Monday, February 28, 2011

Why Men Must Be Independent and Liberated

I was reading an article written by a woman who is opposed to the establishment of matriarchy and female supremacist society.

This comment stuck out to me:

"I agree with you. Many men won't like the female supremacist society. I'm also not sure what it will look like. Let's face it, it won't be the 1950's with the roles reversed. The large majority of women (even Lesbians) do not like feminine men, let alone want to make one their house husband.Even feminine women and stay at home moms are criticized by society today. What will we see? Some things we see already. Women will not put up with men who cheat or even go out drinking with their pals. They are financially independent and will just get a divorce. Hence, the higher divorce rate.

Other women don't even bother getting married. If they want a child, they hook up with a man and kick them out when they are pregnant. They then take him to court to make sure he pays his child support or society will throw him in jail. Women like this call men a "wallet". I know men who work two jobs just to pay child support and live like paupers. We will see more and more of this.

We will also see men leaving jobs to follow their wives when their wives are promoted or take leave to raise the kids as their wives will make more. We will see men trying hard to save their marriages. Women will therefore make more and more of the decisions and men will have to like it. The male approach at work (assertive, loud, aggressive) will be less valued than the woman's approach (nurturing, caring, team building, understanding of family issues). Women already own the majority of small businesses. These trends will only grow."

-It is important for men to understand what matriarchy means and as such realize that we have no obligations or enfranchisement in supporting it. In fact we are subjugated to quite the opposite. There is no stake for men in any of it. Men must look out for ourselves as a separate class and toward the ends of our own self interests and not that of a prospectful symbiotic relationship with women as members of the family and lives of our children.

In Great Britain it is no longer required that men be listed on the birth certificate of the child. I see this as a step forward in Independence and Liberation of men from women's families and women's children. There is liberation in being downgraded to sperm donor. Men owe women, women's families and women's children nothing. The only thing men need to look out for is ourselves.

The above reasons are why men should withdraw from commitment to women, to family and to the prospect of children or fatherhood. Even if a man is a father in the United States and the west it is considered a revocable privilege and not a right. The comment from the woman above demonstrates what women have done to marriage, divorce and family law. Men should not get married.

The good thing is that since these law changes and other mandates of female supremacy have been implemented marriage rates have been on a precipitous decline:

The graph below is a little DATED, THE SINGLE WOMAN BIRTH RATE IS NOW 42% OF ALL BIRTHS. It is important for men to recognize what is happening. It is important to realize that increasingly women are a separate socio-political and socio-economic class and that social, familial, political and even economic policies are made accordingly which serve to exacerbate, accelerate and reinforce these trends. Men must adapt in self preservation and seek Liberation and Independence from subjugation. There is no other choice. Yes, you can become a Men's Rights Activist and fight for change but in the meantime you must protect yourselves.

Here is a primer to warn men of the changes women have made to marriage and divorce law:

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Audience Please Shout Out a Group You Hate...MEN of Course

Imagine for a moment if the men in the audience shouted WOMEN! WOMEN! Think about this for a moment and you will realize how far women's hatred and contempt for men and masculinity has gone. We live in trying times for sure.

Men's Rights Radio On Air March 1st 9:00 p.m. EST

Be sure to tune in: HERE
An Introduction to the Men's Movement
Length: 2 hrs 30 min
Radio On Air March 1st 9:00 p.m. EST


Our debut show at A Voice for Men Radio. This program will give an overview of the men's movement, take as many right hooks at feminists and manginas as we can in an hour, let you hear exactly why the men's movement is growing, and why it isn't going to stop. Paul Elam, founder of and former Editor-in-Chief of Men's News Daily is your host. One listen to this show and you will find out why the New York Times, CBS News and Ms. Magazine all have their panties in a twist over the work of Mr. Elam. Strap in and buckle up for this one. This is A Voice for Men you have never heard before

Friday, February 25, 2011

Male Abortion Rights

I received a question the other day: "Alright, how is it that the male's right to abort has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's right to her body?"

Ethical and moral reasoning aside, being that abortion is legal men should have Rights and equal protection under law to reach the ends to which abortion accomplishes for women. Equal protection under law is paramount.

A man has the right to abort and a woman can choose to do likewise or not. Male right to abort is not about a woman's body but rather in MOST ALL cases the implications, implied responsibility and ramifications addressed by the female right to abort which has more to do with the body of the child, conception itself and the effect thereof rather than "a woman's body". It should be made clear that abortion addresses the ramifications of conception and not a woman's body, this is a feminist farse to detract from the principal purpose and object of abortion.

Conception is not something a man does to a woman, it is SUPPOSED TO BE a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility and as such, the mutual right to abort such responsibility or consequences of conception SHOULD BE AFFORDED EQUALLY. It should be understood that men don't "get women pregnant". For an unplanned pregnancy men deserve equal rights as women to reach the same ends that abortion reaches for women, that is, the termination of the ramifications, responsibility and supposed consequences of conception. A woman's choice in the matter is not affected by this right of men.

Feminists have challenged this notion in that if a man has "choice" this infringes upon the Liberty of women's "choice" and is a form of coercion which forces her to abort. This is a remarkably gynocentric viewpoint as it is currently male Liberty that is compromised in order to enable female "choice".

As is current, her decision to keep or discard the child can be made regardless of the father's moral convictions or his wishes in regard to the ends of "personal health and life choices" to which abortion achieves for women. Coercion upon the Liberty of male "choice" is not even a question in our current system because currently men have no choices.

