Part of the MABTW blog network - Last Updated Blog - I Get Dick

Feminised Australian Women suck

February 18, 2006

Child guru says nurseries harm small children

Filed under: Aussie women, Women generally — australianwomensuck @ 7:45 pm

  • Australian feminists are demanding 24hr, 7 day a week child care so they can dump baby at the local baby-sitting facility and pursue more important things like shopping, massage and going to have the hair and nails done.
  • Child guru says nurseries harm small children
    Sian Griffiths

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    ONE of the world’s most popular parenting gurus is to warn that placing children younger than three in nurseries risks damaging their development.

    Steve Biddulph, whose books have sold more than 4m copies worldwide, says that instead of subsidising nurseries, which do a “second-rate� job, the government should put in place policies to enable mothers to stay at home with their babies.

    The advice signals a reversal of views for Biddulph, an Australian with more than 20 years’ experience as a therapist, whose previous bestsellers
    include Raising Boys and Raising Girls.

    In his ne]lbook Biddulph will admit he has changed his mind because of growing evidence of increased aggression, antisocial behaviour and other problems among children who have spent a large part of their infancy being cared for away from home.

    He argues that such children may have problems developing close relationships later.

    The criticisms by Biddulph and other experts are likely to bring them into conflict with the government, which has made expanding nursery places a key part of its family policy.

    In Britain nearly 250,000 children under three attend nurseries full or part-time. Worldwide, the number of babies and toddlers being cared for in nurseries has quadrupled in the past decade as mothers increasingly return to work.

    Labour has created more than 1.2m new childcare places for the youngest children since it came to power in 1997. Every child aged three is entitled to a free nursery session of 2½ hours a day and the government has carried out pilot schemes to extend these sessions to two-year-olds, part of the age group that is Biddulph’s greatest concern.

    Gordon Brown, the chancellor, has promised an extra £769m for early years state childcare between 2005 and 2008, while the government
    proposes to extend maternity and paternity leave, which makes it easier for women to keep their jobs after they have children.

    Biddulph admits he started out as a believer in quality nursery care and the role it played in broadening women’s lives but says he has found reality never matched the fantasy. “In fact it was often a disastrous disappointment,� he said.

    “The best nurseries struggled to meet the needs of very young children in a group setting. The worst were negligent, frightening and bleak — a nightmare of bewildered loneliness that was heartbreaking to watch.�

    Biddulph focuses his warnings on what he estimates is the 5% of British parents who “slam� their children into nursery for a large part of their day from the age of six months.

    He believes nothing can provide an equal substitute for one-to-one care for a child under two, ideally by a parent. He argues that infants’ brains need to be stimulated by loving interaction if they are to develop properly.

    Nannies, he says, can work well as a halfway solution but only if parents are “extraordinarily lucky� with the person they find. He says, however, that care by family or friends is “a much safer option�.

    Biddulph says it was five years ago that he began writing his book, Raising Babies: Should Under 3s Go To Nursery?, published next moj4h by Harper Thorsons. But he he was initially afraid to release it because its message was “so confrontational, so against the tide�. He points, however, to increasing evidence supporting the thesis.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036862,00.html

    Women Who Make the World Worse

    Filed under: Aussie women, Women generally — australianwomensuck @ 7:40 pm
  • Even wommin are getting in on the act, feminists are liars and totally biased and sexist.

  • EXPOSED: the hatred, hypocrisy, and totalitarian intolerance of feminists like Gloria Steinem, Maureen Dowd, Eleanor Smeal, and (of course) Hillary.

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Women Who Make the World Worse
    by Kate O’Beirne

    Who better to expose the destructiveness of feminism than a fearless female conservative?
    In Women Who Make the World Worse, National Review’s Kate O’Beirne takes on America’s leading feminists: Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, Maureen Dowd, Kate Michelman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw. She opposes their propagandistic Leftist emotionalism and self-important grandstanding with irrefutable evidence that the feminist movement — including some of those very women — has hurt women far more than it has helped them over the last forty years.

    Women Who Make the World Worse shows how feminism has devastated American society:

    fracturing families;
    making American schools and workplaces into battlefields to advance feminist causes; and exalting working women among mothers and consigning millions of children to a soulless upbringing by daycare center employees.
    Through it all, O’Beirne shows that feminists have poisoned American public discourse about gender issues with politically charged claptrap about how a hostile patriarchy makes women its helpless victims.

    Yet O’Beirne proves here that it is actually men - and boys - who are bearing a considerable amount of the actual suffering. Millions of schoolboys are being feminized in American classrooms;
    boys’ sports are in retreat in schools everywhere;
    the “gender gap” deforms local and national politics; millions of husbands and fathers (and wives and mothers) believe that men are not needed in the raising of children;
    and worst of all, transforming the American military into a laboratory for large-scale social engineering puts us all at risk.

