rollout for their agonizing.

The media are glad to divert public attention from the failure of Barack Obama's Stimulus to create jobs. So, we have ponderous discussions: Maria Shriver's report (with help from a liberal think tank) called "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," a Time Magazine cover story headlined with the double entendre "The State of the American Woman," Gail Collins' book When Everything Changed, and articles from all the feminist columnists.

We wonder if it's just a coincidence that this torrent of words immediately preceded Halloween. The writers are scared of their own research because it contradicts much of their gender-neutral ideology.

These well-educated writers long ago identified the major goal of the women's liberation movement as getting more wives out of the home and into the labor force. Carolyn Graglia's landmark book, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism, explains that the chief purpose of the feminists was to make the role of fulltime homemaker economically untenable and socially disdained. She analyzed the writings of the feminist intellectuals and she documents their attempts to ostracize fulltime homemakers as childish "parasites."

The feminists have been strikingly successful with this goal; women are now half the labor force, and 40% of women are essential family breadwinners.

In the current recession, the majority of workers laid off have been men (especially from construction and manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not been much affected.

Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama Administration give half the Stimulus jobs to women rather than to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing the Stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Demo

crats they get, and the Stimulus money was directed to jobs in education, health care, and social services. The feminists' tactics to divert Stimulus jobs to women were described in the July 2009 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

So what are the feminists complaining about? Now that women are half the work force, they want workforce rules to be changed to be more female-friendly. (These are the same feminists who have been saying for years that there is no difference between male and female.) Feminists demand that the taxpayers provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, that new laws prohibit employers from ordering women to work overtime (as men are often required to do), and probably that men should be forced to assume half the household and baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still is, because the majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists, but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and women still say it is best for children to have a father working and a mother at home."

Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising because of who is going to college and who drops out. Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college campuses was 60-40; now it's 40-60, and women receive the majority of college degrees.

But the feminists are griping because women students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser paid jobs than male students, who in larger numbers choose math, science and engineering. The feminists want government to remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers' money to make other choices. (Feminists claim that there are no gender differences, but they demand government intervention to override women's choices.)

The feminists push hard for what they call "Title-Nining," using Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in schools and colleges, to force equal numbers of women in all athletic programs. Since this misuse of Title IX was initiated by radical feminists in Jimmy Carter's Education Department, the feminists have forced colleges to eliminate thousands of men's teams, including many championship teams and more than 450 wrestling teams. Now the feminists are Title-Nining science and math departments. Using phony charges of gender bias, they are directing millions of dollars of federal and university money to override women's choices in order to increase the number of women in math and science at the expense of men.

Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments. She writes that feminists defined "progress for women too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the expense of attitudes."

She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with feminists; as long as they believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful. Women won't be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated in most of these current articles) that women make only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. The Equal Pay Law was passed in 1963, but requires equal pay only for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as many hours per week as men do, and women voluntarily choose jobs that pay less.

Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of humor." That's a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the students who are not laughing.

Only one sentence in all these feminist articles confronts the fundamental reason why today's women are not as happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote: "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood."

That's what the feminist movement did to America. All those impressive statistics about women holding well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce happy women as long as 39% of children are born to unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband.

And one more glaring point: the lack of grandchildren isn't mentioned in these expos├ęs of women's unhappiness. In rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure of women's happiness.

Feminists Are Still Unhappy

All this self-psychoanalyzing of women's attitudes appears to have been triggered by a study released earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in the American Economic Journal. Called "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," this report concluded that women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. Since this study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation movement, the feminists recognized it as a challenge to the goals and alleged achievements of their movement.

The authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, advanced a theory that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. The authors also presented a second theory that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.

A more realistic explanation is that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach. If you believe you can never succeed because you are a helpless victim of mean men, you are probably correct.

Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers; if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.

Another explanation for women's unhappiness could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (39% of American births are now born to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70% of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth around" policies.

