Friday, February 26, 2010

Equality - The Pay Gap - part 1 of 3

Yes, this picture is real. Are women willing to go the lengths of death to acquire territory and resources? Do women even have to? If they are, will they court us and provide them to us even outside of marriage after divorce? Men are and men do. Providing for women is the law both in social code and by the justice system. Women will not allow us different.

Will women allow men choices? Will men gain equal rights to earn a fair wage in this new found world where we compete directly with women for resources in business and from government; resources we need in order to provide to them in earnest and by force of family and divorce law and even in courtship? Most importantly will women's "liberation" continue to simply mean more "choices" as to how to extract resources from men and government or are women able to support themselves and "her" child on her own? Will men achieve the ends of independence from women's dependency? Will men ever become "liberated" from women?

I love the video but I DO Not like the ending. "She is not oppressed, he is"

I do not think it should be described with the feminist vernacular "oppressed". What I implore women to understand is that men and women are mutually bonded and supposed to be in servitude to each other. Though I do think it was stated this way to make a point to women.

If we insist on using the feminist vocabulary it would be stated we are mutually "oppressed" by the other...

To use MRA vernacular it would be stated......"we are mutually bonded" or at least I believe we are supposed to be mutually bonded and mutually dependent on each other.


Please check out his YOUTUBE CHANNEL







Part 2

Part 3


This video makes me think what an attribute T.V. shows like DANGEROUS JOBS AND DIRTY JOBS ARE for the restoration of the image of men in our culture. I like your point that men need each other for the life of the other...

Men in these professions have been known to call each other baby when they are injured and coddle their head. I've seen combat video from the Iraq war of men doing this....It is a bond that is dangerous to share with a woman during such jobs....

You have to accomplish the mission or die. Men desire the strength and determination of other men to do it not women. Men work well with each other.

Women lobby to socialize what is supposed to be a free market run off market economic principals..When women do this they disenfranchise men from acquiring resources. I am very concerned about the "women first" laws we've implemented such as Title IX and Affirmative Action as to the effect they have on equal opportunities for men.....I'm very concerned that we will undergo hiring and promotion freezes for men so that women may advance over them without merit or effort as has been done in some socialist and Communist countries

Male value has been defined in terms of our willingness to sacrifice. Male value must no longer be understood as the proportion to which men are disposable and expendable both to marriage, as a husband, to children as a father and to society at large.. We must be given our equal rights, enfranchisement and agency, especially as part of the family and the lives of our children. We must no longer accept the role of "isolated resource producing males" in Alimony and Child Support to women who we are in legislated competition with as what is now a separate socio-political and economic class. Competition for the vary same resources males are forced to produce and provide to females.

Claims about sex-based wage discrimination have been repeated so often that many Americans simply accept them as fact. But a recently published — and quickly suppressed — study reveals a different picture.

Titled "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women," the report tallies the results of over 50 studies. No one questions the fact that on average, men are paid more than women. But turns out this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The paper concludes the 20-cent odd wage difference is not caused by discrimination. Rather it's women exercising their right to make lifestyle choices. What choices are we talking about?

1. A greater percentage of women chose to work part-time.

2. Women may opt to leave the work force for childbirth, child care, or elder care.

3. Women are often willing to accept a lower paying job in return for family-friendly policies that allow them to have fewer hours, flexible schedules, and a shorter commute.

In addition, women work fewer hours than men. According to an article posted on the Department of Labor website, "Among full-time workers, 24% of the men, compared to 10% of the women, usually worked more than 40 hours per week:"

And then the fact that men tend to work in occupations that are far more likely to injure, maim, or kill.

None of these are earth-shattering statements. But once again, myth-mongering forced the government to commission a costly study to prove the obvious.

In its foreword, the Department of Labor concluded, "this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors." The DOL added this parting comment: "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas:"

(A thanks to Mike Eastman)

Monday, February 22, 2010


I'm very excited about this and what can be gained by this conference. I am looking forward to a new discipline to be added to our colleges, "MALE STUDIES"..which I hope to god are run by real men.. In fact as marginalized as my male job has become I think I will contribute to this if we can get it off the ground...Feminist groups currently run the "Men's Studies" programs...I know I know, it makes me cringe too...

Hopefully though it will be a formidable counteracting force to Women's Studies and most importantly, run by men..I WELCOME A VOICE FOR MEN.... Do you think it will happen or will women be screaming like witches that men are trying to speak about our condition, our feelings and the male experience? Do you think anyone will even show up to this conference?

The Boys Project is AN EXCELLENT EFFORT to study the disenfranchisement of men and boys. To me the overwhelming theme is that men are withdrawing from civic duties, that of private life and even the creation of families..If men and boys are doing anything in an upward trend, suicide is on the top of the male agenda.