    O’Beirne establishes that the feminist agenda is at its core not pro-female at all; it’s merely anti-male. She demolishes the prevailing myth among feminists that men are the enemy of women’s progress. This provocative book is essential reading for anyone, male or female, who is looking for some old-fashioned common sense about relations between the sexes.

    Revealed — Feminism’s war on men, the family, and the military:

    How feminists insist that there are no innate differences between men and women — except when they find it convenient to argue the opposite

    The prominent feminist who dismissed the traditional family as a “storybook idea”

    The husband of a famous feminist who advised men not to marry feminists!

    How feminists ignored good news about declines in domestic violence rates and trumped up a “national epidemic” of such violence — largely in order to keep themselves employed

    Why the feminist movement has for so long been on a collision course with what we know to be true about the natural bond between mother and child

    The feminist leader who refused to acknowledge overwhelming evidence that most working women would prefer to stay at home, and that parents don’t want the government-run programs that she advocates for toddlers

    Hypocrisy: how the liberal proponents of center-based child care are in reality advocating the boosting of profits for big business, tax cuts for the rich, and the sabotaging of women’s choices

    How the media generally mimics feminist talking points and ignores the mountains of evidence that disproves feminist orthodoxy

    Disproved: the common myth that women with similar education, skills, and job experience work for salaries 25 percent less than those of men

    Women who wised up after mistakenly heeding the calls of feminist sirens to put off marriage and motherhood to chase career goals

    It’s sexual harassment if I say so: feminists who actually argue that whether or not actionable sexual harassment has taken place must be judged by a subjective standard based on what any particular woman might find offensive

    How the feminist theory on sexual harassment is clearly based on the work of Catharine McKinnon, who declared that all heterosexual intercourse was rape

    The destructive gender war in our schools and universities: how it has harmed girls, boys, and serious scholarship

    How gender warriors treat American boys as unindicted coconspirators in history’s gender crimes, while girls are taught to see themselves as helpless victims of a phantom, crippling gender bias

    Social engineering in the classroom: how it has become ever rarer for feminized, feminist educators to present boys with strong male role models

    Debunked: the feminist insistence that girls’ comparative lack of interest in athletics is the result of gender discrimination and social conditioning to avoid traditionally male activities

    How Title IX has not actually increased the number of girls playing sports, and has harmed athletic programs in general

    Women in combat: why it’s a bad idea — and how it’s endangering our troops in Iraq

    The myth, uncritically hyped by the media, that our patriarchal culture silences adolescent girls

    The double standard demanded by feminists for women in the military: it isn’t confined only to physical tests

    How feminists exploit the abuse and deaths of young women in combat situations to advance their agenda of androgyny and abortion

    How feminist political activists consistently refuse to face the implications of the fact that Republicans have been winning more presidential elections than Democrats — and even carrying more of the female vote

    The female Army Captain who successfully completed a mission to secure a dog kennel — and was hailed by the politically correct establishment as a new McArthur or Patton!

    Why modern feminism’s biggest enemies are the smallest of all humans: the unborn

    Exploded: the persistent myth that most women support the feminists’ abortion-on-demand agenda

    The pro-life agenda: is it really a vote-killer, as both parties seem to believe? Solid evidence that the pro-life advantage is actually unequivocal in the voting booth

    The feminist psychologist who began in 1975 to try to prove that there are no innate differences between men and women — and who now admits that “it didn’t work out”

    Little-noted, and highly politically incorrect, data about just how profoundly different men and women really are.

    The Recurring Pattern, Of Modern History.

    Filed under: Aussie women, Women generally — australianwomensuck @ 7:38 pm

    The Recurring Pattern, Of Modern History by NiceGuy …
    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Step 1: Men invent a new industry or technology.

    Step 2: As soon as the new industry or technology becomes super-safe to use and/or glamorous enough to be trendy, small numbers of women (brave “pioneers”!) become interested in it.

    Step 3: Brave pioneering women start to discover the new field isn’t a bowl of cherries.

    Step 4: Brave pioneering women get their feelings hurt and complain that men have developed the industry/field to suit themselves and have unfairly shut women out of their private little boy’s club.

    Step 5: After court papers are filed, men start to create special programs to lower standards and advance the number of women to top positions in the field while paying less attention to such irrelevant things as qualifications and ability.

    Step 6: After women achieve a number of high-level positions in the field, they begin gloating that men have lost their edge and no longer have what it takes to compete in this brave, new world of ‘ekwalitee’.

    Step 7: Repeat.

    Niceguy runs the Mancoat Forum - mostly for young MRAs - requires registration

    Double-Standard Treatment for Child Abusers

    Filed under: Women generally — australianwomensuck @ 7:38 pm

    Double-Standard Treatment for Child Abusers
    January 18, 2006
    by Carey Roberts

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Heather Thomas of Fairfax, VA was arrested last week in the shaking death of her 6-day-old granddaughter. On Christmas Day Valerie Kennedy held her son in a tub of scalding water as punishment, causing his death. A few days later Genevieve Silva was arrested in Oklahoma on child rape charges for luring a high school student to run away from home.