Women should not have default right to male commitment and resources in order to enable their "choice". Currently men do not have the right to our own "choice" of commitment or devotion of resources. These resources I might add are produced by our bodies, they are our property just as the child both pre and post conception is erroneously and wrongfully considered the property of the women. If women have the choice of complete ownership over the fruits of the labor of their body then men deserve the same rights over the fruits of our labor and sole property as well.

Women claim that it is their body and thus the child is their property and thus their choice. In reality the child is not their property and it is not entirely their choice. You can not have exclusive rights to property unless you have exclusive responsibility for said property.

Constitutional theory dictates that you can discern the difference between Rights and Privileges by understanding the delegation of responsibility. As such, sole female Right to abortion is a Privilege and not a Right as this female "choice" is currently financed by male responsibility. Furthermore, male abortion rights will serve to protect men from paternity fraud, some cases in which are perpetrated without intercourse ever having taken place:

"Sperm: The 'gift' that keeps on giving
Court dismisses man's theft claim against lover who kept semen"

“Equal rights for all, special privileges for none” -President Thomas Jefferson

To learn more about the difference between a Privilege and Rights in relation to property please take the time to study the free course below:

Professor Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class


Recently a historian I read about wrote that the founders of the Constitution believed that just a people have a right to their property, so to do they have property in their Rights. People can not merely claim their Rights but when deemed equal and inalienable they own them as well. Thus the title to their Liberty was as sound as their title to their land. The question was asked "what is the difference between claiming a Right and actually owning a Right and how important is that difference, how are the two differentiated?"

Rights can be differentiated from a Privlege by understanding where responsibility for property is delegated.

For instance abortion is not a Right but a Privilege because responsibility for the Privlege women hold of sole property rights to a child is placed upon men to bear. Only if men have an equal right to abort responsibility, ownership or consequential results of conception of said property as well would abortion become a Right and as such equal protection under law be established.

Suffice as to say that at this point conception is seen as something a man DOES to a woman rather than a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility and therefore equal property rights to a child are not afforded to men BOTH pre and post conception, as such, the equal right to abort such responsibility is not afforded equally. Men actually have no paternal rights to children nor our bodies and thus fruits of property beared forth by its labor.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Combating Feminist Revisionist History

Feminist have completely rewritten history so much so that it is tantamount to the Nazis winning WWII. Imagine then that throughout culture it was simply common knowledge that in the past, the Jews ruled over everything and were the oppressors of the German people. Good thing payback and discrimination was enacted against them the common German would think. It is not so different post feminist occupied America.

Something I've noticed that is lacking in the MRA community is a counterforce and confrontation to feminist revisionist history. I find that when you bring up present concerns with women or feminists as soon as you have a point they revert back to some imaginary time in the past and legitimize any injustice upon men, boys husbands and fathers as rightful payback for the years that women were treated like "slaves" and "animals".

Through women's revisionist history they have managed to make themselves out to be the victims of all humanity. It will take time to analyse and expose these things but it must be done. MOST ALL AMERICANS HAVE BOUGHT INTO feminist lies of one sort or another. Feminists are master manipulators.

Feminist says:

"YOUR LEGAL PROPERTY. You deprived us, women, of the right to divorce, own property, get custody of our children, denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves, legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us. You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations". You deprived us of the right to vote. You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

First of all women were not kept tied up like dogs. Chivalry, reverence and elevation of women was common. Jan 5, 1643 was the first recorded divorce in the American colonies. In the first record of a legal divorce in the American colonies, Anne Clarke of the Massachusetts Bay Colony is granted a divorce from her absent and adulterous husband.

You see, adultery along with domestic violence was forbidden. Legislation was enacted in the American colonies that outlawed domestic violence in 1641. It was not common for women to be beaten by their husbands. Women didn't walk around the town square bruised, injured with black eyes and broken bones. Would you like to guess which gender has always reserved the right to slap and scorn the other since the Victorian era at least...women.

Yes, husbands were considered the head of the household and solely responsible for the welfare and wellbeing of his wife and children. Men were expected to be the religious and spiritual leaders of their family as well. You come from a very sick place lady and your view on the world is entirely warped.

Upon female ownership of property, women and children were considered the core of society and as such inheritance was passed down to male offspring. A male with resources had a good chance of being a suitor to a woman who would accept his devotion to her in marriage. Men must work and provide money and all the needs and lifestyle he could possibly afford her and his children. Women owned plenty of family possessions which is different from property or business which was passed on through male offspring.

"denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves"

Women have attended schooling since the very founding of the American colonies onward. College was uncommon for the vast majority of people of both genders for a long time. There was no such thing as "high paying jobs". We were largely an agrarian society until the Industrial Revolution. I suppose we could have asked women to do this work but I'm sure most thought it improper for a woman to slave her ass off with arduous and intense muscular labor. Furthermore, why would a woman want to support herself, she has a devoted husband who would get down on one knee, offer her gold and jewels and support her FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE AND AFTER. Living by one's self, making a life for one's self alone and thus "supporting yourselves" was unheard of. Back then the relationship between men and women and thus the formation of family was sacred.

"Legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us."

Family income was always shared. Yes, the man was the one expected to make financial decisions for his family. Women have been in the workforce for quite some time despite popular belief, especially among the lower classes. Yes, a wife would bring home wages and her husband would make decisions on how best to use what they could pull together to support his family.

There were no products like you think of today, no major amenities NO CONSUMER CULTURE FILLED WITH GOODIES OF ALL KINDS. EVERYTING was made of metal, wood, glass, plant material or stone...EVERYTHING.

We are talking money spent for to provide for the basic necessities of the family. There was no strong and affluent middle class.