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. At the same time, the private enterprise system produced many products that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers, and paper diapers).

Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book The Feminine Mystique, which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the fulltime homemaker dissatisfied with her role.

Economic need plays no role in the feminist argument that women should seek labor-force jobs. Feminists encourage wives to leave the home because marriage is allegedly archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force is upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.

Women's Studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.

A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, Myrna Blyth, wrote in her book, Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America, that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."

According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance the feminists' political, legislative and judicial goals.

The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said, "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children . . . precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers irrelevant and unnecessary except to provide a paycheck. Most divorces are initiated by women. More women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers.

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20% of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. Women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth.

Feminist Attack on Marriage

While the gay lobby gets most of the blame for the assault on the institution of marriage, the modern feminist movement has always been virulently and effectively anti-marriage. When the movement marched onto the stage of the culture war in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they called themselves the women's liberation movement. The buzz word was liberation, which specifically meant liberation from home, husband, family and children.

Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield's book entitled Manliness includes a most informative chapter called "Womanly Nihilism." Mansfield rightly concludes that the 20th-century feminist intellectuals, such as Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Germaine Greer, wanted independence not only from men, but from morality and from human nature and motherhood.

The feminists' first legislative triumph was to change the divorce laws of all 50 states to unilateral divorce, i.e., allowing one spouse to walk out of marriage without the consent of the other spouse, and without having to allege any fault or reason to sever the marriage contract. Big media eagerly cooperated to promote the notion that we have moved into an era of "serial" (rather than lifetime) marriages. "Ozzie and Harriet," a then-popular sitcom featuring a traditional family, became a favorite epithet for feminists to scoff at traditional marriage and the role of the fulltime homemaker.

The feminists' second victory was Roe v. Wade. Abortion has always been central to the feminist movement (proving there is no connection with the movement for women's right to vote, whose leaders were very anti-abortion).

Their third victory (a Gloria Steinem favorite) was getting President Jimmy Carter to pluralize the name of his White House Conference on Families in order to popularize the notion that non-traditional families should be recognized and included.

The anti-marriage feminists stormed state capitols to repeal the laws designed to respect morality and preserve marriage, such as the laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy, and alienation of affection.

The only goal they failed to achieve was ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Meanwhile, beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being. Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.

Feminist solidarity with the gay rights movement was cemented at the International Women's Year (IWY) Conference in Houston in 1977, following impassioned emotional entreaties by Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal. IWY resolutions proclaimed the feminists' attack not only on traditional marriage, but also on motherhood. Feminists view society's expectation that mothers should care for their own children as oppressive discrimination against women.

Marriage: One Man, One Woman

The institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been fundamental to America ever since the founding of our nation. When the famous French commentator Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the United States in the early-19th century, he recognized the fact that respect for marriage is very American. He wrote: "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated."

Not only do American laws specifically recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but many laws legislate special benefits to the institution of marriage. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the definition of marriage in its traditional meaning, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers.

Attacks on the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the feminist movement that opposes what they call the patriarchy (that supposedly makes women second-class citizens), and also from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair and/or a religious contract, and that the terms of this union should be none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards, or issue marriage licenses.

Government's Role in Marriage

Government has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child, or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women, which is totally demeaning and harmful to women.

The very first Platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism." Always a stalwart defender of traditional marriage, the 2008 Republican Platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it." It's vitally important that the Republican Party continue to be the standard-bearer for traditional marriage.

We thought our nation had definitely settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but it recently raised its ugly head. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is on record as supporting polygamy. The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." And on October 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.

Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.

The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that practice polygamy and marriage to children and close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been allowed to immigrate and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.

President Obama's nominee for a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a radical manifesto that endorsed polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner"). Signed in 2006, this manifesto, entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."

Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"

Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

In Socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. In a current lawsuit, British Columbia's Supreme Court is being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.