    Chances are you didn’t read about these incidents in your local newspaper. Because when a man commits abuse, it seems the story is splashed all over the front page. But when the perpetrator is a member of the fairer sex, the story is relegated to the bottom of the Police Report on page C9.

    Each year the federal Administration for Children and Families surveys child protective service (CPS) agencies around the country to spot the latest trends in child abuse. And according to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, women are the most common abusers of children.

    In 2003, females, usually mothers, represented 58% of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, with men composing the remaining cases. In that same year an estimated 1,500 children died of abuse or neglect. In 31% of those cases, the perpetrator was the mother acting alone, compared to 18% of fathers acting alone.

    Then there’s the scandal of Dumpster babies. In 1998, 105 newborn infants were discovered abandoned in public places. One-third of those babies were found dead.

    In a civilized society that makes adoption services widely-available, that practice should have been condemned as unconscionable and wrong. But instead of prosecuting the abandoners, we accommodated to the societal imperative to provide choices to women no matter the moral consequences. So we passed laws to establish “safe havens.”

    Under New York law, mothers can now anonymously drop off their infants up to five days old. But if she later has second thoughts, not to worry. She can come back and reclaim the child up to 15 months later.

    That satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back offer might work at a Macy’s handbag sale, but that’s not how a moral society treats its most vulnerable members.

    Patricia Pearson has written a blockbuster book called, When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence. Pearson documents repeated examples of violent women who draw their Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card by claiming PMS, battered woman’s syndrome, or postpartum depression.

    Remember Andrea Yates who admitted to drowning her five boys in a bathtub? Of course the National Organization for Women rushed to her defense, claiming that postpartum blues justified the serial murder. And two weeks ago Texas 1st Court of Appeals ruled that her conviction should be reversed.

    Then there’s the problem of women, usually female teachers, who seduce and deflower teenage boys. Look how the media sanitizes the issue. Reporters trivialize the incident using clinical phrases such as “sexual contact,” or worse envelope the story in a snickering “didn’t-he-get-lucky” tone.

    I once knew a teenage boy who was raped by his older sister’s girlfriend during a holiday visit to his parent’s home. Ten years later, he was still devastated by the incident. Of course he never reported the assault, no one would have taken him seriously.

    When these cases go to trial, the double standard persists. As CNN’s Nancy Grace plaintively asks, “Why is it when a man rapes a little girl, he goes to jail, but when a woman rapes a boy, she had a breakdown?”

    And shame on reporters who use limp clichés to excuse the inexcusable. Like the story about a New Orleans mom who stuffed her 3-month-old son in the clothes dryer and hit the On button. This was the feeble explanation that the Times-Picayune offered in its December 8 edition: “Murder Suspect ‘Was Trying her Best.’”

    That condescending headline brings to mind the Solomonic words of columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez: “There are mental-health issues in many of these cases, obviously, but regardless, a society can and must say loud and clear: ‘That’s wrong. That’s evil. That can never happen again.’”

    To which I say, “Amen.”

    In radio talk shows and internet bulletin boards around the nation, Americans’ ire has reached the boiling point over female child abusers who are treated with reverential deference by the media and our legal system.

    As long as we tolerate this gender double-standard, the problem will fester and grow. And our children will continue to be at risk.

    Why I don’t take feminists seriously, Part IV

    Filed under: Aussie women, Women generally — australianwomensuck @ 7:34 pm

    Why I don’t take feminists seriously, Part IV

    Jan 30, 2006
    by Mike S. Adams

    After Parts I, II, and III of this series, I have finally started to get a few hate males from feminist readers – letters usually known as “hate mails� when sent by non-feminists. One hate male writer said she couldn’t take me seriously because I am a hunter. That brings me to my next point about feminists.

    11. When faced with uncertainty, feminists have less self-control than hunters.

    Once when I was deer-hunting in Ivanhoe, North Carolina, I saw something moving in the brush about 100 yards away. It was foggy outside and I was looking through a 4 X 32 scope mounted on a Marlin 30-30. I never take a shot over 100 yards with that little brush gun. And I never shoot at anything unless I know exactly what is out there.

    That day I got to thinking about the feminist approach to abortion. Feminists often justify abortion by saying that the procedure is no different than picking a scab. That’s when I start asking questions.

    I often ask feminists about a film I saw of a fetus in the so-called “first trimester� of development. The baby (sorry, that is my opinion) was yawning, rubbing its eyes, and even rolling around and playing in the womb. I like to ask feminists whether they have ever seen a scab yawn.

    When I press them on the issue, they seldom admit that the fetus is a person. But they seldom state unequivocally that it is not. They usually say they “don’t know for sure.� And they say that I “don’t know for sure� either.