"You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations"

Your idea that rape was a common form of marital relations is absurd. If you mean that part of a wifes expected reciprocal duty to her husband was to be sexually available to him even when one is not in the mood for it yes, this was expected of wives.

JUST LIKE YOU, MEN HAVE A SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE. Our bodies need to release at regular intervals. Masturbation and spilling ones seed alone and onto the ground was considered vile. It is still deeply hurtful and humiliating for a man to go to the bathroom and masturbate or to do so to pornography when his wife is in the other room. How hard is it to lay on your side for him???

"You deprived us of the right to vote."

Actually Anti-Suffragism was a political movement composed mainly of women.

Men never denied women the right to vote....they never asked for it and when they did many women were against it..not men. Furthermore non land owning men could not vote either. Only those who owned land had the right to vote. Men gained suffrage and women gained it sometime later...when they asked for it.

Also voting was considered a family decision. Men and women were not separate socio-political and socio-economic classes in conflict with each other as we are now. It was one vote per family and men were considered the public speakers of their family. Men and women were virtually one back then. The family and the mated pair bond WAS the individual economic, social and political unit.

"You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

Murder of ones husband or wife has always been a capitol offense under law. As far as prostitution goes would you like to know the fate of young lower class men??? You prostitute yourselves so don't give me that argument. Try being conscripted as cannon fodder in war so men can provide you the territory and resources you demand we provide to you.

Women were not only protected like children and infantilized they were not accountable for their actions by law nor held to much of any regard to be responsible for anything. It is not much different to this day.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Women Prepare For Another Assault Upon Men and Boys

USNEWS And World Reports:

"If proportionality is applied to high schools, up to 1.3 million male athletes could be sidelined"

Posted: February 16, 2011

Earlier this week, baseball fans around the country rejoiced as pitchers and catchers reported for spring training. It's a safe bet that as the Major League season gets ready to start, many children will go to bed dreaming of becoming the next Cole Hamels or Andy Pettitte, leading their team to World Series glory.

Of course, most athletes won't reach the heights of World Series. Most won't turn pro and most won't even go on to play in college. Yet as a society we still recognize the benefits of athletic competition--from physical fitness to building leadership and teamwork skills. That's why recent developments in high school athletics are so disturbing.

The threat to high school athletics comes down to a question of how Title IX, the 1972 law that bans sex discrimination in educational programming, should be enforced at the high school level. A case study of Title IX enforcement at the collegiate level offers a cautionary tale.

Colleges are required to take Title IX into account in a variety of areas including the quality of facilities available to each sex, scholarship amounts, and participation rates. It is the last area that has caused the most controversy.

In 1979, the Office for Civil Rights developed a three-part test for schools to demonstrate Title IX compliance regarding participation rates. Yet only the first test—the test known as "proportionality," which requires that a school's athletic programs' gender ratio is proportionate to the overall student population (i.e. if 57 percent of the student body is female, then 57 percent of athletes must also be female)—provides clear cut numbers. In fact, the proportional gender quota was declared a legal "safe harbor" by the Department of Education in the 1990s and has been the only measure to stand up in courts over the years. It is no surprise then, that proportionality is the enforcement measure of choice for schools.

With rising female enrollments (women make up 6 in 10 undergraduate students nationally), schools are left with two routes to meet proportionality's demands: add women's teams or cut men's teams. The route of cutting men's programming is often attractive as it also reduces schools' spending on athletics, which is even more attractive in a down economy. Just last month, University of Delaware and Bemidji State University cut men's programs.

Those cuts are part of a significant historical trend: a 2007 longitudinal study of NCAA athletic participation data confirmed that over a 25-year period, opportunities for men have declined. From 1981 to 2005, male athletes per school declined 6 percent and men's teams per school dropped 17 percent. Meanwhile, both female athletes per school and women's teams per school rose 34 percent. The total number of women's teams has exceeded the number of men's teams since 1995. It is great to see more opportunities for women, but there is no reason that such opportunities should come at the expense of opportunities for men. Using Title IX in such a fashion flies in the face of the antidiscriminatory spirit of the law.

Now, a new effort is threatening to bring the strict proportionality standard (and the corresponding cuts to men's athletics) to the high school level. In November, the National Women's Law Center filed administrative complaints against 12 school districts claiming that they were not providing enough competitive opportunities for female athletes based on proportionality.

Proportionality's rigid standards have taken a toll on college athletics, and will take a worse toll if applied to high schools. In fact, adopting the three-part test in high schools in the current economic climate would be expected to sideline up to 1.3 million male high school athletes.

There are also serious legal concerns about applying the proportionality standard to high schools. Specifically, a high school following three-part test would be subjecting boys to disparate treatment without sufficiently probative evident that such treatment is needed to combat sex discrimination, which violates the equal protection clause.

Given all the problems with proportionality at the collegiate level, it seems imprudent to expand the same method of enforcement to the high school level. In addition to being unfair to many high school athletes, such a move would also require significant government resources to fund investigations of school districts. At a time marked with massive budget deficits, such investigations hardly seem like a wise use of taxpayer dollars.

A Personal Letter To An MRA

Ryan, though Men's Rights and Fathers Rights is real, it is a real challenge we face, we have to remember that in our personal lives relationships with women ARE possible.

As compared to many, the challenges you face are two fold because of your personal history.

Though in our lifetimes we may never receive equal rights on a larger scale and as such this preclusion transcends into the personal realm, we have no choice but to establish as much personal sovereignty and trust with the right woman as possible.