Tom Mortenson: Senior Scholar: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education:

-Suicide: Among 15 to 24 year olds, suicide rates were 5.8 times higher for males than for females in 2000. In 1900 male rates were 1.3 times higher for males than those for females. Between 1970 and 2000 male suicide rates increased by 29 percent while female suicide rates decreased by 29 percent. (National Center for Health Statistics)

Above: You can see that the male suicide rate has always been slightly higher but of most importance is the fact that male suicide rates mirror female suicide rates until about 1970 when it began to break off, up and away...Throughout my blog you will see plenty of graphs illustrating the changes that took place in the U.S. beginning around 1965-1970. Marriage rates, divorce rates, welfare and single mother government spending, free love, Second Wave Feminism, divorce, child custody, woman support alimony law changes, age at first marriage...All indicators started to diverge at this point in time. Male suicide skyrocketed and remains asymmetrical to female suicide rates to this day... What is harming men?

Feminist Response: Pain and suffering is the rightful condition of men. You deserve to harm yourself in ever increasing proportion, it is your nature!

-Incarceration: Since mid 1970s, incarceration rates have gown very rapidly. U.S. rate of 707 prisoners per 100,000 population is now highest in the world. The male incarceration rate has increased 400% since 1970.

-Male disengagement from civic role: Male voting rates have declined sharply since mid-1960s. Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent.

-Educational-Master’s degrees: The male share of master’s degrees has declined from 60 percent in 1970to 41 percent by 2001. (National Center for Education Statistics)

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

Throughout my blog and in these reports you will see that all realms of male health are on the decline.

-workforce participation
-voter participation
-suicide rates
-incarceration rates
-college attendance and admittance policy
-family law and marriage
-general health & health care

Lionel Tiger the author of The Decline Of Males will be there as well but from the review he seems to think that society should only serve as a means to an end in order to support a women's "choices". Not having read the book, perhaps Tiger believes that fatherhood is something that can be taken away by the woman and given to the State...

"Tiger, for example, thinks men should earn higher pay for the children they have during a first marriage, and that unmarried women with children should receive welfare without having to work."

I have a feeling The Decline Of Males gives no thought to the issue of Men's and Father's Rights....but may very well give insite into our current social ills and Men's place in the family and in society.

DO YOU THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM?...In short without trying to sound drastic men and boys are dying, I really don't know any other way to put it... However, I don't think society cares about the wellbeing of men and boys so much as that it's starting to and will increasingly affect the welfare of women...(the only human beings that seem to matter)

I know it sounds crazy but I am looking forward to the suffering of women as it is the only suffering that matters and will make change for the male condition. I've noticed that men have always come faithfully with honor to the aid of women but strangely enough, women seem to lack a feeling to do the same for men. In fact I venture to say the only thing that will help is if the woman has a son or is married to a man who is forced to support another family financially...

I do expect however that female reaction to male demise will not be one of empathy but one of resentment, scorn and misandry for what is at the moment and will continue to be invariably framed as the failure of men to live up to something or other.

Men drown ourselves on the Titanic because we value the wellbeing, safety and survival of women more than we do ourselves…..Men value ourselves less and women value men less than themselves….This is what feminism uses against us…

Women won’t help men because we simply are not as important as they are and we, men and women both know it….Again women will let us provide and protect them to our graves while still saying we are not doing enough. If we served nothing more than to be eaten by them after mating they would surly consume us….To them we are nothing but a means to an end….

Compound the above with women's natural tendency to make sure they are provided and protected for before and even to the exclusion of men (and this includes the obligation to die for women) you have a recipe for disaster when women are running social policies.

Women by nature don't care for the welfare of men, we are on our own, produce or die..Heck men don't seem to care about other men because we are in competition with each other making us a weak divided class who is not cared for by either sex. Take the diversion of the stimulus package to women for instance.. Women first college admissions through Title IX, Affirmative Action, 7 Federal Offices on their health when men have none... I'm not sure if the rest of you noticed but women control social policy to the federal level...

To me the message is crystal clear, women are a separate class with separate class interests who demand provision and protection and in response the male work horses women vote into power serve to provide it to them..."Women and girls first" and "Men and boys last". Males simply do not matter.

Men and boys are expendable, even to the family as is evidenced when a woman banishes her husband to forced resource provision or the fate of becoming an "isolated resource producing male" with fatherhood and family privileges revoked.

I really can't believe that men and society have given up everything we have to women. I never thought in a million years that the dreams of the feminists would actually come to be reality.......

And now a special report: The actual workhorses of the growing gynocracy, I give you the alpha males who maintain power by serving it.