Traditional marriage is essential to a stable society. We should maintain government's proper role in defining it and protecting it.


I'm a man and know that marriage is certainly not for me. However bad I want a wife and child I know that the rules are stacked against me.

First of all it is now only a commitment from a man to a woman to provide to her and "her" child both in and out of marriage.. Men don't have the right to even have shared custody of their child after divorce.

The way I see it is that men are no longer a part of the "family" and are expendable so why even start one, much less commit to only
one woman.

Yes, in fact our single woman birth rate is at 40% but this is normal given the changes women made to family law and marriage..I've seen the graph and it all starts around the same time. Women don't want to "need a man or father" to contribute to raising their children and men have gotten the
message quite clear..

Personally I can't wait until the diversion of the stimulus package to women coupled with Affirmative Action, and Title IX-ing men out of the last places they reside in our
colleges catches up to us.. A nation where men are an underclass and do not produce nearly as much as women is a good thing. It will bring us to a cultural and social chaos for sure. There will be no structure. Our individualistic,
nebulous and subjective relativism will continue to grow.

We will continue to stand for and accept everything and in the process stand for nothing in particular.

Plato has said in no uncertain terms that tolerance taken to
this level is the demise of culture and societal context.

Such things have happened before in history.. The American Empire is in a state of decline. Looking at history we've survived a little longer than the rest.

To me the picture is quite clear. Male suicide rates have tripled since 1970, we have had a 400% increase in incarceration rates,
males now die 7 years earlier than women as opposed to 1-2 years in 1920, male participation in the workforce is on the decline all together, alcoholism, drug use and crime or abhorrent acts of violence will continue to grow. Voter participation among males is on the decline along with commitment to women, marriage and a family.

This is all a normal part of our societal decline towards moral
relativism based off the individualistic or individualism

Over all male productive incentive is on the decline.. With such a large proportion of disenfranchised men both politically, socially and economically speaking I do expect
our social issues, mental pathologies, depression along with
the "freedom" of individual autonomy and lack of commitment
to anything other than the self to continue in a culture where 70% of our GDP is consumer consumption and the product of the day is rightly named "I" this or "I" that...

Anyway, Barrack Obama himself along with the supreme federal Council Of Women have shown that women are now a separate political, social and economic class away from men and family as policy and even social culture respond accordingly. These gender identity and class politics will be the wedge that drives us further into demise.

I have no doubt that the American people are headed headlong toward
the same socialist or communist infrastructure that the Soviets were when they established the Genotdel or Women's Section of the Communist party as Barrack Obama did recently with the establishment of a council having the same goals of "equality" or a classless society in mind.

Either way, in the coming future men will have little incentive or ties to women and family other than by force of the government. I expect social and political instability to ensue. Either way the sexes will have reached a state of mutual independence or mutual dis-need of each other.. In short the rise of MRA's and the Men's and Father's Rights Movement is not a fluke. Men seek independence from women's dependency.

No more provider-dependent both in and out of marriage, no more primary custody of children..

Either way the policies in place are designed to put women and men in competition and produce a female victory by force. The effect is paradoxical and self compounding. More and more men will have nothing left to lose. Besides if a woman does marry us it will be her liability... Who knows maybe this
liberated woman will need a man to
stay home and watch her infant or take care of domestic tasks.

Either way the tide will turn and men will be freed and independent from women's dependency. Men will infact go our own way as women desire.......... Looking at the
data...we already are.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Wow A Brave Young Lady Speaks Out !

My Women's Studies Class in college was the final experience as a male in our culture that inspired me to speak out. I could not be quiet any longer. It is what helped make me a Men's and Father's Rights Activist. What this young lady speaks of is just the beginning of what young women and young men are taught about themselves and men in these classes.

