Feminised Australian Women suck

This letter really outlines the ongoing anti-male attitude in Australia. The Australian Federal Government has just allocated in this years budget 75 MILLION dollars for women only in relation to advertising this message. And a feminised one it is to.
I cannot give you the name of this academic’s article as it was unnamed.

http://ofw.facs.gov.au/

Another assisting the sexist office for women.

I have noticed of late a new spate of TV, newspaper, women’s magazine and billboard propaganda portraying women as victims of male violence, particularly domestic/relationship violence (D/RV). I am very offended that I and my children must be subjected to this propaganda. My son and daughter asked me the other night why there are no ads about women’s violence against men (they have witnessed this by more than one woman against men) and my son was evidently upset that his gender was being attacked. My son is 8 and my daughter is 12. Stop this rot now.

While I deplore violence of any kind, I believe that this Violence Against Women - Australia Says No campaign is socially divisive, harmful to children and ideologically driven.

I had a running debate - through email and letter - with the Office for Women last year over this campaign and was, quite rudely, told that the Office for Women would no longer discuss the matter with me. I called into question many of their figures and beliefs and backed up my points with a plethora of hard academic eveidence (referenced below) that indicates that women and men perpetrate the same amount of D/RV.

The Office for Women used just a handful of studies to suport their claims, of which two were directly sponsored by the Office for Women, one was over fifteen years old (and taken out of context) and two were sponsored by the American National Organization for Women (NOW) to support the US VAWA bill.

Further, the figures that they used to highlight that women were the biggest victims of D/RV were contrived and innaccurate. For example, this doozy, among many, in The Cost of Domestic Violence to the Australian Economy booklet (which is the only document they sent me as evidence of their claims); on page 9 a claim is made that women make up 87% of the victims of D/RV.

At the bottom is this note - violence against male victims is discounted by 75% to take into account a lower injury rate and psychological impact. This fudges the numbers a great deal and does not explain who made this decision, when the discount was made (which is very important in terms of final numbers) and why women who suffered the same injury rates or psychological impact were not also discounted.

The study did not differentiate between heterosexual and bisexual couples, so lesbians who hit their partners were included as men. This study did not canvass men about their experience with D/RV. This study has also been called into question publically by the Bureau of Statistics, which has found errors in the numbers of female perpetrators.

I think it is time to rein in the powers of the radical feminist run Office for Women and make them accountable for the lies, half-truths and ideologically driven propaganda they spout endlessly, in the hope of grabbing even more amounts of Australian tax money (which is still mainly provided by men) to keep themselves rich.

They then use this money to run ideologically driven campaigns, programs and centres that are all about distributing wealth and power from men to women, even though it is quite questionable that women lack power and money as things stand.

It is evident that this propaganda has worked on many people, the evidence of which is the sidetracking of issues in, leading up to and during, the debate over the Family Law Amendment Bill last week. Labor, in particular Nicola Roxon, and the Democrats, in particular Natasha Stott Despoja (I was amazed to see Despoja stand up as a democratically elected official in our great democratic institution of government and infer that it is right for women to falsely accuse men of D/RV in a court of law), attempted to hijack this debate over children’s and father’s rights to have meaningful access to each other by bringing up the D/RV boogeyman time and again.

I am just thankful that others, the Liberals and Family First, stood strong and rejected this garbage for what it is. D/RV does indeed occur, but it is in a small percentage of the populace, is not only perpetrated by men against women and had little to do with this debate.

The Bill clearly states that if violence is happening then circumstances change. However, I do believe that they and women’s lobby groups, financed by the Office for Women no doubt, did deter the government from going that one step further and putting in place a rebuttable presumption of shared care. They win again.

I implore all members of government to educate themselves on this issue and to make a stand. Males (including boys) are constantly and consistently ridiculed, blamed (for everything), forgotten and lambasted in our contemporary society. This is done because of some perceived inequality of times past.

Yes, women did not have the same opportunities in the past, but they did have opportunities that were not open to men, yes things had to change, yes it is only right that my daughter has the same chances in life as my son, but she has. SHE HAS! Laws are in place now to ensure that. Why do we need to keep going until men become second-class citezens. Is that fair to my son (or me for that matter) who has done nothing, or will do nothing, to females but treat them equally and with the same respect he gives males.

Another point is the economic one - this campaign is not working. According to the media, feminists and others, D/RV is on the rise, so obviously this campaign (which has run for 3 years now) is economically unsound. While I believe that this is more a result of the ever moving goal posts on the definition of D/RV (it is now considered D/RV if a man raises his voice, doesn’t feel like having sex or even if he says his wife is spending too much money), or the fact that all these agencies are looking for D/RV in a bid to keep themselves going, it must be a wake up call to the economists.