We can not just give up. Though the forces of good are used against us and the tyranny of the State reigns upon us, there is at least hope, there is at least a chance that men can share our feelings and position with a woman and trust in her not to destroy us. The risk is great but it is better than the alternative.

Women hold ultimate power in the family and over many things by law. Oppression has plagued man kind since the beginning. Though women hold more Rights and representation in the realm of the political, social, economic, in education, healthcare, judicial, family and marriage law, paternal rights, conception and reproductive rights and in general are placed before men in all matters I hope someday to find the right woman and believe I will be brought to tears when I tell her how terrified I am of what can be brought to bear upon me by my slave status, lack of rights to my body and lack of paternal rights to my children. I am terrified of losing my children like my father was taken from me and like my brother lost his child. I hope to find an honorable woman, draw a line around us in the sand and defend what we have with my life.

We can also make prenuptial legal agreements with women to arbitrate the terms of a marriage though they are not always honored by the courts. Ultimately we do have a choice though. I know that I do reserve the choice to abandon my obligations as a slave and to gain some form of control over my body and I am willing to pay the price to do so. I am willing to go to jail to preserve my Liberty, Independence and Freedom.

I hope that Men's Rights is a source of wisdom and as such a source power for you in your life. Enlightenment as to our position as men in society and in biology is important for men to know, it is empowering.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that as men we face many challenges to obtain equal Rights and representation in society in all realms but our consciousness of these issues can be used to make our lives better. I also mean to say that as men, we are in this together. None of us are alone in this. Struggle is the nature of life. I know that good men like you and I can not give up. Good men like you and I have to go on. We are all in this fight together.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Professor Walter Block On Sexual Discrimination and The Pay Gap

The example of the cows and single bull is something I do not quite agree with. It is not that "men are not needed all that much". Human selection culled out the variables ourselves to select the traits we see as "stud" and seek to cultivate in cattle.

More men are needed than women because male genetic diversity and male variables are needed to ensure our selective adaptability as a species. As such, 107 to 110 boys are born or conceived to every 100 girls. A homogeneous population sired by a single man is extremely vulnerable because the male variance is not present. Never the less, the culling process of which traits and variables are adaptive takes place through the male, the Y.

Women need to understand why they are represented heavily in the clustered mean average.

However I do understand why he had to present this information in a self deprecating fashion i.e. "men as natures crap shoot". Women have forbidden open conversation on these things within the once sacred sanctity of our institutions of higher knowledge. Such things hurt their feelings.

Women demanded and obtained the resignation of the President of Harvard University when he presented this information. Women then demanded 50 million dollars to promote and hire women only. Then they replaced the President of Harvard with a woman and former Women's Studies feminist leader. We all know that women lack reason and as such opinions are not tolerated because female morals and values are centered around the subjective self. Freedom of speech is born from objective male moral reasoning.

"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"

-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

These are the things that happen through the manifestation of female social and political agency. It reminds me of the comment I received from Julie in the debate with a feminist two posts down. Though women may not be as consciously aware of their gynocentric nature as her, never the less Julie reveals something important to understand about the essential nature of females.

"It’s a fact male! We are much better than you! We are the center of humankind, the first sex.

Ok boy, let’s just return to the fundamental instinct of Gynocentrism. This is something you must understand because it’s the key of every thing, the crux of it all. Since We have a greater biological value than you. Since every fucking culture on this planet agrees that We deserve that you DIE for Us. We obviously also deserve a superior status, priviledges, deference, etc. We deserve that you serve our needs first. This is a smaller sacrifice than dying after all. So, call it a ‘Princess complex’ if you want but things will remain the same: We are your biological Superiors – period- and you will never ever be able to do anything to change that! You are here for two things: moving DNA around for Women and serving Us.

Keep it in your mind, you will NEVER be our equals, not even in your dreams. Nevertheless, I think you deserve fairness, respect and gratitude for what you are doing for Us" -Julie

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Male Leadership and Female Submission

Speaking of such things, like many, I picked up from American culture the disdain and distrust of religion, the bible and God.

As I get older I don't discount any of it but search for meaning instead. When the bible says submit to your husband it simply means you are submitting to his submission to you. It means you trust him, have faith in him, his judgement and abilities and will follow, encourage, nurture, believe in him and support him.

A good leader and man will ask you how you feel about something and if he respects you he will value your thoughts, feelings, input and will seek to take them into account to make his decision. If a man honors you he will also consult you for your advice and values your opinion.

As in all relationships and group dynamics there are leaders and followers. Men seek to earn the right to be a woman's natural leader. It is an honor to him. Remember, he is serving you. Leadership is service. When you allow a man to lead you validate his submission and commitment to you.

A woman who contests him for leadership undermines his confidence and weakens him. It weakens your relationship. A woman who shows trust and faith in her man and believes in him can bring a woman and her man a long way together.

Women have the tremendous ability to inspire men to greatness. I know personally that when a woman believes in you, and has faith in you she can make your chest swell with motivation, confidence and pride. For the right woman there is nothing more a man wants to live up to but her.

Men will strive toward great things when there is a woman who inspires him through submitting to his submission to you...his leadership.

Your love, respect and faith in him is his fire within : )

Note: The above video was produced by a segment of the MRA who has a lot of good and productive and some bad and destructive messages. Although I disagree with some of the things they put out you have to pick the good from the bad. I also think that some of the way they express things is meant to express and vent male anger and hostility at our current state and condition. The message in this video however is consistent with something I believe will help young men, especially those raised by single mothers or have been brainwashed by our feminist culture. I believe it will also help young women get in touch with their natural feelings rather than falling prey to feminist ideology. Remember, we are meant to compliment each other through a mutually DEPENDENT bond and even compliment the other gender's needs and weaknesses. In fact in many ways we are complete opposites. When men and women consecrate a bond we are meant not for independence but for eachother : )

Friday, February 11, 2011

Debate With A Female Supremacist

-"We see what the male moral subjectivity and “logic” has accomplished in the forms of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and so on."