The radical political ideology of feminism is often taught under the guise of "science". My class was called "The Psychology Of Women". I was so excited as I LOVE WOMEN and thought we would get to see comparative functional MRI brain scans and all kinds of good stuff. I was so excited that science could teach me more about women and about me as a man. I was so angry with what I experienced there my parents were worried about me. I came home red in the face with tremendous anger. I sought to reach out online but at the time there was no such thing as a Men's and Father's Rights Movement, there was no MRA's, no Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Summers, Steven Bakersville, Bernard Chapin, Cathy Young,Steve Moxon, Kathleen Parker etc etc etc.

I would not be so concerned about feminism if it did not have the effect it has had on me personally and society as a whole. I've written extensively about my personal experiences, thoughts and feelings on this blog. Feminism has effected me and my experience as a male in our culture very deeply. I hope to illustrate where we are with the course feminism has taken us and hope to make a difference in the world. I hope to heal this. I want to make something good of what has become......

It is highly unusual for women to separate from the pack like she has and speak out about this. I commend her for her courage to do so. Deep in my heart I really believe that it is the awareness of women, the active role of women in the changes I hope to make in our social fabric that will turn this around. I know that men can not do it without you.

Ladies, I love you and fundamentally revere your essential natures. I revere and hold in the highest regard how we compliment each other. But I can bear this no longer, men are no longer going to stay quiet about this. Our male nature has been used against us. We have slain ourselves, stepped over each other and provided, protected, sacrificed, passed law after chivalrous law in your favor. Women it seems want more so men came to the rescue and heed the call. We take the pain as we have always died for you. We have always put women first. We have always put children first..

If you do not think we are mutually bound, mutually dependent on each other, if you believe that men succeed and dominate ANYTHING for the sake of ourselves and are men for the sake of ourselves you are gravely mistaken. Men are angry and our sacred bond with you has been sullied and desecrated.

In this blog I will illustrate this to you with facts, graphs, pop cultural expressions and a myriad of other sources including those of other men to show you my anger, my pain and suffering and that of men and boys. I know male suffering is expected of men, I know that we are not as valuable as you are. I know we are expendable and disposable by law but I ask you to listen....listen. I will show you that male participation in society is dwindling.

I will show you suicide rates, marriage rates, divorce rates, single woman birth rates, male health in comparison to women, male education in comparison to women, women only laws, family and divorce law, homelessness and the "glass floor", Domestic Violence, the state of fatherlessness and the family, disease, voter participation of men, the wage gap, rape law, and even the essential soul of men, our essential nature... I will show you functional MRI Scans of the male brain in relation to territory and resources! You have a lot to listen to, I know you are not used to this but you have a lot of work to do and it is your turn to listen.

I do, I do invite you to join beside men in this fight. I will leave no one behind and believe we are in this together, our experiences and essential natures define each other. The male experience becomes the female experience becomes the male experience and vice versa..

THIS IS NOT MY "FRAGILE MALE EGO" TALKING.. I AM NOT a MISOGYNIST. I AM A MAN, A human being. I hope to be a husband and father someday. Listen to us, hear us and do not shame us for speaking out...We will no longer be silent.........

Monday, December 14, 2009

Do Men Think Less Of Women?

A feminist made the following statement:

"And regarding the feminization of men: I realize that I may have been a bit vague in the video itself about why this is a problem. It's when feminine terms are used as ways to insult men that a problem arises, because the use of such terms as derogatory implies that female or feminine is the worst thing you could be, thereby insulting not only women, but transpeople and in fact, anyone who doesn't adhere to traditional gender binaries, in the process."


My reply:

Men don't think less of women. Men think less of themselves and other men if they are like a woman AND women do as well.

The reason we have feminization insults for men is because if you are like a woman you are not able to serve women or perform the complimentary role the masculine plays to the feminine.

Men carry no inherent value for the simple fact that we exists and are beautiful and attractive. We also have no value on the mating market for the simple fact that we exist. Women will not mate with us because we have a cock and are willing to GIVE (external) them our genes but men will mate with women for the simple fact that she is willing to TAKE (internal) our genes. Remember this giver and chooser dynamic when it comes to the mating dynamic of humans and the sexual selection process. Remember the internal (feminine) and (external) masculine forces of potential energy.