Even if the evidence below does not convince you or even if you really believe this radical feminist drivel, think about this. According to the trumped up lies and half-truths put out about D/RV by the Office for Women themselves, 13% of D/RV victims are men. What about them and their children? Who represents these men and their children? Who cares about these men and their children? Where are the resources (counselling, financial help, shelters) for these men and their children?

PS I will be sending this letter by mail also.

References:

Deconstructing Self-Defense in Wife-to-Husband Violence
Sarantakos, Sotirios. Journal of Men’s Studies. Harriman: Spring 2004. Vol. 12, Iss. 3; p. 277

Domestic Violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent.
Bruce Headey, Dorothy Scott, David de Vaus
University of Melbourne La Trobe University
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.pdf

Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships
Michelle Carrado, M.J. George, Elizabeth Loxam, L. Jones and Dale Templar
http://www.batteredmen.com/carrgeo1.htm

Psychology of Women Quarterly. September, 2005 issue. This whole issue is about female violence. See especially; Female Violence Against Intimate Partners, An Introduction. Irene Hanson Frieze.

The Abuse Index: Who’s Throwing Stuff and Who’s Getting Hit
Vigneri, Sara. Men’s Health (USA/Canada) May 2000 Vol 15, Issue 4, p150.

Equal Justice Foundation; http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv.htm.

The Feminization of Domestic Violence in America: The Woozle Effect Goes Beyond Rhetoric

Coney, Nancy S., Mackey, Wade C. Journal of Men’s Studies. Harriman: Oct 31, 1999. Vol. 8, Iss. 1
_________________
Feminst Quotes: “The thing everyone is pulling their hair out about (divorce) is the thing I’m most proud about”. Germaine Greer 2004.
“If life is to survive on this planet there must be a decontamination … I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of males”. Mary Daly, professor Boston College 2001.
“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape”. Catherine Mckinnon.
“Men are scum”. Valerie Solanas, 1971.

I love this article, especially that the male-hating Greer gets bitten by her own lies and hate.

Absolutely Love it, POETIC JUSTICE

Me laughing at Greer. Hahahahahah!!!!

Feminists ruing their childless lives seems pitiful

Dr. Laura Schlessinger

Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant columnist, recently wrote a piece in The Washington Post that caused me to realize I have definitely mellowed. There was a time when I would have reacted in a kind of “I told you so” smug way. But my reaction was quite different. I felt pity for the childless women described in the piece.

The column begaï,with a quote from a recent interview in the British magazine Aura, headlined “I Was Desperate for a Baby and I Have the Medical Bëlls to Prove It.” Krauthammer asks, “Some love-struck movie star? A lesbian celebrity? No. Germaine Greer, icon of 20th-century feminism.”

“I still have pregnancy dreams,” Greer confessed movingly in the premier issue of the magazine, “waiting with vast joy and confidence for something that will never happen.” Of course, women longing for children is nothing new, but this kind of confession from a hard-core, founding-mother feminist is very telling.

Krauthammer writes: “The one adjective rarely attached to Greer was domestic. And now she reveals the hollowness that haunts her, the terrible sorrow she feels at what she lost: her chance for motherhood. Many years ago, she now writes, she cared for the infant girl of a friend. ‘Ruby lit up my life in a way that nobody, certainly no lover, has ever done. I was not prepared for the incandescent sensuousness of this small child, the generosity of her innocent love.’ ”

By the time Greer experienced this epiphany, she was too old to conceive. She had bought into the feminist myth she helped create, that childbearing was part of the patriarchal plot to keep women enslaved.

As many of you know, I absorbed this mentality in college in the ’60s and was a card-carrying(Feminist throughout the early days of my career. I lapsed out of it somewhere closing in on my mid-30s, when I had my own agonizing experience with the “haunting hollowness” Greer refers to. Thank God I still had time, though I, too, had some difficulty in getting pregnant.

There is something so special in realizing that part of your personhood as a woman, connecting your femininity and sexuality to your power to reproduce. The joy of being pregnant was a unique experience, despite its duration, discomforts and the pain of childbirth. All that just fades into the background when your child is born. And the joy continues to multiply and grow, just like my son, who is now 14 and 6 feet tall.

I recently gave a newspaper interview about my new book, and the reporter asked me a question that left me speechless: “What are you going to be doing in four years when your son graduates from high school and is out of the house?” Of course, intellectually, I know my son is going to grow up and go away to college. But until that moment, I had never thought about what that would actually be like, or what I would do. And then, of course, I didn’t want to think about it. Because while all parents grouse, grumble and complain, our children are the most incredible part of our lives.

So, whereas in the past I might have thought that Germaine Greer had earned her desolation, that it served her right for the critical damage feminists did to all the women with their negative brainwashing about the value of motherhood, I mostly now pity her. All that anger for so long has robbed her and so many others of the most incredible beauty that they as women could experience.