    That really epitomizes our differences. When I know it is a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I don’t know, I also hold my fire.

    The feminist who “doesn’t know� whether it is a person, has the abortion anyway. She just pulls the trigger. That really says it all, doesn’t it?

    12. Feminists cannot grasp the importance of gradual self-disclosure.

    Long before I earned a Master’s degree in Social Psychology, I learned that one of the keys to successful relationships is choosing the appropriate pace of self-disclosure. If you too rapidly reveal intimate details of your personal life, people tend to devalue your friendship. If you reveal things more slowly, stronger relationships tend to follow.

    People are often turned off to feminism because feminists tend to reveal intimate details of their lives very quickly. This is especially true of feminist professors in the classroom. The following complaint I received from a college student is illustrative:

    “Dr. Adams: I agree with your observations on feminism. I took an English class taught by a feminist who I liked very much at first. When she started complaining about her first husband I felt sorry for her. By the time she started attacking her fifth husband I wanted to withdraw from the course. I have no idea how many different times she’s been married. I just know that none of the divorces were her fault.�

    Sadly, it gets much worse than that in the feminist classroom. Feminist professors also discuss their sexual experiences – consensual and non-consensual – in excruciating detail in public. Venues include the classroom, books, and sometimes in “scholarly� articles. The First Amendment gives them the right to reveal what most people would say is “too much information.� But it does not give them the right to be taken seriously.

    13. Feminist-sponsored Masturbation Workshops on college campuses.

    No explanation necessary. But see the example from Grinnell College, if necessary.

    14. Feminists would rather solve a problem by changing “society� than by changing their own behavior.

    One obvious example of this is “love your body day� - not to be confused with masturbation workshop day. At many universities, “love your body day� concludes with feminists holding a beauty pageant featuring overweight models – usually with pretty faces. The purpose of this is to convince us that bigger women are just as attractive as smaller (by this, they mean thinner) women.

    Sociology professors often pursue the notion that beauty is not objective but “socially constructed� by showing their students medieval paintings of nude, pudgy women. The argument is that fat used to be considered attractive. Therefore, it can be that way again with enough social engineering. So, feminists seek nothing less than to change societal perceptions of beauty with millions of dollars of tax-payer funded programs.

    Wouldn’t it just be easier to exercise?

    Along the same lines, have you noticed how chic it has become for feminists to claim that they are Marxists? Feminist professors spend a good bit of time trying to persuade their students that Marxism is the answer to America’s problems.

    If a woman’s opportunities are better under communism, wouldn’t it be easier to get a job at the University of Havana than to start a bloody Marxist revolution?

    I’ve never seen a bunch of poor, oppressed feminists board a leaky boat in Miami in order to paddle their way to freedom in Castro Cuba. But I do have a few friends in South Florida who escaped from communism. They still have their boats. And we’d be proud to give these Marxist feminists a lift to Havana any time.

    So think about my offer, ladies. In the meantime, I’m going to smoke a good Honduran cigar while I’m writing Part V.

    Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhall.com.

    Is it the woman’s penis?

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 7:33 pm

    16. The four most common words a feminist uses are “I,� “me,� “my,� and “mine.�

    I really get tired of hearing these four words from feminists. “I feel this� or “I feel that.� “Keep your laws off MY body.� “It’s MY body, MY choice.� Feminists are the only people in society who actually use these four words more in adulthood than they did when they were two years old.

    It is especially irritating when they say that the man should have no right to be involved in the decision to abort. They remind us that a man’s opinion is irrelevant by simply repeating the phrase “It’s MY body.� But should that logic apply when the aborted baby is a male? What happens after the abortion is performed, and one looks into the bucket and sees a little penis? Whose penis is it? Is it the woman’s penis?

    www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/01/31/184431.html

    February 16, 2006

    Single mothers are abusing children.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 11:17 pm

    Consequences of father absence

    ——————————————————————————–

    It’s Official: The Experiment Has Failed
    For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in: the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.
    Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family
    By Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS

    The following is from the newsletter Common Sense & Domestic Violence, 1998 01 30

    Allegations of family violence are the weapon-of-choice in divorce strategies. Lawyers, and paralegals in women’s shelters, call them “The Silver Bullet”. False abuse allegations work effectively in removing men from their families. The impact that the removal of fathers has on our children is horrific. The next page shows some of the consequences of the removal of fathers from the lives of their children.

    The Impact on our Children
    Inter-spousal violence perpetrated by men is only a small aspect of family violence. False abuse allegations are only a small tile in the mosaic of vilifying the men in our society. They serve well in successful attempts to remove fathers from the lives of our children. Here are some statistics resulting from that which show more of the whole picture.