Men must be, we must produce, we must provide, protect, we must take pain, we must die for women and children. We must possess external utility. We must posses the character traits, abilities and qualities that facilitate such ends and if we do not we are a "pussy"

The reference to man in terms of feminization words used as an insult have nothing to do with men's view of women rather it is a way to emasculate him or declare he is like the feminine. If a man is like the feminine he is worthless to women and has nothing to offer and as male value in the mating dynamic is weighted in external utility, if he lacks this, he is in fact no longer a man.

Mostly it is used in terms of what is not able to or willing to do. It could be that he is not strong enough, not brave enough, resourcefully or monetarily successful enough, not _______ enough, you fill in the blank.

These emasculations are used upon him most particularly when a man is unable or unwilling to produce something of direct value or lacks the qualities such as honor, courage, size or height,strength, intelligence, commitment etc that facilitate the production of such ends.

The very things that will make him of utility or value in culture and more particularly FOR THE BENEFIT OF WOMEN. So again, men have no innate mate value but must compete, protect, produce, become and acquire etc.

"Don't be a pussy." Why must men sacrifice their comfort, their safety and their vary lives for women? Why must men "do", "become" or "be" a man, because a man's value is not inherent in the mating game....

It is said that men, "real men" will always put women and children before themselves. It is said that a "real man"
will die for women and children. A "real man" must produce, provide and protect, he must be of utility or a bread winner.

Independence as women define it is mutual dis-need of the other sex i.e. "I don't need a man" an "independent woman"

In order for true independence or mutual dis-need to occur, in order for this goal to be reached between the sexes men must no longer "be" "produce" ""provide" or "protect" women and children. We must no longer value or aspire to the qualities that make us "a man". We must no longer look down upon ourselves or other men if we are not these things i.e. if we are a "pussy". All of these things must be withdrawn for women to be dependent on or need. They must produce these things for themselves, they must be "independent".

Acts of chivalry must be withdrawn in ALL aspects, alimony and child support must be withdrawn in all aspects, we must no longer produce or be the "bread winner" for women. We must no longer provide or protect them or display such social graces that display such willingness. Do not buy gifts (a demonstration of resource devotion) do not open doors (a demonstration of protection devotion and utility of strength) do not pay for dates and buy their meals (a demonstration of resource or devotion to provide) Notice all the social graces relate to what women say they do not need from us and that they would like to share instead i.e. what they would like to be "equal".

Men must no longer dominate what women are willing to do for us. If they want to share in the work of providing external utility by all means let them provide and protect us....Let's be equal, lets share... Women don't need these things from men right??? They do not select us as mates because we have these attributes right??? They will even let us take on their role right??? Lets see if they will??? They have not let us yet but we must call them on this equality thing asap!

In crude terms their giving forth access to sex and reproduction is not enough payment. If they have or obtain everything that we have to offer them AND still control sexual selection, what males will have to do for them then will be left over for their whims to decide. I venture to say that this will be humiliating for men. So being that the balance of power will be all in the hands of women they must give to us back the external utility the potential energy, the work we had to give them i.e. what they are now doing for themselves.


It means they must split meals, they must open our doors or take turns showing such graces, they must buy us or bring us gifts in courtship, they must in fact provide and protect us as well. They must earn a high wage so that we may stay home and care for our infant child. They have taken on our role now they must allow us to take on theirs. We must no longer compete for anything between each other to provide to them. No longer compete for territory or resources. We must blow around like leaves in the wind, not a care in the world and demand the pussy be shared and not on the terms of provision or protection they must share the external utility of provision and protection to be our equal otherwise they will be our superior. Sex and access to reproduction can not be taken from them, they will still have it for us to compete and work for.