When you tell women they are victims and not being provided and protected enough, look out, the rage of entitlement will soon follow! Government loves women!...It will continue to gain power by serving them until we consume and disenfranchise our own means of production needed to sustain us....males and the need for the enfranchisement of males as part of the family..

And now a quote from Hermann Goering a leading member of the Nazi Party. Among many offices, he was Hitler's designated successor, and commander of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force).

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."-HERMANN GOERING

I like this quote in particular because the primary element for the rise of fascism and tyrannical governments has always been to divide the populous in diametric opposition. What better than a 50/50 split between men and women...The classic subversion tactic has always been the age old divide and concur strategy.

--"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."--

In other words, All you have to do is tell them (women) they are victims and are being attacked or oppressed then denounce the objectors or pacifists (men) for not being complicit to the solution of removing women from danger.

The beauty in choosing men and women over Jews and Aryans is that men will strangely go along quietly with the solution with little or no opposition.. In contrast if the Stimulus Package was diverted to a specific race or religion, men would respond in an undesirable manner I assure you....

Increasingly if you have not noticed you will see copious amounts of propaganda pertaining to gender when speaking of The New Economy. Celebrating the victory of women is a rear guard action to hedge off male objection to the solution. Protection provision, and the advocation for the security of women is something men, in mass anyway, will not dare object to and unfortunately neither will women..

Our country is in the middle of a Revolution and does not even realize it... It will end in one of two ways...Men will become more a part of the family or less a part of the family and the lives of our children...With the continued disenfranchisement of men from the family and that of public and family policy I fear for the worst.

From this video I gather that men by nature are in competition with other men and as our value in the mating game is heavily weighted in external utility to the female, men will see to the demise of as many men as possible in order to gain status, territory and resources which get them mating opportunity..

I gather that men are not well suited to organize to accomplish social tasks in regard to the male experience or social fabric but rather at accomplishing such ends as building, fixing and intelligently utilizing resources to maintain life. It seems to me that male weakness in this area is used against men to divide them as a class and is one of the primary reasons we are in the situation we are with the rights of men and fathers... I fear men are trying but things may have to reach critical mass unless women contribute to helping men and women sort out our issues as a team..

I fear that women may have an innate tendency to see males as a means to an end for themselves and their offspring and oddly enough expect male suffering and sacrifice and even the death of males to reach these ends. I believe women expect male sacrifice, protection and provision to them and to complain about the male condition of servitude and subjugation to women is not allowed of men..We must continue to produce under any and all conditions..even that of an "isolated resource producing male" forced to provide for a woman that is not his wife and a child that he is no longer a father to.

I fear that women have no regard for the welfare and wellbeing of men and boys. I really do...I fear things will have to reach a state of critical mass..Again, men as either part of the family or no longer part of the family will be the result..

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Feminism and the Communist Revolution

First a brief introduction from a famous playwrite....

Aristophanes A famous Greek playwrite produced a very interesting and revealing play in 390BC.

Aristophanes wrote Ecclesiazusae or Assembly Women (The Latinized spelling of the Greek title Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι, Ekklēsiázousai also known as Assemblywomen). It is a play dating from 390BCE which is similar in theme to Lysistrata in that a large portion of the comedy comes from women involving themselves in politics. This play is much more infused with gender issues than Lysistrata is. This play also shows a change in the style of Ancient Greek comedy after the short period of oligarchy after the Peloponnesian War, or at least an attempt at it. It seems to be a merging of the two styles that works in the beginning, but falls apart by the end.

The play concerns a group of women, the leader of which is Praxagora. She has decided that the women must convince the men to give them control of Athens, because they could rule it better than they have been. The women, in the guise of men, sneak into the assembly and vote the measure, convincing some of the men to vote for it because it is the only thing they have not tried.

The women then institute a Socialist-like government in which the state feeds, houses, and generally takes care of every Athenian. They enforce an idea of equality by allowing every man to sleep with every woman. (Similar to the "free love" concept which was a part of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution, the American Cultural Revolution associated with "sexual liberation" in the 1960's)

There is a scene in which two men are talking. One of them is going along with the new government, giving his property to the women, and obeying their orders. The other does not wish to give up his property, but he is more than willing to take advantage of the free food.

Please click to enlarge:

If you are interested in the roots of feminism it is important to get to the roots of the ideology.

Much of feminism is rooted in the political ideology of Marxism which is the basis for the formation of Communism and Socialism..

The feminist revolution in Russia began during the Russian Bolshevik Revolution around 1917. Alexandra Kollontai, much like Obama's Valerie Jarrett was tasked with leading the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department" in 1919 as was Jarrett just appointed the same position for Obama's new Federal Council On Women and Girls. You can see from the below quotes that Kollontai espouses the views that Communist Feminists espouse today.