If this is the standard why aren’t more women caught and punished in Australia ?

The Case Against Female Sexual Predators

By GORDON E. FINLEY

Debra Lafave’s court case is over now, and she has immediately moved on to a new man, a national interview on CNN and a new book to write. What an exciting and empowering outcome to this sordid event - for her.

But what of the 14-year-old schoolboy she sexually molested - whose life, by media accounts, never will be the same again? I shudder to think how this experience will shape not only his future relationships with his peers and parents, but above all, his adult relationships with women and perhaps even his role as a father if ever he becomes one.

Of perhaps greater concern, evidence that Lafave represents but the tip of the iceberg can be found in a 2004 U. S. Department of Education report titled “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature.”

This report includes data from two large-scale surveys wherein students report that 43 percent of their molesters were female. Such a proportion of female sexual predators is high by any measure.

For centuries we have entrusted our children to females for nurturance, care and emotional support - not sexual abuse. We must open our hearts and minds to the reality that females can be sexual predators and that their victims are harmed, just as the victims of male sexual predators are harmed.

Lafave has made Tampa - indeed, Florida - synonymous worldwide with a reeking double standard in its punishment of sexual predators: jail for males, fame and fortune for females.

I find nothing in her story that remotely hints that any female sexual predator ever will be deterred by this legal outcome. If anything, I would expect it to encourage female sexual predators, since they now know that they need not fear prosecution in this state.

I believe the Florida Legislature needs to create and fund a Female Sexual Predator Act to protect our sons and daughters from female sexual predators, just as existing laws protect them from male sexual predators.

First and foremost, such an act would provide immediate services - protective, therapeutic and rehabilitative - to the victims of female sexual predators. Second, the act would require equal treatment and uñual punishment under the law for male and female sexual predators.

As a society, we need to reframe the sexual abuse debate to acknowledge that female sexual predators do exist in substantial numbers. Delay in passing a Female Sexual Predator Act only continues to leave children in Florida at risk from further female sexual predation.

Gordon E. Finley is a professor of psychology at Florida International University.

MGTOW (Men going their own way)is spreading worldwide, here is a fine example of Men ignoring and staying away from women. Women are no longer worth the hassle as they not only carry way too much baggage but the potential of being jailed by these liars is just too great.

It’s best to avoid them altogether.

“Across the Pond, the song’s the same. Five-hundred women responded to an Edinburgh restaurant’s promotion for a Single’s Night mixer in “honor” of Valentine’s Day 2002.

Two males responded. TWO. The owner of the restaurant - a woman - said: “We’re a bit disappointed because we thought we’d get so many more guys than girls - after all, they’d have a room full of single women. But I think men take themselves too seriously these days.”â€?

Women still do not see the real reason, they are so self-focused that they are unable to see feminist assisted damage that they have promoted and assisted for all these years.

Women are the new pariahs.

As with the previous article about the women that murdered her husband and then made up the usual story of imagined abuse, here we have another murdering female let off as well.

Feminists indoctrinate judiciary
14 July 2004

Years of feminist propaganda and enforced “gender sensitivity training” reminiscent of communist re-education camps, have created an illusory world in judges’ minds whereby men are naturally evil and violent and where women are saints who only harm or kill when driven by forces beyond their control.

There is ample anecdotal evidence that this indoctrination has led to gross distortions in sentencing rates between men and women.

A particularly pernicious concept dreamed up by feminists is “the battered woman syndrome”. This is essentially a licence to kill. A number of women have walked free from Australian courts after admitting to murdering their husbands. Each claimed she was driven to it by years of violence at the hands of her husband. Unfortunately the husband is not around to give evidence or refute the allegation.
WA Judge lets woman walk free after attempting to murder her children

A 32-year-old woman, whose name was suppressed, walked free from the Western Australian Supreme Court on May 26, 2004 after pleading guilty to four counts of attempting to murder her two daughters, aged two and nine years old. She had attempted to murder her daughters by gassing them in the family car on two separate occasions on June 17, 2003.

WA Chief Justice David Malcolm, a man prone to making pompous, bleeding-heart commentary in the media, ruled that the woman’s antidepressant drugs contributed substantially to her actions, and let her walk free with a suspended jail term.

Justice Malcolm described the woman as a loving mother who cared for her children.

Running a hose from the exhaust pipe into the family car is certainly a novel way to care for your children.

The female/feminist privilege checklist:

1. Do you experience other people paying for your dates, or occasionally even picking up the tab in non-romantic settings? Or paying for vacations when the relationship moves along?

2. Do you occasionally exp!rience subservient gestures by the opposite sex(opening doors, giving up a seat in the bus, standing up when you come in the room)?

3. Are you able to simply pursue what you are interested in at university without much societal pressure on “breadwinning” - although you could also take that route if it interests you?