Make no mistake, when they have taken our external utility THEY WILL STILL MAKE US WORK FOR THEIR CHOICE OF MALES IN SEXUAL SELECTION only our work then will not be an honorable place I assure you of that. In fact they will say we are redundant and look at us with contempt.. They will ask...."Are Men Necessary" "Are men going extinct" "do I even need a man" hmmmmm no but I think I want one around but on what terms....hmmmm what ever I decide the terms will be...both in marriage and most importantly after divorce.

What then gentlemen do you think they would have us do for it then???

In reality and in all truth women have something we want and need which can not be taken from them. Her womb is potential energy and potential energy = work. Women for the simple fact of existing are fertile and already are of value. Their potential fertile energy is potential work that males seek to be worthy of, to provide work for in return, to provide sperm??? no sperm is cheep and readily available. Women can purchase male genes through the mail by what celebrity they look like. Are men designed to provide external utility....YES!

Given that women want what men want to work for and give them, they want to get these things for themselves, they want to be "independent" Men must no longer provide these things to women and insist they value us for and allow us to take on their role. Granted we do not have the potential energy that gives them inherent value but they need to realize that this is what they have asked for. However they can support us financially so that we may stay home and take care of such things as domestic tasks but more importantly wean our infant child.

Gentlemen, ask yourselves what women are trying to be an "independent woman" from and this will alllow you to understand what you may become dependent upon them for or share. Equality by definition means the same, there are not "gender roles"

Most particularly, if women will not allow us to take on their role, if they will not provide and protect us or at least share the work in doing so. If they do not take on the potential energy of our external utility as males
it is paramount that we as men find out what women are dependent on men for and withdraw these things in ENTIRETY.

If what we want from women (wife, mother, her sex her fertile potential energy) can not be taken from them I surmise that most men would decide to give women what they want in exchange for what they have. Most men would devote themselves somehow in ENTIRETY. Lets call this devotion marriage.

Ask yourself, are women able to get the things they want from you without marriage? Are women provided and protected for outside of marriage? Most importantly are they able to get these things after divorce? If so do you still get what you need from a woman after divorce or is it a one way selfish transaction of protection and provision while you yourself have no wife, no mother of your children, no children as you have no right to be a father and are degraded to visitor and isolated resource PROVIDER.

DOES NOT PROVISION = PROTECTION? How is it then that women can gain what they want while you get nothing?

Ask yourself gentleman, is the binding contract of marriage not also the potential binding contract of divorce?
As such:



Bernard Chapin of Chapin's Inferno holds up a copy of The Disposable Male


True independence for men is access to mating opportunity without our provisional or protectional value being diminished by women taking this external utility we compete for to give them from us.

True independence for men is being of no use to women or at very least insist on them being equal to us in the external utility that we provide to them and compete for and provide these things to us.

True independence for men is also mutual dis-need of women. If what they have can not be taken we must demand they give it and if not, diminish our obligation to obtain it. I've noticed this has happened in the black community and in places where a mated pair bond is not needed in nature for successful gestation, provision and protection of offspring.

Males compete among each other for dominance but this is mainly for themselves. Their ability to provide and protect is not given to the female but is symbolic. The male displays his prowess, good genes, health and vies for competitive advantage over territory and resources but does not employ them to provide and protect females. Rather male worthiness of genetic fitness is competed for among males through fighting but the spoils are not given to females in order for her to mate with him.

They mate get females pregnant and then walk away and find more females to get pregnant. The defining factor in this dynamic is that males don't have any obligations to the female thus "diminishing our obligation to obtain it" as I have outlined above..

Any thoughts?

I do in fact think that women will continue their independence. I believe we will in fact move toward an order of mutual dis-need. I believe is male external utility is no longer needed it makes no sense to provide it from an empty apartment in alimony and child support. I makes no sense to still give these things to them when we can not obtain what we desire from them in return. The pair mated bond of marriage is dissolving and moving toward another dynamic. We as men must embrace this, we has men must go our own way.........We must fight for equality, to be independent.