Per my previous statement you mean male objective morality unless you mean that men as a whole overwhelmingly present subjective moral reasoning. You base your whole basis of understanding of objective morality on the moral constitution of no more than 8 individuals. Just because men demonstrate objective moral reasoning does not mean that all men are moral. Your statement is a strawman argument and non sequitur...try again....Again, you prove my point i.e. the subjective relativity of female morality and in this case the projections of its thought process. If you notice, the form of alternative structure that women come up with on their own within feminist circles is that of wican goddess worship and thus a projection based upon the subjective self. Overwhelmingly female devised religion does not produce an objective and external goddess for which they themselves are subject to but rather profess and worship the self as the goddess, your self included. This has also been refered to as "The Devine Feminine". This is to be expected based upon evident aspects and expression of her nature in other realms of her subjective reasoning process, associated gynocentricity and resulatant moral ethos.

Furthermore, these men gained power through the subjective, morally relative gynocentric central ethos of the female in order to transition the sovereignty of the family and the mated pair bond as the core of society to at first the gynocentric nature of the female and consequently the control of State and working industry. If it were not for women falling prey to their own nature, the Communist Revolutions in China, Cambodia and the former Soviet Union could never have happened.

"Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Communist luminary Mr. Karl Marx

The element that drives males to acquire such power, territory and resources is not the result of an essentialist element of androcentric nature but in actuality to meet the ends to which female gynocentric nature seeks for herself. Contrary to gynocentric female projectionist thought, the male does not do all of these things for himself, he does them for you. The Male's nature (which is supposed to be complimentary to the female) does not exist or has come about in a vacuum but rather it is your own nature through sexual selection that you have embodied in him. He is in fact everything you selected for him to be. It is your own gynocentric nature, when manifested with political agency that destroys the mated pair bond and transfers power to State and working industry.

A timeline of feminist thought which has risen as a prominent ideology right here in The United States:

Here are quotes from an early feminist and leader of Stalin's women's section of the Communist Party the prototype which has formed Obama's Council On Women and Girls, a council which has the same stated goals and thus effectual outcome of Marxist equality upon society.

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 (female)-Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

It was by the use of the gynocentric all consummate all consumptious but most importantly, subjective reasoning mind of the female that centralized power was and is achieved. :

Female Gynocentricity leads to the centralized powers of State and working industry:

On Childcare Facilities:
"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 (female)-Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

It is important for you to recognize the merger of female gynocentricity with State, and the merger of corporations and working industry with State that leads to totalitarian governments.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

If the tenets of these totalitarian governments and their central machinations were female it would merely result in mutual squalor for all which I will explain later in this writing. In fact these central machinations are achieved vicariously through the female to begin with.

As you can see and as you have already confirmed females do not care or focus on the objective but rather any means to acquire their subjective proclivities and requisites. Nothing matters to the female but to acquire these things by any means and yes as you have demonstrated even by the expendability of the male from the mated pair bond and the lives of their children.

Women don't believe in Independence, Liberty and Freedom. Inherently women do not believe in depending on themselves but rather a more dominant, more capable force either centralized through the power of the State (which they see as alpha or through the power of the collective through which they seek to defer their dependent tendencies upon in order to fulfill) or as is evident by female implemented marriage laws, the removal of Independence, Liberty, Freedom, Rights, property and children of the male. Yet again, the subjective moral relativism and gynocentric nature of the female presents itself : )

Both of these support structures women either naturally see or are convinced to see as a better alternative than the mated and mutually dependent pair bond with mutually dependent liabilities. No-fault divorce was implemented by females to relinquish themselves of their portion of liability to the mated pair bond while still being entitled to the males and likewise was implemented during the Bolshevik Communist Revolution and to some extent during the decline of the Roman Republic. Before no-fault and default female child custody men VERY RARELY divorced their families and if they did they still bared their liabilities and obligations to the female. Even today men VERY RARELY divorce their family and even less so when there are children involved. Females initiate 70+% off all divorce. Of the 30% of divorce initiated by men, very few if not most do not involve children. Women do this after an average period of 7.9 years (a predictable pattern) and do so to follow through on the unequal ability such laws present to them in order to spread and increase their genetic fitness. Men would do this as well if we likewise bared no liability to women. Conversely under patriarchy (unlike our current and growing matriarchal construct) men do not absolve themselves of obligation and liability to the female. Again, female gynocentric and subjective moral relativism presents itself : )

-"I think Matriarchy is favorable to patriarchy, but you know I’m biased!"

Matriarchy by definition amounts to men not being a part of the family and in the animal kingdom it is likewise. Polyandry in such a structure is so rampant to the point where men do not even know who their own children are. You will notice this is a prominent aspect of the most definitive matriarchal communities in the United States, the African American community. If matriarchy is implemented men naturally feel, nor do they have obligation to women or their own offspring. In one of the only matriarchies that survive today men live with their mothers and marginally invest in the offspring of their female relatives. For the most part however men in matriarchies do not produce ANYTHING AT ALL.