    79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
    29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award.
    46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support.
    26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.
    20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
    61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
    66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full time.
    10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full time.
    7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly.
    24.5% of single custodial fathers work more that 44 hours weekly.
    46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance.
    20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance.
    [Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy]

    40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.
    [”Frequency of Visitation” by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]

    50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.
    [”Surviving the Breakup” by Joan Berlin Kelly]

    90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
    79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
    44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
    37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
    66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
    [1988 Census “Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series” P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and “U.S. General Accounting Office Report” GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

    63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

    [U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]

    90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
    [Center for Disease Control]

    80% of rapist motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
    [Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]

    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
    [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

    70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
    [U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]

    85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
    [Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]

    Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers.
    [US News and World Report, February 27, 1995, p.39]

    There are:

    11,268,000 total custodial mothers
    2,907,000 total custodial fathers
    [Current Populations Reports, US Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991]

    What does this mean? Children from fatherless homes are:

    4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,

    6.6 times to become teenaged mothers (if they are girls, of course),
    24.3 times more likely to run away,
    15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
    6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions,
    10.8 times more likely to commit rape,
    6.6 times more likely to drop out of school,
    15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.
    (The calculation of the relative risks shown in the preceding list is based on 27% of children being in the care of single mothers.)

    and ? compared to children who are in the care of two biological, married parents ? children who are in the care of single mothers are:

    33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention), and
    73 times more likely to be killed.

    [”Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children”, by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Backgrounder #1535.]

    http://www.equalparenting.org//phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=490&view=previous&sid=c40b7b8a887aebaaff0e7eaf52fd4235

    The “Maureen Dowd” syndrome……..

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 7:27 am

    ggreen67 said…

    Here is the comment I sent to Forbes. Cannot email Ms. Huffington directly.

    “Ms. Huffington,

    I feel there is one very obvious fact not addressed in your article. The fact most women, regardless of status, always want to “marry-up”. Women of status that cannot “marry-up” are left to two choices. Search for an equal, or “marry-down”. The problem here lies in how women treat men that are not of equal, or greater status than they. Women are often very disrespectful to men who they feel are not successful (less status than they).

    Usually this is not verbally expressed (behind closed doors is another story), but is usually again, obvious.

    Also, to “marry-down� is always going to be her last choice. Just like females, strong, independent males have no desire to enter any relationship where they know they are the last of all options.

    So it cannot be concluded that men are afraid of women with money (status), but just do not wish to partake in the disrespect and belittlement that accompany such a partner.”

    7:11 AM
    hadley504 said…

    How is this not a knock-off of MoDo’s goofy gibberish “Are Men Necessary?” Both are using bland humor to mask their indignation that men can’t and won’t be trained to find them attractive when they, well, aren’t.
    She is using the classic playground stratagem of getting guys to do things by suggesting they are afraid.
    Why are women so confused about something so simple?

    7:55 AM

    James said…

    hmm Ms. Huffington is off in my point. Because what guy isn’t attracted to marrying a girl in a wealthy family? I dont know about you but I have no turn-off seeing women who have very wealthy families, not that it actually matters to me personally. Aside from myself, MANY MEN TRY TO MARRY INTO WEALTHY POWERFUL FAMILIES. IN FACT THERE ARE TONS OF SUITORS FOR GIRLS LIKE THIS!

    The problem is that with women in high powered careers. That is a different matter all together. As men we are DRAWN to what in our nature is somewhat void.

    “A ball-busting career, competitive chick is something we already are”.

    Therefore we are not drawn. Whose going to take care of the kids while both of us are competing in the workplace, some stranger? How is that a partnership if both of us are doing our OWN individual thing? Women have a biological imperative for relationships and children. Yet what they are being fed throws monkey wrenches into the gears of this. Just look at the childless rate of women with careers (55% of serious career women over 35 are childless!)

    8:00 AM
    Bob H said…

    Huffington is the just the second coming of Maureen Dowd. (Dowd has made a career of being obnoxious.) Being in a relationship with a rich, independent, smart woman is just fine as long as she is a committed ally. The problem is when you do something she doesn’t like and she turns into a rich, independent, smart, committed mortal enemy.

    9:12 AM
    PolishKnight said…

    The way she couched the question: Men “afraid” of something, sounds patronizing and belitting. But indeed, the question does beg a response: Why should men dislike women with money one way or the other?

    The answer is that men don’t see a lot of use for women with money since he is still expected to be a breadwinner one way or the other anyway. It’s like a woman not seeing much use for a man who likes to look after babies. That skill may be useful, certainly, but if it undermines masculine traits then forget him.

    In the case of the rich man cheating with his nanny, it’s possible that the nanny just spent a lot more time with him. Duh!

    The phrase “scared men” is popular with many such women as a shaming ploy. “confident” men shouldn’t mind ball busting, selfish women right? What’s wrong with other men who don’t appreciate the “challenge?” It’s like a child who doesn’t understand why their parents don’t enjoy him dumping his food on the floor. Don’t they see the fun of it?