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

On Childcare: (Leading to the Implementation of Child Care Facilities through the Commissariat of Health and Education): Note: this would require a large health appropriations bill which incidentally our Congress is working on now....Do you know where your government is leading us? Perhaps it is time to lead your government as our founders intended.

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

On "Free Love":

The key, to Kollontai was to eradicate the bourgeois \ proletariat relationship between men and women.. The idea was to get as much access to sex between men and women as possible without forming a mutually dependent "submissive" and "oppressive" pair bond which involved "ego" and "possession" and of course the dreaded capitalist relationship i.e the gender roles communism and feminism is opposed to.

The bourgeois \ proletariat relationship i.e. male incentive to produce and be worthy of the female who in Marxist terms owned the means of production must be destroyed;
the courtship and economic model that formed the nuclear family and gave rise to it must be destroyed. Kollontai was also opposed to prostitution for the same reason as it represented to her the epitome of the capitalist relationship between men and women. Communist theory surmised that equality and a "free love" dynamic would take the place of the capitalist model of family and relationships between the sexes and serve to liberate men and women. What Marxist theory describes as the bourgeois \ proletariat relationship feminist call "The Patriarchy".

She also exclaimed that Communism would free men of their provider role:

"Contemporary society goes even further than the ancient tribal society in acting as woman’s trustee, instructing her not only to marry but to fall in love only with those people who are “worthy” of her."

"Now imagine another situation. A respected woman of bourgeois society – a social figure, a research student, a doctor, or a writer, it’s all the same – becomes friendly with her footman, and to complete the scandal marries him. How does bourgeois society react to the behaviour of the hitherto “respected” woman? They cover her with “scorn”, of course! And remember, it’s so much the worse for her if her husband, the footman, is good-looking or possesses other “physical qualities”. “It’s obvious what she’s fallen for”, will be the sneer of the hypocritical bourgeoisie."

It was claimed that if the capitalist relationship between men and women could be destroyed women would be able to select men by who they are as a person rather than be attracted to a male because he was of high status and resourcefully successful etc.

Unfortunately Kollontai did not understand hypergamous matting behavior of females i.e. the tendency to look for tall, strong, intelligent, ambitious, good looking, high status, resourcefully successful males..

Here: you can see,because of this,as crazy as it sounds...that female matting behavior changes in proportion to how much college she has attended and thus her monetary earnings ratio to a prospectful male mate..... The study shows that female chance for matting with a male lowered with every year of higher education i.e. the associated post educational increase in her resource potential compared to males.

Thus also lowering the percent who ever become mothers:

As you can see below the reverse it true for men. The hypergamous dynamic is diametrically opposed and thus proportionately compounded. This is a powerful force. It has been postulated by feminists that the reason hypergamy exists is because males or "The Patriarchy" dominate resources to such an extent that females are forced to marry up and men are forced to marry down in terms of a mate in regard to resource potential. I say this is not the case because female hypergamy has not decreased proportionately to the increasing amount of female participation in the workforce and subsequent increase in female resource acquisition.

Kollontai Continued:

Here she exclaims the need for the destruction of the family through the use of no fault divorce:

"The attempt by the middle-class intelligentsia to replace indissoluble marriage by the freer, more easily broken ties of civil marriage destroys the essential basis of the social stability of the, bourgeoisie. It destroys the monogamous, property-orientated family. On the other hand. a greater fluidity in relationships between the sexes coincides with and is even the indirect result of one of the basic tasks of the working class. The rejection of the element of “submission” in marriage."

Below you can see the effect that the "free love" i.e. sexual liberation and second wave feminism has had on America from the time these ideas influenced the American Cultural Revolution in the 1960's. 40% of all women in the United States now give birth outside of marriage.

The question we need to ask ourselves is yes, marriage and the family have been and are being destroyed by the implementation of these ideas along with social law policies that accompanied them. The question we need to ask is, what are we building to take its place???? Are we better off now??

Single Woman Births now at 40% of all births in U.S.

With so many men's lives defined by what is now a 70% female initiated divorce rate and 50% or 1 in 2 marriages ending in divorce this way, what are we to do in order to establish the rights and "choices" of men within the contract of divorce? Should they lose the right to fatherhood and be reduced to "visitor" or "visitation" status by default or should men be allowed the option to share custody of the child and thus be freed from his fatherhood being turned into money and capitalized...Can fatherhood be bought with money? These are very good questions?

Women lobbied to create no-fault divorce which was first implemented in California and soon swept the nation. Should men have an obligation to financially support women who have left them? Should the "choice" of women to work if they want or stay home if they want be formed into a capitalized liability to the man in the form of Alimony (woman support)? These are very good questions...