Given the mating dynamic I've outlined women have claimed themselves to be "sex objects" which makes us as men, as our value to women being heavily weighted in external utility, "success objects" BUT NO MORE!!!!



The concept of "free love" began during the Communist Revolution and was implemented in the United States during the 1960's. It was an essential element of the cultural Marxist subversion of American Culture.

SEE: Works of Alexandra Kollontai 1921
Sexual Relations and the Class Struggle


Tuesday, December 1, 2009

MRA's Continue Organizing On University Campuses Despite Bitter Opposition.

First I'd like to say that I have spoken before about our British brothers in arms and the bond we share, the common ends of which we seek. The British have been instrumental in bringing Fathers 4 Justice to the United States. I firmly believe that there should be no distinction of where the opposition to the rights of Men and Fathers lies and that we as men deserve equal rights and representation. It is imperative that we do so together. It would not be the first time our brothers have joined us in battle. This will not be our first victory together.

Our movement has no bounds, there is no border to the commonalities of the human spirit. As men's groups have formed in the campuses of Great Britain so to have they begun to form here in U.S. universities. When you read the article below you will see how pertinant it is to the same forces we face in the United States. Make no mistake, the forces that seek to silence the voice of men are great, only together will we be heard.....

By The Rights of Man | Source | November 29, 2009

A Syndication:

The biggest and widest breeding ground for the anti-male feminism that drives UK public policy is our universities. They always have been the intellectual heartbeat of the country and many who are indoctrinated at university go on to dominate both politics and the civil service/public sector. Often there is an incubation period, where they join the public sector and then have to wait to rise to gain power.

Over the past 30 years or so, the plethora of women's officers, women's societies and other such organisations have been the norm at every student union. This means that even where there is a university that does have a gender studies department there is a ready and able place to stir up anti-male feeling on every campus.

The reason for raising this is the recent debate has been the small growth of men's societies on some campuses. The papers covered this week that both Oxford and Manchester universities have inaugurated such societies though others have or have had them. Ben Wild who set up MENS in Manchester has an excellent article in the Guardian (comments worth reading as well). These are a welcome antidote especially as many members are actually women, you know, the one that actually like men, appreciate their role in society and their life, those who may have brothers and certainly have fathers and certainly do not agree with the nonsense spouted by the anti-male feminists.

There are others mens groups on campus. Kent University has one or certainly had one - an attempt to abolish was made here - see page 9) as does Hull University, Lampeter, De Montford, Southampton and I think the University of London.
Of course, this is all good news and if there is to be equality then if there is a women's officer then there should be a men's officer.

What has been astounding, but of course, not at all surprising has been the usual backlash. The National Union of Students (a body meant to represent all students including men) does not have a men's officer and Olivia Bailey, NUS national women's officer, said in the Guardian: "Discrimination against men on the basis of gender is so unusual as to be non-existent, so what exactly will a men's society do? To suggest that men need a specific space to be 'men' is ludicrous, when everywhere you turn you will find male-dominated spaces," she added. What planet??

Rumour has it that the Fawcett Society and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission are involved in a recruitment tug-of-war to employ her because she is so on-message for those two organisations. What is so sickening is the fact that the NUS and Ms Olivia Bailey are so anti-male, they even publish a document called "I will win the arguments".

The documents sets out the themes to be used to secure women's representatives on campus student unions and openly admits what should be said to stop men's representatives from being established. Just reading this scandalous document you can taste the anti-male vitriol.

It should be dismissed as the absurd but in today's anti-male Britain this document will be circulated to all student unions plus their women's officers so that everything can be done to stop men's officers and men's societies from being established.

This author and anyone who uses its argument does not believes in equality - they are anti-male feminists and they will be all working in senior positions in the public sector within a decade. Let no one be fooled.

Other good articles - one great from Jenni Murray (Daily Mail), one recent and one old