    10:50 AM
    Christianj said…

    This is another female on the “shame and blame” routine aka the “untouchable Maureen Dowd” syndrome.

    Dowd has been abusing and screaming foul about males for as long as I can remember. Now she feels that it time for someone to worship her, A male ofcourse.

    But like sensible males, no-one wants to have anything to do with this harpie, this shrew.

    Women have to realise that in order to have a relationship it takes an effort and that she cannot always get what she wants and demands.

    The “Dowd syndrome” will spread and increase until women wake up to the fact that marriage is out of the question as the risk are worse for a male than going into combat.

    February 10, 2006

    Donated sperm for female middle class insemination could be from gays.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 6:53 pm

    Jim Smith said…

    “Actually they are probably the ‘cream of the crop’ of womanhood.” PLEASE! The women you refer to are selfish, spoiled brats. They put themselves above everything else, especially “their” kids.

    If these women are the “cream of the crop” then why can’t the find a man? They aren’t, that’s why. They are generally too old to be attractive, too spoiled, and too aggressive for most men. Few man would put up with these characteristic is a woman…hence artificial insemination.

    The kids so produced will never know his or her genetic legacy and will pine their lives wishing to know who their father is. Even artificially inseminated kids (both boys and girls) who grow up with a step father want (need!) to know who their real father is. To deny them their heritage is the height of selfishness.

    By the way, most “career women” don’t have what it takes to compete in the real world against men. Most of their “greatâ€? careers are the sole product of affirmative action. You could replace 90% of the women in upper business in a day with a better qualified man. Women need their lawyers to threaten and ride bosses to be promoted and now demand equal pay for unequal work.

    Another tasty irony is that most of the sperm in sperm-banks these days is from gay men. These oh so sophisticated women, who can’t find a man good enough to father their child (read: rich) are incubating and paying for children of gay men. Not the alpha male genotype they think they deserve now is it? (Why is this? Gay men donate to sperm banks in high numbers because they know they won’t have their own kids, or have a wife who might be disturbed by the prospects of her husband having potentially 100’s of kids running around out there who may one day come knocking at the door.)

    8:05 AM

    February 9, 2006

    Women are no longer victims.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 10:15 pm

    Domestic Violence and Mental Health
    8 February, 2006
    Latest research from the long-running Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS) at the University of Otago’s Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, calls into question conventional thinking about domestic violence between partners, and its effects on mental health.
    This study by Professor David Fergusson, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, surveyed 828 males and females at 25 years regarding violence between partners and the impact on mental health. The violence recorded ranged from psychological abuse to serious physical attack.
    “In broad terms the results provide a challenge to the dominant view that domestic violence is a ‘women’s issue’, and that it arises predominantly from assaults by males against females,� says Prof. Fergusson.
    “In fact, what our findings suggest is that amongst young adults, men and women are equally violent towards partners, in terms of the range of acts of domestic violence examined in this study.�
    The research shows the range of violence committed by men and women is similar, and that both men and women engage in serious physical attacks on their partners. The consequences of this domestic violence in terms of injury and psychological effects are also similar for both sexes.
    The findings confirm other overseas studies that violent partnerships are more likely to be associated with psychosocial problems relating to childhood adversity, mental health disorders and other life course difficulties.
    “Domestic violence tends to occur in those relationships which have a wider psychosocial history of disadvantage and difficulty,� says Professor Fergusson.
    The research shows that domestic violence also has an impact on the mental health of those involved, even when other background factors, which might result in mental problems, are taken into account. With increasing exposure to violence there is a greater likelihood of mental health problems developing in both men and women.
    Disorders such as depression, anxiety and suicide are between 1.5 and 11.9 times higher in those people who experience domestic violence than those who don’t.
    However, Professor Fergusson says this study suggests the need for a broadening of analysis of domestic violence away from focussing on male perpetrators and female victims, to examining violent couples who use aggression in their relationship.
    “This points to family policies that encourage couples to work together to harmonise their relationships and to overcome the collective adversities they face.�
    Professor Fergussion says we need to understand why studies of community samples such as the CHDS usually show an absence of gender differences in domestic violence, whereas other sources dealing with severe violence, such as Women’s Refuge or police complaints, report a predominance of male perpetrators. “The best way of doing this is to study a large sample to examine the frequency of common couple violence involving mutual assaults and the frequency of more severe forms of domestic violence,� he says. This study only applies to young people, and domestic violence tends to decrease with age.
    The research was funded by the Health Research Council, the National Child Health Research Foundation, the Canterbury Medical Research Foundation and the Lottery Grants Board.
    For further information contact:
    Professor David Fergusson
    Christchurch Health and Development Study
    Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago
    (03) 372 0406 (03) 352 1476 (h)
    david.fergusson@chmeds.ac.nz

    Men Going Their Own Way.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 3:33 am

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and establish a limited government!