With the forced "male resource transferability model" and "government husbandry" i.e. communized support for single mothers in place, with women as a gender collectively divorcing men how can men find a place in the family and with our children? With the dissolution of family what is the male place in society? Is a husband and father even needed? Shouldn't an "isolated resource producing male" be sufficient? Are men simply a means to an end, the work horses of civilization.. Do men even matter? Do men like to be "isolated resource producing males"? These are very good questions to ask...

Below: The early beginnings of The Feminist Majority, one of the leading Women's Party organizations in the United States along with N.O.W.

NOTE: No-fault divorce was pioneered by the Bolsheviks following the Russian Revolution of 1917 with the implementation of Communism. No-fault divorce was also introduced in the final ends and fall of the Roman Republic. It was introduced here in the U.S. in the Family Law Act of September 4, 1969 (effective January 1, 1970)

The Above image was annotated because it is now thought that divorce is on the decline because marriage itself is on the decline..The drop off in divorce rates seem to coincide with increased cohabitation among couples and the 40% single woman birth rate...SEE:

Kollontai Continued:

NOTE: When she refers to "individualist" she means "capitalists \conservatives" in the American lexicon.

"The “individualists” who are only loosely organised into a collective with other individuals, now have the chance to change their sexual relationships so that they are based on the creative principle of friendship and togetherness rather than on something blindly physiological."

"The conservatively inclined part of mankind argue that we should return to the happy times of the past, we should re-establish the old foundations of the family and strengthen the well-tried norms of sexual morality. The champions of bourgeois individualism say that we ought to destroy all the hypocritical restrictions of the obsolete code of sexual behaviour. These unnecessary and repressive “rags” ought to be relegated to the archives – only the individual conscience. the individual will of each person can decide such intimate questions. Socialists, on the other hand, assure us that sexual problems will only be settled when the basic reorganisation of the social and economic structure of society has been tackled."

These ideas soon spread to the United States. The subversion of American Culture to Communist ideology began in the "free love" era of the 1960's.

The Council On Women and Girls serves the same purpose as what can be called the Communist Women's Workers Party i.e. the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department". Representation at the Federal level has been the goal of Women's Feminist Organizations since the 1960's. Now they have secular representation for women as a separate socio-political class with their own class interests. Many of these interest go against the class interests of men who's economic wellbeing and the prospects thereof are directly affected by the "Women's Party" policies such as Title IX and Affirmative Action "women first" laws..Not to mention that Women's Party Feminists lobbied and successfully diverted the bulk of the Stimulus Package to women though 80% of jobs lost in this recession have been to men.(Read article: No Country For Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers)...WOW!!!
This is just the beginning...

We simply can't afford the chivalry to add any more "women first" laws and funding to handicap men as a class. We can't afford to implement "equality" laws based on Marxist Communist theory.

As men our earnings prospects are directly related to our ability to garner a mate as is shown by the hypergamy study referenced earlier in the article..Not to mention these laws are against the founding principals on my dear Republic. Equal opportunity, not unequal outcome by unequal means.... I challenge the "Communist Women's Workers Party" i.e. The Council On Women and Girl to remove women first laws so that males may have equal opportunity to attend college. We must not continue to artificially handicap men with unequal representation under law if we want to be a free society.

I leave you with this.....I believe with women'sincreasing marriage to the State including it's accompanied mandates of forced male resource provision outside of marriage will continue to grow. Government will continue to meet the demands of feminists to provide and protect women as it is the case that our innate human nature to do so is personified within the government ethos. The competitive echelon or the equal opportunity for competitive advantage that serves to enfranchise male productive incentive will be destroyed. A critical mass of disenfranchised males will increasingly become the norm and the mating dynamic, marriage and family destroyed.

I believe that as seen from the graphs above on Hypergamy pitting females against males in the economic sphere (especially while using "women first"laws such as Title IX and Affirmative Action and others) to handicap males from competing and producing will lower overall birth rates and mated pair bond formation.

In terms of the breakdown in the family: Our high divorce rate, our 40% single woman birth rate and the skyrocketing amount of loose knit cohabitating relationships coupled with family laws pertaining to divorce or cohabitant separation, a critical mass of "isolated resource producing males" will be reached, lowering male productive incentive as a whole. A healthy society thrives on enfranchised males with productive incentive...

When you disenfranchise a critical mass of males from a role in the family and the productive incentive that comes with it our Republic will consume itself of it's own means of production.

At this point in time however I believe the best choice for male equality is to in fact become complimentary to the feminist paradigm of equality i.e. men must withdraw from protection and provision of women and from the family.

It is said that men do not contribute to their fair share of housework but when the entire structure of mating dynamics are analysed women do not contribute to their fair share of providing and protecting the family. Men must free themselves from female hypergamous mating behavior. Men must demand the role of stay at home dad and primary care giver of children. Alimony and Child Support must be abolished and shared custody of children implemented.