Here is a picture of a matriarchy:

You can see that they live a rather primitive life with no modern implements THAT MEN PRODUCE anywhere to be seen. There is a tractor tire that is cut in half on the ground in the background and the scattered leavings of the prosperous patriarchies around them. The only reason this matriarchy has been allowed to survive is owed to the surrounding patriarchies having not come in conflict with them for territory and resources. Matriarchies do not survive long. They consume themselves, through female gynocentric agency, associated resultant polyandry and thus any semblance of their own enfranchisement and means of production through the male competitive echelon : ). Women simply do not produce anything and furthermore do not know how nor do they need to in a properly functioning patriarchy, how's that for "oppression". In females, the propensity for external demonstration of selective variables, associated utility of such, nor the associated competitive echelon that accompanies it exists at all and thus you have a society that lives in squalor.

-"It is My wish that Women realize their innate power and likewise realize how rewarding male submission is"

Submission??? You mean slavery....females are not capable of leadership in this regard nor morally objective thinking..Females are capable of no more than succumbing to their gynocentric, all consummate and consumtious nature. Their leadership would be brutal and fascist and yes amount to slavery. Simply take a look at the laws that women lobby for and create : ) Women are capable of nothing more than attending to their own requisite needs of THEIR OWN survival and that of what they believe are THEIR offspring. To females, yourself included males are nothing more than a means to an end.

-(In reference to the forced resignation of former President of Harvard University upon upsetting the feelings of females within the once sacred sanctity inside the highest chambers of academia and intellectual conjecture) "Noooo, Mr. Summers made an ignorant, throwback statement"

No, what Mr. Summers made was an opinion. Again females are incapable of objective thinking. They think in terms of how something subjectively affects the self and as such freedom of speech is born of male objectivity. Women lack reason, all intelligent men know this.

"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"

-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

In fact it is your nature to delete this entire writing from your site for the same reasons.

"Overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population."

The above is what Mr Summers said and Mr. Summers has scientific data, g factors and other OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE elements of proof to back it up. The Dimorphic curve of variance shows males proportionally populate the top and the bottom of the curve. Suffice as to say if you are going to find the most talented, the most gifted most exceptional individuals the chance increases exponentially as you go up the curve that that individual will be male. I know that females have a hard time accepting this but it is a proven fact.

Again here is the curve:

Again here is more evidence of the numbers behind the exponential curve. Before you claim "patriarchy monster" and "cultural bias" or "gender is a social construct" the curve is proportional to the bottom percentiles as well:

More Nobels but More Dumbells, Why Men Are At The Top: by Helena Cronin:

Females have a MASSIVE inferiority complex. What women need to understand is that they are not men, they are not male and never will be. You are so gynocentric that you seek your requisites and follow your programed proclivities to the point of male nullification itself. Females have to understand that they are heavily represented in the clustered mean average for a reason, they are the constant for a reason. Likewise their chromosomes along with the associated carried variables reflect likewise. The 50 million dollars women demanded and recieved after a "patriarch" expressed his OPINION (based in fact) will do nothing to change this. What it will do however is reduce the net production of our science base and thus in the end we will succumb to a patriarchy who does not allow women's gynocentric and subjective understanding of the world interfere with their science base.

"There is nothing “average” about the X chromosome, especially when you have two of them. You would do well to read about X inactivation in Female adaptation to disease and environment."

The quantitative does not equal the qualitative. More X chromosomes means nothing in the mind of one with objective reason. Again this must be a product of your gynocentric consumptious and all consumate reasoning. Futhermore I am already well read on this subject. You are speaking to a dominant male and not the beta males you surround yourself with, you know, the ones even yourself are unattracted to. This is also why a social structure like the one you have built in your home will never exist on a grand scale. Again, your mental pathology precludes you from acting upon the normal sexually selective preference of females. Suffice as to say that the likelihood that you will reproduce is slim to none and if you do it will be with these beta males. By chance you do reproduce this inferior offspring (as defined by nature and sexual selection) and this offspring happens to be male you will abuse him as you do the beta males you are so proud of attracting. In this case it is very likely he will grow up to abuse females. Ask any criminal pathologist this question.

Besides I will place a good bet that you do not plan on reproducing because it will nullify the vacuous lifestyle you aspire to. The ultimate reward will be that your genes will be extinguished from existence. Furthermore if your offspring is male you will not raise him to be fit for spreading his genetic fitness but rather to exist in some sort of psycho-sexual femdom underworld of disturbed females like yourself. Again you lose, and again to your disappointment, he will likely develop your own pathology. If your offspring are female I can guarantee you will not be doing her a favor in gaining the attention of men IN THE REAL WORLD:

"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."

Anyway, to the point of your statement. What the X does carry is our base blueprint. All human beings are modeled from it. The X carries cross redundant back up mechanisms to repair damage to this base blueprint. Consequently the lack of selective variables carried through the X is the reason why females are clustered in the mean average of variance in EVERY measure of adaptive and selective variables. Suffice as to say that you are doomed to mediocrity as far as selective traits are concerned, intelligence being one of them.

-"the male is an expendable sort of experiment by nature; he is without a doubt the more disposable sex."

He is without a doubt the most valuable sex in maintaining genetic variance and as such the adaptive health of the species. You would like to believe that males are expendable to you. Again this is due to the innate gynocentric and subjective moral reasoning of the female and as you practice your central female ethos out in the open you will only serve to garner expendable beta males into your "stock". However much to your disappointment, male expendability is not the case outside of your gynocentric self as much as you would like to believe it. Nature ensures that there are more males born to maintain this value of males. Given your mental pathology you have certainly keyed in on male variance and the expendability of certain variants as a reason you are superior. By definition there is nothing exceptional about the female representation as the base blueprint, the constant. What is exceptional, valuable and precious by definition is variance. The males with the best variables (which are not determined by you believe it or not) are more valuable than ANY FEMALE.