    By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.

    By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.

    By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.

    That women have other qualities is not interesting to men because we don’t need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!

    This is the aim of “Men Going Their Own Way”.

    By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.

    This goal is to take away everybody’s “right” to vote on other people’s affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their will on all people. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect, but not directly, and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens, and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.

    It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies.

    PRIME STRATEGIES THAT COMPLIMENT OUR PRODUCT AND GOAL

    We have 3 main strategies:

    1. Instilling masculinity in men by:
    Demanding respect for men
    Serving as good male role models
    Living independent lives
    Fighting chivalry
    2. Instilling femininity in women

    We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse it. Thus we force women to behave and act as we wish them to and force them into a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position as is now the case.

    Feminine qualities we need from women:
    Nurturing
    Supportive
    Responsibility
    Respectfulness
    Honesty
    3. Limiting government

    In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:
    Go Their Own Way
    Support other men
    Legally reduce any taxpaying
    Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
    Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves
    It is those 3 strategies that come together in one.

    MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY

    Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.

    What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics.
    Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
    Run one or many web-sites and fora that promotes this.
    Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
    Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as “Chivalry is dead”.
    Writing articles supporting our product.
    Producing music promoting our product.
    Hold international events and local meetings.
    Establishing mens clubs.
    Boycotting certain products.
    You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.

    The mens movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives of everybody, including women and children.

    IF IT’S NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY!

    Take care brother!

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    February 6, 2006

    40 is the expiration date for women.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 11:37 am

    Arthur

    As someone who has used the court system frequently, and successfully, fighting feminism in the courts will NOT work. Judges are typically bound by the laws, and the laws right now are fucked up. So we can just change the laws, right? No. Right now we are outnumbered, pure and simple. Not only are we outnumbered by women, but we must also include “useful idiot males” and the guys who haven’t been fucked over, YET, in our census.

    The key word in that whole paragraph is YET. Just because critical mass hasn’t been reached yet doesn’t mean it isn’t gonna happen. I think that it is accepted that Ameriskanks are the most myopic creatures on the face of the earth. And their myopia is what will help us win. Each guy that gets fucked over by women, and/or the court system, becomes another awakened soul. Every day there are more coming. That’s because women and the courts can’t help themselves when it comes to fucking men over.

    Eventually, there will be more of us, than them. For those who doubt that “marriage and dating strikes” are having an impact, ask yourself one question. Did you even hear this phrase 10 years ago? Hell, how about 5? Another point to ponder. Mainstream (read: femwashed pc wimp) media are reporting on this trend!! We are gaining momentum.

    Expect this trend to continue, based on a couple of factors. First, the internet. They can’t hardly censor us now can they? And I bet that more and more guys are just lurking in forums such as these, and getting the third party validation that is needed to bring them to our side. Secondly, male birth control. When this hits the market and is immediately “number one on the charts and number one in your hearts” as they say, a lot of feminist eyeballs are going to be pried wide fucking open.

    Don’t waste your energy with a bunch of butt plug politicians. Keep up with the marriage and dating strike and mix in the male birth control. While I do not advocate the foreign angle, I will admit that one more guy that does this means one less ameriskank gets a husband/victim. When the skanks see themselves being marginalized they will pressure the lawmakers for us. As of right now, the court of law is a waste of time.

    I have to agree with SilentBob. Who gives a monkey’s fuck what women on other websites think? I am not here to “win” over the casual reader. Very few people who roll up on this site are “sitting on the fence” with regard to the gender war.
    For those who are, hell, I will just let experience do the talking.

    On to what I believe to be the crux of the matter. The main purpose of this site, as far as I can see, is third party validation. The classic feminist/PC mantra when it comes to our situation is that we men are somehow at fault, it must be our (individual) fault. Fuck that with a jackhammer.

    Nope. What we can do here is take roll call. Hey, Bio, women suck in eastern Oregon, don’t they? Verlch, Portland still got that dyke bitch for a mayor? And are the blimps gettin’ bigger and bitchier daily? Misogynist, how are the skanks in LA?
    Still fucked up I see. NYC man, what are you thinkin’ right about now? I doubt that the local tuna is high on your wish list. I will report from Htown. The women here are fat, loud, and obnoxious. And yes, coming from me, THAT is an achievement.

    So there it is people. What you see here is guys from all corners of the united states of fucked up america. And they all have the same opinion.

    YOU FUCKING SUCK.

    At one time, I, like most guys here, bought into your bullshit. Now I am your enemy. And I am not interested in “public opinion”. I prefer to crush you. Public opinion be damned.

    40 is the expiration date for women. I thought we covered this already.

    February 5, 2006

    I finally figured it out.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 5:52 pm

    I finally figured it out. Not all of it but just a little piece of the puzzle fell into place. An epiphany of sorts if you will. I watched the movie “A Few Good Men” again last night and it was like I was seeing it for the first time. The last time I saw it I thought it bordered on crap. It seemed to make a bit of sense this time around.