4.a. Have you had to register for selective service? Would you be ripped out of your life and forced to defend your country in time of attack or national emergency? Can you demand strength and full participation in society, but then get out of this obligation by pretending to be weak with no influence over society (only when it suits you)?

4.b. Can you come up with any and every excuse to get out of this without being laughed at (”No one should be drafted” - when you would be the first to cower in the corner and demand that someone do something if China & Russia combined and attacked full force - and “If men start wars …” when women are the majority of voters and the expression is more likely “Men are SENT in wars …” - exactly what you’re trying to get out of - and sometimes sent by M. Thatcher, G. Meir, I. Gandhi, B. Bhutto and others)

5. Will you statistically get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same offense if you commit a crime?

6. Are you able to take on a job or choose a career route that is only capable of supporting yourself, with no thought to preparing yourself to also support a spouse/children, although you are also free to choose a more difficult career that will bring you more money? Do you not have much pressure on you with regard to this?

7. If you are in a committed relationship, do you have much greater flexibility to choose whether you want to work or simply stay at home (even without kids)?

8. Will you be called an unemployed loser if you decide to be a homemaker?

9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?

10. Are people generally much nicer to you in public? Are you sometimes given privileged treatment?

11. Are you much more capable of “marrying up” - enjoying the money and status that comes with this?

12. Are you statistically much more likely to be given money in a divorce - sometimes huge amounts - even if your behavior caused the divorce (e.g. affair) and even if you didn’t work for the money?

13. If you slap a person - or even knock someone’s tooth out throwing your Aunt Selma’s Christmas mug at that person - is it much more likely to just be viewed as cute, understandable or not a problem?

14. Do you statistically live much longer - possibly due to less stress on you with regard to breadwinning, providing protection, being responsible, not having society viewing you as “expendable” or viewing your problems as not being important?

15. Do you have much more money spent on your health concerns in reality (e.g. 5 times as much on breast cancer as on prostate cancer - although they have roughly the same£qåath rates) while you simultaneously claim that more has to be done for you?

16. Are you much less likely to be homeless? Is more offered to you by society when you are in this position?

17. Is there far less scorn and pressure on you by society when you are an irresponsible doofus? Are your default rates for payment of child support roughly twice those of the other gender, while you simultaneously complain about the other gender not paying?

18. Has whining about and hating the other gender actually been made into a course of studies in college (women’s studies) - as opposed to the true, neutral, unbiased study of this topic - which is simply anthropology?

19. Do you have full opportunity to do anything you want in life - become a doctor, a lawyer, start a business - while simultaneously using the fact that many of your gender don’t CHOOSE themselves to do these things as an argument to try to gain even more advantages? Do you get affirmative action because many of your gender don’t choose to do these things, and thus the numbers don’t “come out right”?

20. Can you manipulate the other gender with sex in some cases to get what you want? Can you pretend like you don’t even know what anyone is talking about on this topic?

21. Can you manipulate using old notions of men protecting and deferring to women when it comes in handy?

22. Can you effectively manipulate by playing the victim? Do tears work sometimes?

23. Can you get sympathy if you don’t work and don’t have children by listing all the household work (hmm … Oprah really does get high ratings, though) while simultaneously being able to bear the cognitive dissonance of calling your sister’s husband who stays home a worthless bum that she ought to leave?

24. Can you “mix and match” traditional and progressive roles - finding just the right mix to get what you want? Can you be a “traditional wife” - enjoying the positive features of that (like not having to work) - while simultaneously being a progressive feminist]lhen THAT gets you advantages? Or having a career while simultaneously using traditional chivalry and male deference to your advantage?

25. Can you constantly say “that’s just typical” and “it doesn’t surprise me a bit” and make a lemon face if you are a parent-in-law? Is near-universal contempt by both genders for your behavior hidden to a much greater extent?

26. Can almost any remark by your partner be construed as verbal abuse if you want sympathy, but the meanest, nastiest, most humiliating things that you can say simply involve “speaking your mind” and “some people just don’t want to hear the truth”?

27. Can you use the fact that gender roles were differentiated long ago - with different advantages/disadvantages for both genders - to try to induce guilt today in people who had absolutely no connection with any of that? Can you say that you have been discriminated against for thousands of years - when you’re only 20 years old - with a straight face? Can you even make things up about history and no one will really check or dare call you on it?

28. Can you propagate myths and outright lies (”Superbowl/domestic violence hoax”, “rule of thumb”, 1/4 rape statistic, intentional misconstrual of pay figures, and many more) and be given a “pass” - without more rigor being demanded?

29. Can you rationalize your own failures using the concept of the “patriarchy”, and blame the other gender for nearly everything that goes wrong in your life - even with quite contorted explanations that no one would otherwise buy - while failures of the other gender are just … failures?