"To assert the male brain is superior to the Female brain is chauvinist fantasy, however."

You are the one focusing on supremacy which I have concluded by other examples elsewhere must be an innate part of female nature to be preoccupied with. Your obsession with an oppressive patriarchy is nothing more than projectionist psychology. As such your subjective and gynocentric nature makes you unfit to lead. Not to be condescending but in terms of functional aspects females are more so a parasite than a host. You consume, you do not produce or provide anything to men nor society at large outside of the social fabric which you manipulate and latch onto in order to survive.

(The males that keep your company are beta) "Very funny, and proof positive you know nothing about Me or the lifestyle I lead!"

Non sequitur argument....disqualified. Try again. Though now you have to come up with a reason you are attracted to these men. This will be difficult for you so you will have to lie on this matter or come to terms with your mental pathology. Again fundamentally as referenced from the whole of the female population and sexual selection itself the female is not attracted to them.

"I invite you to realize that the above is only a partial list (of female inventors.)"

Fine, I am willing to agree there are exceptions to the rule. The fact that men are MUCH more suited to the intelligent utilization of resources is the rule. I know this from countless encounters with females in my personal life, my observations of where females predominate in the areas of higher education and my observations of the world around me. Females by nature do not know how to design, build, maintain or repair the world around them which is built by the male mind. Nor do they have the motivation to. Females by nature do not produce. You are more so a parasite upon the male and the associated things which men produce.

Females do not produce and have never done so to the capacity of the male. Again due to your gynocentric nature any resources you do acquire are spent upon yourself. You have been carried on the backs of male protection and provision for so long, the capability to produce is not represented in the innate ability of the female population. You are social creatures by enlarge and instead focus on "the people sciences" more than anything else. You can't stand the fact that you possess different apptitudes in such capabilities as men. This is why your sex demands Affirmative Action, Title IX, bribery in the form of female only loans and free ride scholarships in order to force numerical parity of representation in the hard sciences.

"Does the name Grace Hopper mean anything to you?"

No but it should. She is such an exception to the norm. I wish we could have done a FMRI scan of her brain. Very odd indeed. She married at 25 which is exceptionally old for her time and never had children. Given her male like brain and capabilities along with female hypergamous mating preference it is a wonder she married at all. Usually such females like her produce themselves out of their own preference for a mate:


Furthermore it is likely that Ms. Hopper was exposed to inordinate amounts of androgens during fetal development. Her facial characteristics show many signs of male androgenically induced secondary sexual characteristics. She looks much like a man with makeup on: See:

-(In reference to the dimorphic curve chart) "Be that as it may, this chart (which has been around for a while) represents an old logic of IQ axis, blind to the fact that cultural evolution shapes the brain through belief systems"

Ahhhh yes the old gender and gender differences are a social construct. Dream on sister. The two genders exist for a reason. It is not to be superior, but to be complimentary toward the ends of our common felicity and sacred bond ordained by nature. Unlike the male the female is valuable for the simple fact that she exists. She is the constant in sexual selection. Congruently, this nature of innate inherent value, a sense of primary importance or chooser as the constant in sexual selection seems to embody itself within the central psychological and fucntional modalities of the female ethos.

-"Also, what do you think about this graph?"

I think that different variants of the human genus very likely have differences and adaptive advantages. Black people for instance despite them denying it openly have superior athletic ability.

-"Other studies find a small female advantage on IQ tests. After controlling for sociodemographic and health variables, “gender differences tended to disappear on tests for which there was a male advantage and to magnify on tests for which there was a female advantage.”

This was not an IQ test, does not appear to be peer reviewed, has a limited sample size and does not represent the sheer mass of aggregate results from standard, more broad and nationally conducted tests on the ENTIRE population nor the sample sizes used to produce the aggregate results in question produced from IQ tests. I will agree that females may have different abilities in language and communication function. If my understanding of females is correct they may excel in the areas of choice of words and understanding of social context.

"(the males that are my "slaves") are more often than not are alpha males by definition"

And what is an alpha male by definition? If this is the case, females like you are merely an outlet for them to escape the dominant role and plethora of opportunities they have with a myriad of females other than yourself. You are by no means a superior when it comes to surmounting the base principals of sexual selection. They, in fact, may be numb from being "superior" (as you like to call it) themselves and are looking to pretend or play with the feeling and desire not only to find a female of equal selective value but exacerbate this desire by creating a disproportionate and even submissive interaction with a female. It is something they may miss IN THE REAL WORLD. Again, back to my point that you are not superior over them but merely appeasing them. They are over-qualifiers so to speak and far from inferior when it comes to the power you believe you actually hold over them.

It makes sense that they are either extreme betas in which case you are fooling or overriding your own biologically selective preferences for a male in favor of the predilections produced by your mental pathology in which case selectively speaking you lose and are surrounding yourselves with losers of the mating game which any female is capable of but will never manifest on a grand scale in some sort of female dominated utopia you have in your head. Otherwise as previously stated these males are extreme alphas in which case you are again not superior in the first place but serve as an appeaser to create an exaggerated dynamic based upon creating an imaginary lack of worthinesses they LACK IN THE REAL WORLD.

-"How many men understand how a DVD player or computer works, from front to back end, for that matter?

More men than women I can assure you of that. Would you like to challenge me to a debate upon the inner workings of a DVD player or computer system : ) Come on its your eyes.