    This time I saw it from Col Nathan Jessp’s (Jack Nickolson) point of view. I feel like him dealing with the world. When h£qturned to look at the judge and said “am I being charged with a crime?” something sort-of clicked.

    I feel like that as a man. Everything I do is wrong. Have the rules changed that much? Is being a man a crime? All of a sudden my needs are subordinate to everyone else’s? What I have to offer a relationship has boiled down to:
    “make money (whatever you make is not enough)and deal with my every emotional whim, oh, and if anything goes wrong it is your fault.”
    “this marriage is over when I get p)red of it and you get to support me for the rest of my life.”
    “Our children are really mine and I will turn them against you if you get out of line.”
    “what you think is important is just brutish and your opinions are groundless simply because you are male.”

    Jessup also had a good line talking to the lawyer where he said something like, you think you are doing a good job, but all you have done is weaken a country…you live under the security that I provide and then question the manner in which it is provided…I would prefer yíu just said thank-you and went on your way.
    Men are better than women.com

    Biff

    That was deep and goes back to trust. Women seem to think they can do everything without men and then question why they are unhappy. I have yet to find a truly content feminist. They seem to want the security that men provide but question the manner in which it is provided. Every social ill seems to call for yet another governmental intervention as some sort of surrogate.

    If you don’t like the manner in which I provide than I will certainly step aside and let you do better. Either you trust me to provide and not question my methods or you can step up and show what you’ve got. Most peer men do not work real well as teams.

    One of my hobbies is guns. I have lots of guns. The people that know me, know better than to scratch on a window late at night. Not real prudent. You want to rob me on the street? You better think real hard about that one. Do a quick cost-benefit analysis if you will. I hope to God nothing ever happens. I can’t stress that enough. I dread the day something happens but I refuse to be another statistic. I will never initiate force but I will certainly answer it in kind. All I ask for in return is a little trust and a thank you every now and then. Instead I get all kinds of grief for the manner in which I provide physical security for my family. Not from my family but from society. Funny thing is, when a neighbor had a break in, know who they called? Up until that point I was just another neaderthal.

    “You want the truth?” Okay. I don’t know what the answer is.

    I do know if you want something fixed or in crisis I am a good guy to have around. Break your leg on a ski trip, no problem, let me handle it. Get stranded somewhere, give me a call, I’ll be there in a bit.

    I also know if you want to prattle on about how your day sucked, I’m probably not the guy for you. Want me to watch your kids? not my department. Having life issues and “suck it up” is not what you are looking for? Might want to find someone else. I detest cloths/antique/furniture shopping and rarely notice if the drapes match. Don’t expect me to notice new cloths or a fresh haircut unless it is drastic.

    I’m tired of apologizing for being a man. All I want is a little trust, a thank you every now and then, aside from that just leave me alone.

    Women seem to think they can do everything.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — australianwomensuck @ 5:50 pm

    Biff

    That was deep and goes back to trust. Women seem to think they can do everything without men and then question why they are unhappy. I have yet to find a truly content feminist. They seem to want the security that men provide but question the manner in which it is provided. Every social ill seems to call for yet another governmental intervention as some sort of surrogate.

    If you don’t like the manner in which I provide than I will certainly step aside and let you do better. Either you trust me to provide and not question my methods or you can step up and show what you’ve got. Most peer men do not work real well as teams.

    One of my hobbies is guns. I have lots of guns. The people that know me, know better than to scratch on a window late at night. Not real prudent. You want to rob me on the street? You better think real hard about that one. Do a quick cost-benefit analysis if you will. I hope to God nothing ever happens. I can’t stress that enough. I dread the day something happens but I refuse to be another statistic. I will never initiate force but I will certainly ansgår it in kind. All I ask for in return is a little trust and a thank you every now and then. Instead I get all kinds of grief for the manner in which I provide physical security for my family. Not from my family but from society. Funny thing is, when a neighbor had a break in, know who they called? Up until that point I was just another neaderthal.

    “You want the truth?” Okay. I don’t “bow what the answer is.

    I do know if you want something fixed or in crisis I am a good guy to have around. Break your leg on a ski trip, no problem, let me handle it. Get stranded somewhere, give me a call, I’ll be there in a bit.

    I also know if you want to prattle on about how your day sucked, I’m probably not the guy for you. Want me to watch your kids? not my department. Having life issues and “suck it up” is not what you are looking for? Might want to find someone else. I detest cloths/antique/furniture shopping and rarely notice if the drapes match. Don’t expect me to notice new cloths or a fresh haircut unless it is drastic.

    I’m tired of apologizing for being a man. All I want is a little trust, a thank you every now and then, aside from that just leave me alone.

    generiert in 0.597 Sekunden. | Powered by WordPress