30. Do you want to be treated like a child when it suits you but as an adult when you get an advantage from that? Do you “look the other way” when someone doesn’t require responsibility from you that they certainly would from the other gender?

31. Can you focus heavily on perceived earnings in the workforce - the statistics of which are influenced by people’s choices in reality - while utterly ignoring the inter-family transfer of wealth? Can you completely ignore the fact that one gender picks tougher jobs (garbage collector), works more hours and takes on more responsibility because of more pressure to earn - but the other gender has the same lifestyle and statistically more assets (and not just because of inheritance/earlier age of male at death…). Can you deliberately claim that earnings figures are based on equal pay for equal work? (when you probably full well know that they simply involve all people working more than 35 hours - and don’t take type of job, hours worked over 35/week, danger, responsibility, years in the work force etc. into consideration at all).

32. Is what used to simply be an irritation for grown-ups many years ago - the self-centered rantings and foot stompings of spoiled high-school and college brats - now not only embraced by your movement but almost the modern cornerstone of it?

33. And if you irritated about generalizations and stereotypes - and utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in stereotyping and generalizing about one gender while simultaneously making a career (literally in some cases) whining about your own gender being stereotyped …

… you may have female/feminist privilege! But don’t let on - because you can gain much more with a continual victim status.

Dear Ms Grossman

In your article “Row vs Wade for Men” you make a number errors, in my view.

1. You say that, “Before conception, men and women are arguably “similarly situated” with respect to potential procreation.”

This is not true. Before conception - and, indeed, at all times - women have exclusive control of any pregnancies that might ensue.

According to your logic, you could well argue that someone who is holding a gun is “similarly situated” with respect to the future as someone who is not holding a gun - until such time as the trigger is pulled!

Furthermore, as you say, “Unwed fathers do not automatically have parental rights, but instead must follow statutory procedures to earn them.”

Unwed fathers are clearly not, therefore, “similarly situated” even before conception.

2. You say that, “The fact that he does not want to be a father is constitutionally irrelevant. (For all we know, his ex-girlfriend does not want to be a mother - but may have become one because she does not believe in abortion.)”

This again demonstrates that ‘before conception’, the prospective mother and father are not “similarly situated”. She has an escape clause called abortion. He does not.

Furthermore, whether or not she believes in abortion is something of a red-herring when it comes to this particular issue. Nevertheless, whatever is the case about her beliefs, when it comes to abortion, it is only her beliefs that count; whereas the father’s beliefs, decidedly, do not.

You seem to be suggesting that because the woman alone has the choice over whether or not to abort, she is somehow disadvantaged by the very fact that it is she who has the choice!

3. With reference to claiming damages for an ‘injury’, you say, “And what, exactly, is the injury here? It is not clear why the birth of a normal, healthy child is “injurious” in the way that other torts are.”

But this is a sleight of hand, because (unwilling) fathers in cases such as these are not claiming that the birth of a child is an ‘injury’. They are claiming that the financial demands made on them constitute an ‘injury’.

For example, if you had to pay child support for my child then I am sure that you would not claim that it was the birth of my child that was injurious to you. You would claim that the financial burden that I had unjustly imposed upon you would be injurious to you.

4. You say that, “While it is important that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy, unnecessary economic hardship due to the father’s abdication of his obligations should not push them to make that decision.”

But your use of the phrase “father’s abdication of his obligations” begs the very question that you have just been considering.

Besides which, of course, women often - if not mostly - have abortions for financial considerations.

Finally, in the last third of your article you seem to approve of the notion that state officials should not intrude into private behaviours, especially those of a personal and intimate nature. And you suggest that one good reason for this is that it is virtually impossible to discover the truth that lies behind complex intimate entanglements.

I agree with you.

However, I suspect that you would reverse your position entirely on this point were you talking about investigations of, say, domestic violence or sex assault, where state officials clearly do believe that they can sort out the truths from the lies that exist within complex intimate entanglements.

It seems to me that, as is typical of feminists, you will bend your legal arguments always to the disadvantage of men.

The nub of the matter is this.

Western women have 100% control over their pregnancies; whereas men have no control over them.

Best wishes

Harry

The Australian ABC ( a government owned and run Media Group) are the most sexist and anti-male in the land. Daily, you can hear or see plenty of anti-male hysteria or pro-feminist doctrine being espoused. It is sickening.
This media is overrun by socialists that are determined to not only favour socialist government, but give carte-blanche access for Labor’s commentary of political events daily on their hourly news program.

On top of this I did not find the comment made by T. Duffield unusual as with universities one would have to show their political leaning before even considering a position at the ABC or it’s mini version SBS.

MGTOW….Men Going Their Own Way.