The male role in the family can no longer be reduced to a monetized or capitalized liability of provider or in the case of divorce as an "isolated resource producing male".....As the Communist Revolution sought to establish, following through on Marxist form of equality entails men no longer playing a role in the family or the lives or our children. In an ideal Communist social structure male resource provision will not be required in order for a female and "her" offspring to thrive. This is the feminist goal. Do you the reader have another solution??? Can we stop this???

How can men achieve equal rights and a place in the family in this new order? Can we fix this? Both men and women have the duty to try..

More on women as a separate socio-political class away from the class interests of men.. Can be found here

***Jessica Smith in Women in Soviet Russia (1928) describes conflict between men and women in Changing Attitudes in Soviet Russia and records debates in which women accuse the men of condescension (oppression) and patronage or (misogyny) & (patriarchy).

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

Works of Alexandra Kollontai

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Wow Men Are Still Speaking Openly In Academia Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

I'm sure we all know what happens when a man speaks openly about such things in the highest chambers of academia but this brave man has taken the courage to continue the discussion and the search for truth..!

Monday, February 15, 2010

A Tribute TO:

I want to recommend an outstanding site to my readers!

This site has some of the most truly exemplary and intelligent thinkers and writers in the Men's Rights Movement!

Outstanding Article:

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC better known as Glubb Pasha (born 16 April 1897, Preston, Lancashire – died 17 March 1986, Mayfield, Sussex), was a British soldier best known for leading and training Transjordan's Arab Legion 1939-1956 as its commanding general. During World War I, he served in France.

A soldier for much of his life, John Glubb was also a historian who wrote a number of books on Middle East and Arab history, including The Life and Times of Muhammad. But it is his prescient book “The Fate of Empires,” that is quite interesting, excerpt below...

“An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolized by men. “What,” wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, “have the professions of clerk, tax collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.” Many women practiced law, while others obtained positions as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed. The disorders following the military take-over in 861, and the loss of the empire, had played havoc with the economy. At such a moment, it might have been expected that everyone would redouble their efforts to save the country from bankruptcy, but nothing of the kind occurred. Instead at this moment of declining trade and financial stringency, the people of Baghdad introduced a five day week.” -Sir John Bagot Glubb


Here gentlemen in correlation with an unrelated source is a glimpse into the decline of Rome you may find relevant to our time!!!

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

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

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

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

Wow, our birth rate in the U.S. is barely sustaining replacement levels.

So Quintus said the above in 131 B.C... It seems The Roman family really declined in the final century of the Republic--that is, the period from 146 BCE to 49 BCE when Julius Caesar was proclaimed sole dictator.

During the last century of the Roman Republic, no-fault divorce was introduced.

Following the complete end of Manus Marriage in the 1st century BC (100-1 B.C) and the emergence of Free Marriage Divorce, divorced ceased needing any reason, (No Fault Divorce). Reasons for any divorce became irrelevant.

Hmmmm well I know with the decline of the family comes the decline of a civilization and empires. Looking more into no-fault divorce: "No-fault divorce was pioneered by the Bolsheviks following the Russian Revolution of 1917" Hmmm so no fault divorce was introduced during the major transition to Communism... Interesting that both were implemented during the last days of the Roman Republic and during the Communist Revolution. I think it is time we make divorce equitable for both the husband and the wife!

Currently, in my country The United States it is the wife that maintains sole power in marriage. Marriage is the lawful commitment from a man to a woman. Children are the property of the woman and the husband is subject to forced labor under penalty of prison to support her financial needs and that of his estranged children in the event of divorce. The wife maintains the sole option of "choice" to work or stay home and the man the sole obligation to support her both in and out of marriage. We are the first civilization that I know of to revoke all male rights within the marriage contract and thus the contract and obligations in divorce.

If history is any lesson my country will continue to make "change" we won't want to believe in.

There has been a substantial movement in favor of the revival of fault in the context of divorce in the United States.[15]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce did not stop at removing the requirement that grounds be cited for a divorce, so as to allow for divorce by "mutual consent"; they also allow either spouse to end the marriage without any agreement or fault by the other.[16] They state that no-fault divorce should be referred to as unilateral divorce.[17]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in modern history that have effectively ended marriage as a legal contract.[13] They also state that it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family, adding that government officials can, at the request of one spouse, end a marriage over the objection of the other.[13]

They add that no-fault divorce has left fathers with no protection against what they describe as the confiscation of their children.[18]

Members of the fathers' rights movement propose "reasonable limits" on no-fault divorce where children are involved.[19] Other commentators on no-fault divorce propose an amendent to no-fault divorce laws to create a (rebuttable) presumption of custody of any minor children for the respondent [who is innocent or does not wish to divorce] regardless of gender.