-"Are you suggesting there are no Female computer scientists? Are you suggesting there are no Female engineers? Mechanics?."

No, but there are far fewer of them and this is so not only because of innate lack of female ability but lack of interest as well. As with many if not all things they will not be represented in the top percentiles either. As with everything else, nor do they want to be, or, sexually selectively speaking, nor do they need to be.

- (Affirmative Action "women first laws" and the myriad of female special privilege laws) "such special privileges for women serve to "counter-balance cultural bias."

Ahhh yes the vaunted imaginary patriarchy that serves to hold females down. Yes, that's it, the imaginary male monster. If it were about cultural bias they would simply remove the name of the person and gender from the entrance exam. You know as well as I do that it is not about merit at all but forcing "gender parity" and "equality". The only thing feminists seek equality in is the high paying professions and they seek to do so by force and not by female merit. As such, due to these policies females have accomplished nothing upon their merit. Furthermore if it were about fairness away from the mandates of an "oppressive patriarchy" and not forced superior or equal access to resources feminists would insist that there should be forced parity in such fields as car mechanics etc. Quite frankly If I were you I would be embarrassed. Typically male fields are higher paying fields for a reason...they produce i.e. the requisites to support life itself.

-"While there are of course abuses in any system, such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."

Well at least you admit these policies are abuses.

-"such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."

LOL these abuses invalidate "overall merit" itself LOL : )

Have a wonderful day : ) You have such a charming character! I wish you the best in your goal to enslave the entire male population. You are the perfect example of a feminist and likewise the proprietor of the innate female mindset of what I believe to be embodied in ALL WOMEN which has manifested itself into and has the goal of changing actual social, political and economic policy according to your gynocentric natures....a real disappointment your "equality" has been. I find solace in the knowledge that the foreign hordes will be here soon. Again as history has shown, matriarchies do not last long and historically speaking the development of such, through my studies, is correlated directly with the "death cycle" of great civilizations before us.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Eek! A Male! by Lenore Skenazy: Wall Street Journal


Last week, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, Timothy Murray, noticed smoke coming out of a minivan in his hometown of Worcester. He raced over and pulled out two small children, moments before the van's tire exploded into flames. At which point, according to the AP account, the kids' grandmother, who had been driving, nearly punched our hero in the face.


Mr. Murray said she told him she thought he might be a kidnapper.

And so it goes these days, when almost any man who has anything to do with a child can find himself suspected of being a creep. I call it "Worst-First" thinking: Gripped by pedophile panic, we jump to the very worst, even least likely, conclusion first. Then we congratulate ourselves for being so vigilant.

Consider the Iowa daycare center where Nichole Adkins works. The one male aide employed there, she told me in an interview, is not allowed to change diapers. "In fact," Ms. Adkins said, "he has been asked to leave the classroom when diapering was happening."

Now, a guy turned on by diaper changes has got to be even rarer than a guy turned on by Sponge Bob. But "Worst-First" thinking means suspecting the motives of any man who chooses to work around kids.

View Full Image

Maybe the daycare center felt it had to be extra cautious, to avoid lawsuits. But regular folk are suspicious, too. Last February, a woman followed a man around at a store berating him for clutching a pile of girls' panties. "I can't believe this! You're disgusting. This is a public place, you pervert!" she said—until the guy, who posted about the episode on a website, fished out his ID. He was a clerk restocking the underwear department.

Given the level of distrust, is it any wonder that, as the London Telegraph reported last month, the British Musicians' Union warned its members they are no longer to touch a child's fingers, even to position them correctly on the keys? Or that a public pool in Sydney, Australia last fall prohibited boys from changing in the same locker room as the men? (According to the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, the men demanded this, fearing false accusations.)

What's really ironic about all this emphasis on perverts is that it's making us think like them. Remember the story that broke right before Christmas? The FBI warned law-enforcement agencies that the new Video Barbie could be used to make kiddie porn. The warning was not intended for the public but it leaked out. TV news celebrated the joy of the season by telling parents that any man nice enough to play dolls with their daughters could really be videotaping "under their little skirts!" as one Fox News reporter said.

This queasy climate is making men think twice about things they used to do unselfconsciously. A friend of mine, Eric Kozak, was working for a while as a courier. Driving around an unfamiliar neighborhood, he says, "I got lost. I saw a couple kids by the side of the road and rolled down my window to ask, 'Where is such-and-such road?' They ran off screaming."

Another dad told me about taking his three-year-old to play football in the local park, where he'd help organize the slightly older kids into a game. Over time, one of the kids started to look up to him. "He wanted to stand close to me, wanted approval, Dad stuff, I guess. And because of this whole 'stranger danger' mentality, I could sense this sort of wary disapproval from the few other parents at the playground. So I just stopped going."

And that's not the worst. In England in 2006, BBC News reported the story of a bricklayer who spotted a toddler at the side of the road. As he later testified at a hearing, he didn't stop to help for fear he'd be accused of trying to abduct her. You know: A man driving around with a little girl in his car? She ended up at a pond and drowned.

We think we're protecting our kids by treating all men as potential predators. But that's not a society that's safe. Just sick.

Ms. Skenazy is a public speaker and author of the blog and book, "Free-Range Kids" (Wiley, 2010).

Men's Rights Radio Is On The Horizon.

Paul Elam, (you may know him from CBS News or The New York Times news coverage) and many others have come together to launch a men's internet radio station. It is a magnificent move forward in the continued march toward intellectual coalescence and effectual advocacy for men and boys as a gender class.

Congratulations to all those who contributed to this effort and those who will certainly benefit form it! We are moving forward!