The Perils of the Unconscious Mind

Peter Forde
October 20, 2004

In a recent essay I offered a proposition that many women will no doubt find challenging:

“…….many women have fallen victim to deep, unconscious ‘feelings’ derived from a deliberate and mostly unrealised brainwashing process they have been subjected to over the past thirty-some years. It’s no secret that feminists have long promoted a broad (no pun, honest!) view of the “evil white maleâ€?, dominating, suppressing and generally being the scourge of womankind.
Some of that ‘mud’ sticks—often deep inside the psyche of women who do not come close to understanding how severely their deepest thoughts and feelings have been affected by the regular and often subtle bombardment of such deceitful and disingenuous messages. Becoming an unconscious victim of relentless visual and auditory barrages is merely another natural consequence of simply being not specifically a woman, but human.
As a result, deep inside the psyche many a modern female is an unconscious desire to destroy ‘the enemy’—men—before ‘the enemy’ (she thinks) can destroy her……..
Feminism has done far more damage to modern women, and therefore to the overall wellness of society, than most can possibly imagine…..â€?

Just this morning I was presented with yet another classic, in-my-face example of this disturbing problem..

ABC Radio presenter Tricia Duffield was having an on-air conversation with colleague Steve Austin. They were discussing this year’s Brisbane Ekka.

Said Steve (more or less), “It was wonderful to see so many fathers, husbands and partners at the show with their kids, having a great time as a family unit.�

Responded Tricia instantly, “Yeah, trying to be heroes.�

I mean instantly. Not a moment’s hesitation.

Trying to be heroes? Actually, many men spend much of their time trying to be ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ to women in general and their wives or partners in particular (This is no ‘wild theory’—a psychiatrist has written a book about it).

Steve Austin, whom I suspect was—perhaps unconsciously—merely doing what comes naturally and being ‘a nice guy’, responded not by fronting Tricia on her observation. Instead he smoothly went on at some length— deliberately considerate, I suspect—to tell how, in his nineteen-seventies generation, fathers were too often missing at family times like Ekka show days.

Smart guy that Steve Austin. The extent of his response gave Tricia Duffield a long moment in which to get her mind around what she had just said.

That she is an intelligent woman is evidenced by the fact that she then came back with something along the lines of, “I didn’t mean to disrespect fathers….�

I know she genuinely didn’t mean to. But the reality is, she did. And did it unconsciously. Which is the exact point of this discussion.

If she is intelligent, you may ask, how, in the first place, could she have possibly made such a gratuitously male-insulting generalisation over the public airwaves.

The answer is that her unconscious mind had spoken. In every human being, it is always a brutally straight talker, often using non-verbalmeans of communicating its view.

Tricia’s ‘accident’ illustrates the essence of a serious problem that we, as a liberated women’s society, do not properly comprehend. Human beings are good at faking it, but our true and deepest attitudes and beliefs—what many simply describe as ‘feelings’—will manifest whenever our conscious, politically-correct guard is down for even an instant. Sometimes, such as when angered, those attitudes will simply explode through all barriers.

We unhappily wonder why there is considerable friction between men and women. You will find one specific answer near, if not at the top, of the list of reasons: the unconscious attitudes embedded inside the minds of a great many ‘modern’ women. Attitudes that most of them may not even realise have been drilled and instilled into them by those with strong feminist ideologies. These attitudes are often unconsciously expressed in words and behaviours.

The problem is worsened by most men reacting just like Steve Austin. Not challenging a woman when she deliberately or inadvertently slurs, insults or degrades the male means she will blunder along throughout her life, endlessly unaware of the damage she inflicts on her personal and business relationships with men.

It helps her not at all that when she scores what she thinks is a particularly superb male-bashing home-run, her sisters—themselves suffering the same syndrome—will cheer her on with girlishly ecstatic high-fives.

They simply do not understand the consequences. There are no winners when the sexes war. The biggest losers–in alphabetical order—are children, men, society and women.

Let’s get this straight: everybody loses, women included.

Many men—of whom I am one, you may have noticed—now choose to resolve these difficulties by simply devising ways of no longer having direct contact with such women. They either physically or emotionally or intellectually distance themselves.

Not only the human male, but also the female will often take the avoidance path to evade direct conflict. Truth is, while this is a great personal self-protection mechanism, it is not at all healthy for us as a society.

Distancing oneself from the problem is, in certain circumstances, known as divorce. Another is bewailed by women desperate for babies as commitment-phobia. How many wives are there not who scream in frustration that their husbands “speak to me but don’t connect or communicate in meaningful ways�.

That increasing numbers of men are taking these alternative routes in preference to maintaining intellectual closeness or even just laying down roots—and take that as you will—is a prime reason why increasing numbers of women now end up alone in their old age.

Could it be that feminism has actually done such women terrible harm in the long term? That while many so-called ‘modern’ women busily bash the ‘bastard’ men, they unknowingly bludgeon themselves even more?