Tim O'Brien, a proponent of the proposed amendment and a Libertarian, predicts that the proposed amendment would result in a plummeting divorce rate, and would reduce the negative consequences of divorce for children.[20]

Columnist Melanie Phillips wrote that "the divorce laws...were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion."[13]

Hmmmm, I DON'T LIKE THIS PART.."Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in modern history" The truth is that No fault divorce has been implemented before in history and we should look at the results......


"Indeed, Jack. There is no historical precedent for a non-patriarchal society thriving in the long-term.

However, this does appear to be a cycle in the course of human history. Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin penned a book at the beginning of the 20th century titled “Sex and Culture” which explains this dynamic fairly well. Following a rather exhaustive survey of human cultures around the world, Unwin concluded that societies which restrain female sexuality tend to thrive, but eventually, as a result of their prosperity and success, tend to erode these restraints, due to women demanding this and men acquiescing. In other words, the societies thrive, and this gives rise to demands from women to participate in the success and prosperity, and men generally acquiesce (at least the powerful ones do) at some stage — and that acquiescence pretty much always takes the form of relaxing the strictures of marriage and allowing women to exist “independently” from men — sexually and otherwise. The history here is revealing and, in the broader world, largely unknown. For example, very few people are aware that ancient Babylon, prior to its collapse, instituted civil reforms to family law such as no-fault divorce and child support. Or that Sparta, which is widely known for its military tradition, had liberated women to such a degree that they ran the Spartan economy, and as a result had below replacement rate birth rates, leading to a collapse, eventually, to surrounding patriarchal states. Or that marriage in late Rome had declined so precipitously that the Empire tried to encourage men to marry by instituting a bachelor tax (to no avail, mind you, because men did not *need* to marry due to the relatively freely available sex after women were “liberated”)."

Monday, February 8, 2010

We Need To Huddle Close To Women For Provision and Protection

I would like to share a letter with my readers I've written to a friend on the state of jobs for the American man.. With the pieces of governmental action and statements put together I've been able to create a picture that will allow me and my countrymen to survive...

Good choice leaving IT Jeremy, I'm doing the same.. Send me an email if you like, I'd like to know what drove you out as well.... A lot of the tech and engineering guys I know are getting out and going the only place left for decent and education....

The best thing is to go where the women are as this is where we devoted the majority of the stimulus package.. "No Country For Burly Men" is an interesting article... Women are the largest voting block so they devoted the money there.
In Joe Biden's address to women he stated that women are the most affected by the recession and that we live in a male chauvinist society..

Robert Reich Obama's cheif economic advisor stated "I am concerned as many of you are, that these jobs not simply go
to high skilled people who are professionals or white male construction workers" "Criteria can be set so that the money goes to others, the long term unemployed, minorities and women."

Many men's jobs are gone for good.. 80% of all jobs lost in this recession are to men. President Obama said regarding the future economy of our country, " “Women are just as likely to be the primary bread earner, if not more likely, than men are today,” ...


They are celebrating that women are now the majority of the workforce and earn 60% of the college degrees. The week long presentation on MSNBC "A Woman's Nation" helped outline the plan to push women into the primary role in the workforce.

The Council On Women and Girls is planning to extend Title IX and Affirmative Action for women to all Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics departments in all colleges nation wide. The best idea for men is to huddle close to women for protection and provision.

I've also found that it helps to declare yourself a "diversity candidate" on your online resume. You might also change your name on it to Jeremi which could also help.. You can also tell them that you are 1/5th African American as I believe you can declare your race, they just can not ask. So as I've experienced your contacts will increase.


On a lighter note, do you happen to know where I can get a pair of synthetic breasts along with a breast milk pump that comes will hermetically sealed containers to keep the milk.. I need to get some good equipment in order to breast feed? I'd like to get familiar with some good products. It is important to adapt accordingly to our marginalization... I'm looking forward to being an oppressed stay at home Dad! Women will just be a means to an end like men are today! If we want to leave she will have to send us alimony and child support to support our "choices"!

Man breastfeeding

Nature made the sexes complimentary for a reason, the natural roles of each gender are indispensable. We simply need to fill in the vaccume that women have left. Maria Shriver said on "A Woman's Nation" that men need to contribute to more housework and if we do then we will get more sex.. Me man, all my needs are reduced to one thing, me like sex, me do what woman want! Women have moved away from work in the domestic sphere and apparently are feeling stressed that there is still valuable work to do when the workday is complete... They seem to want men to pick up the extra work load.