According to a Brisbane psychiatrist, many older women now seek lesbian relationships because they cannot find ‘a good man’. Men are increasingly choosing to make themselves less available to the modern, unconsciously aggressive woman. Many simply go off to fishing or the footy or find other ways to do their own women-free thing. Some literally just give up and die.

Shocked? Don’t be. Men are also human. They too have unconscious behaviours. Dying is in some cases a very effective way of turning one’s back on a society that one may have concluded has gone stark mad.

This essay is actually an appeal to intelligent women to thoughtfully consider these perspectives. Those who have the “I’m God’s gift to mankind and can do just what the hell I like and get away with it� attitude are so far away from both reason and reality that they would likely not even be reading this anyway.

Men like Steve Austin would probably never speak as openly as I do here. I think that—in terms of self-preservation—they are the smart ones. Even as I dumbly write this, I find myself fighting a natural desire to be Mr. Nice Guy and only say pleasing things about the so many lovely ladies in our society.

So why do I risk being inundated with scornful invective from women everywhere?

Only because these unconscious attitudes of many women—otherwise often truly beautiful people who deserve better—unwittingly destroy their own chances of long, loving and deeply intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex. It is just not fair to them. Such women unwittingly sentence themselves to years of loneliness and deep emotional pain and in the process also hurt men.

Men like me. That’s why.

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

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

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

Official Statement From Alleged Blair Kidnap Plotter
I, Martin Matthews, would like to make a few things clear about the Sun newspaper article about kidnapping Leo Blair.

1. At no time did anyone ever suggest anything of the sort.

2. The following people were present, Artur – a 58-year-old father who is ‘T –Total,’ Dyian, A photography teacher who also did not drink as he later went to work, Gary, Jolly, Graham, Eddie, and two women.

3. After speaking with the Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Mirror, I feel it necessary to point the following:-

On the 18th of December 2005, I was feeling unwell and only had two glasses of Coke in the pub. I do not have the slightest idea from where these roomers of a kidnapping came from. I have noted in the tabloids that Jolly Sainsbury and Graham Manson are quoted as saying, that I may have suggested this as a joke. However, after speaking with Jolly and Graham it must be made clear that they have been miss-quoted.

4. I found yesterday exhausting, as I had made it clear to the tabloids exactly what the position was. However, I find that in today’s papers have reported that a conversation had taken place with fact or evidence to support this.

5. Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O’Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group.

6. I would like to thank Matt O’Conner for everything he has done for us and suggest that he should be included in the next honours list.

7. I did meet with Police Officers in Epsom on the 27th of December 2005. However, I find it particularly strange that if I did in fact suggest or take part in any kidnap plot on the 18th last, the police have not ever questioned me about this. In fact when I telephoned the Police Officer who spoke to me on the 27th last, about the Sun Newspaper article, and asked him directly who was involved he could not give me any information.

8. I am of the opinion that the entire saga is a complete fabrication by someone in powuò and ask most loudly that proof or evidence should be made available for public scrutiny.

9. As I am not a politician and have no experience with such matters all I can say is the only Party to benefit from this saga would be the Labour Party, by taking the heat of Ruth Kelly and off the front page of the newspapers.

Regards,
Martin Matthews

I found this gem on my men’s forum and seemed ideal that I pass it on here as MABTW.

Quote:

Some guy on Gaia totally blew his lid and created this gem, it’s worth posting here.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11856877 - The thread is titled, Are Women Necessary? No really, Are they?

Quote:

Recently, I had the pleasure of hearing a Kelly Clarkson song titled ‘Walk Away’ – in which see sings ‘I want a man by my side, not a boy who runs and hides. Are you gonna fight for me, die for me, live and breathe for me….â€?

The bolded section is what got me thinking… why? Why should he die for you, and live and breathe for you?

I believe the greater majority of western women have embodied this same holier-than-thou attitude expression in Kelly Clarksons lyrics.

What I can’t seem to put my finger on is this: What do women do for men, these days, that’s so great, so wonderful, a man should live and breathe for her and die for her? If a man put out an album stating he wanted his woman to die for him, live and breathe for him, most women would scoff, guffaw, laugh, and everything else under the sun, because well, men aren’t worthy of such devotion.

Maureen Dawd. just put out a book titled ‘Are Men Necessary’, proclaiming men these days are redundant and of no use. Maureen aside, there has been tons of female-written literature these days stating how useless and outdated the male creature has become to women, and to life.

And just like the ‘can’t form my own opinion’ collective sheep they are, mass amounts of women smirk, take these messages to heart, and beat their chests to the daily tunes of male bashing.

But I wonder if any of those women, you women, have stopped and actually asked the question, just what DO women do for men these days? What do men rely on women for, these days?

Who’s really the redundant ones here? What have you ever done for you man in a relationship, besides fuck him?

Even with closed eyes, you can see its men who hold up the greater/full burden of relationships, while women usually just enjoy the free ride, doing nothing, as if she is a child being taken care of by an adult. In relationship’s these days, women do nothing, while men do everything. Men pay for everything, while women pay for nothing.

And no, buying him a pair of socks every now and then does not count. Of course, a lot of girls will read this post and cry bullshit, then tomorrow go to their girlfriends proclaiming, ‘What’s mine is mine, and what’s his is mine’.

Relationships and marriage have devolve into a one way street for men, in which he gives everything, but all she gives in return is a flat piece of pussy… which can really be taken care of by his left hand, and cheap ‘emotional support’ every now and then, which really balls down to her bullshitting long enough to keep her slave in line.

Everything, and I mean everything women use to do for men are being done by men themselves. Chores once considered womanly, are being done by single men living alone. Men cook for themselves, clean for themselves, and take care of themselves, all without the aid of a woman. There’s so many single men living alone, and living happy, yet feminist journalists can not stand this. Pick up a newspaper, you will read how women who live alone are liberated and happy, then these same journalists will say men who live alone are sad and lonely – as if trying to guide the minds of men in to thinking they actually ‘need’ a woman.

Women are not necessary, Men do not need women. – This is a line that is so gut wrenching and terrifying to most women, and they do not want to really think about it. But then go chanting the mantra over and over again that Women do not need men.

Even out of relationships, men are the beasts of burden who do the ‘heavy lifting’ needed to keep the world spinning. All the dangerous or disgusting jobs you never hear about – the jobs that women steer clear of are usually 100% entirely composed of men.

Can anybody tell me what women contribute to this world, besides their ability to birth, that keeps the earth spinning?

Women really don’t do anything when you think about it, do they? Women have long cried out how they want to be worth more than their vagina… but it seems the opposite has happened. Overall, women do nothing for men on the large scale basis – women are entirely consumers in the world, while men are the producers. Women do none of the dirty, dangerous jobs needed to keep our cities healthy and sanitary. Women do none of the ‘heroing’ and chivalrous jobs needed in times of emergency. Think hurricane Katrina… all the people doing the rescuing were men. I’m sure there was like one woman here or there, but any shots in news, magazines (women’s magazines) you will see an entire cast of male rescue workers.

Women do nothing for the world.

In relationships, women do nothing for men at all but fuck, and consume what he produces.

It seems, sadly, that women have somehow become worthy of nothing more than their vagina’s.

In another man-hating attack (written in a mainstream newspaper as always) HERE: http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/ther…3829717803.html

Quote:
The feminist says:

Rather than feel useless and rejected, most men should perhaps feel lucky that women still show as much interest in them as they do and want their companionship.

What she should have said was: For all their self-absorbed ways and utter uselessness in all aspects of life, women should consider themselves lucky that men still want their companionship

Here and there, every now and then, you will hear a girl say, or post in this thread, they actually do a lot for their boyfriend. But those girls are very few and very far between. And even most of the girls who actually claim they do ‘stuff’ for their men will draw a blank stare when you actually ask them WHAT they do for their boyfriends. Ask the average guy the same question, what he does for his girlfriend, I bet you right off the bat he could point out more than just a few things.

Now besides for all the knee-jerk reactions to this post will receive, I’d love a well thought out, detailed responsce, from a girl, explaining just what women actually do FOR men in relationships these days besides sex.

But I doupt I’ll get that, since women don’t do shit for men in relationships.

Are Men Necessary, the title of that book should have been: Are Women Necessary.

Die for you? Live and breathe for you? Like… why? I think I’ll just take the pussy. That’s all you seem to be worth these days.

Double Standards: Ever Wonder Why?
by Thomas Simon

Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?

Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?

Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?

Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?

Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?

If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?

Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?

Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman - won’t the man be in more pain?

Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped over and over?

Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?

Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?

Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?

Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?

If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?

How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?

Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?

Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?

If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?

Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else?

Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?

Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?

Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?

Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?

Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five - isn’t that equal pay for less work?

Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?

Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?

Why are there thousands of “father’s rights� groups but no “mother’s rights� groups?

Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?

Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?

If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?

Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorcuó?

Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?

Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?

Why do feminists demand that women bÏhuqually represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?

Why do we have to say “Chairperson� and “Congressperson� but its ok to say “garbage man� and “bad guy�?

Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children� but never hear about “innocent men� or “men and children�?

Why do news headlines use the terms “student�, “spouse�, or “parent� when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy�, “husband�, or “father� when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?

Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?

Why does the term “angry mother� sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father� sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?
Fãhy is it that when men are more successful than women it’s because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it’s because men are lazy?

Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?

Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?

Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man’s name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

Why is it that we’ve had forty years and billions of dollars going into women’s rights and men’s responsibilities, but it’s taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it’s time to consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change?

If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don’t we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?

For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it’s time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don’t they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?

Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?