Vice President Joe Biden informing women that we live in a male cheuvanist society and that women are the primary victims of a recession:

Head Economic Advisor Robert Reich advocates the diversion of the stimulus package to women:

Stimulus Package gets diverted to women: "No Country For Burly Men" by Christina Hoff Sommers:

President Obama states that in the future women will be as and more likely to be the breadwinner:

Video detailing the truth of the matter

I like this (what I think is a woman's) reaction to the article in The Economist magazine. I like it because she feels viscerally that something is not right though she does not know what I have pointed out above in regard to the allocation of the stimulus package. It seems she believes that celebrating the "mancession" as economists are calling it and the loss of male jobs as a victory for women seems to be quite sexist to her:

BlueEyes1 wrote: Dec 31st 2009 1:10 GMT
The title "We did it!" coupled with its subtitle "women … are taking over the workplace" carries with it the sexist implication that men have lost: that they have had something taken from them because they were not competent enough to hold onto it, and that they should therefore feel ashamed. How are men supposed to react? Its unsurprising there is such negative reaction from men in these comments.

"within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce."

If true, this seems like it could be an indication of sexism against males. Females are approximately 50% of the population. On the face of it, in an equal opportunity, non-sexist environment we should expect to see women at about 50% of the American workforce. More than that may be an indicator of sexism against men, but is anyway probably an indicator of a significant problem, and is almost certainly not cause for unchecked celebration (although it is exciting that women have achieved success in the workplace).

As the section in this article "Dealing with the juggle" points out, women make career choices to drop out of the workforce, including raising children. If it is true that more women choose to leave the workforce than men, the conclusion is that we should expect to see women's participation at somewhat less than 50% of the American workforce. The observation that women have exceeded the 50% threshold is an indication that whatever the cause, men are not presently seeing equal employment opportunities. The article seems to agree, since it rather uncharmingly dubs the situation the "mancession". It is disparaging to men that the article's tone is so jubilant, rather than more solemnly reflective.

Replacing sexism against females with sexism against males is not an improvement.

I definitely recommend reading the comments on the article....

An interesting area of discussion ALPHA WIVES

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Women Only Food Distribution In Haiti

Above: Well Fed "vulnerable" women.
Below: Skinny, hungry unfed males are left to fend for themselves.
Caption: "An angry young man shouts at an organizer during food distribution on Sunday. Aid organizations have switched to a system that favors women "the most vulnerable" populations in distributing food."

Hmmm a new policy has been enacted by some food aid organizations in Haiti, stop all food distribution to men and give food to women only. Large groups of hungry glaring males are starting to gather in the streets.

I know that women hold a higher status and privilege in society and as such it is customary for men to die so that women may live but I hope that these men can get food to eat.....

It will soon be time for the men to arm themselves and attack the food convoys themselves. It would also be wise for men to start attacking women to reestablish access to food supplies. Being that no competitive advantage economic structure or social order exists and males are being denied the opportunity to do so or contribute I expect violence, roving bands of males fighting for territory and resources, warlords and rape.

It would be wise to put these males, most importantly the single males to work. Cutting them off from food, access to territory and resources is a recipe for chaos and war.... Nice social engineering job morons!!!

We all know that when women get a hold of resources they share the fruits of their labor with males...oh wait no it's the other way around. Get ready for all out social chaos in Haiti!

COMMENTS FROM WOMEN: Margaret Leafe (poetmaggie) wrote:
Good idea, unlike the men, the women will see that the children and men get fed.
Tue Feb 02 2010 08:59:12 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Irene Cardenas (irenesee) wrote: When is a subtle battle of the sexes afoot in comments? Haven't many women, for generations, been hurt very deeply by many men? Isn't it important that women have love, empathy and compassion for the horrors they've endured?

Debra Williams (debralovesgospe) wrote:
I know now being in the work force for years women are doing most of the work at my workplace and then go home to do most of the house work.

Breatha Freshare (Seuss) wrote:
Sorry guys. Fortunately I know a lot of good men, married one of them 33 years ago.
-(Hmmm this woman seems to think there is some goodness in men and that they deserve to eat food)

Trena Gravem (Trena) wrote: What is wrong with these young men??? Why are most criminals men? Most abusers men? Most prisoners men? Most porn addicts men? Most wars fought by men?? Most governments and businesses run by men? Call it a stereotype, but it seems to me that, generally, while women nurture life, men destroy it!

Debra Williams (debralovesgospe) wrote: Men should be helping to protect and feed women and children!

Jennifer McClung (JenMc) wrote:
Sorry, folks, but yes, in these kind of highly unusual circumstances organizations need to ensure that the weaker members of society (elderly, pregnant women, women taking care of children) get food rations- that's what humanitarianism is all about.

Anne Greene (KUAF_supporter) wrote:
Seems similar to the argument on why educating girls is so important - women tend to nurture their families and communities when they have to tools to do so. Part of human nature? Probably. (But apparently not the nature of males) There don't seem to be many reports of women going through the streets with weapons to take food from others.