"Almost everything I ever did, even as a scientist, was in the hope of meeting a pretty girl."
- James D. Watson, Nobel Laureate, author of The Double Helix
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."
- Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
"Natural selection is a process of differential reproduction, hence a process of the competitive ascendancy of whatever features serve to increase reproductive success. Reproduction is the ultimate function of all evolved aspects of organisms. Observed behavior can therefore be considered the tactics of a strategy to maximize reproduction."
- Sex, Evolution & Behavior, Martin Daly & Margo Wilson, p 264
"That the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer."
- Charlotte Hays, 'The Worse Half.' National Review
"One of the biggest unacknowledged facts about sex is the underlying economy to it all. When you look into it, it’s really amazing how it works. And it’s fairly elementary as well: We put a price tag on sex. You might not think we ought to do that, but we do. Sex, at one level, is an exchange. … Each person gives the other person something of themselves. But it is typically a different something.”
- University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus
"Feminist pundits are tripping over one another to show that none of them is, goddess forbid, a 'man hater.' ... Feminist calls for equality, or even equity, sound at first like nothing other than calls for justice. Lurking just below the surface, though, is often the call for gynocentrism. Whatever its underlying motivation, gynocentrism has already been institutionalized, either directly or indirectly, in laws or interpretations of them, constitutional amendments or interpretations of them, and bureaucracies at every level of government. ... Because the resulting systemic discrimination against men has been achieved in subtle ways - incrementally, for instance, rather than suddenly - many people, including men, have either failed or refused to recognize that a major shift has taken place. As a result, misandry has been legalized - that is, misandry has taken the form of systemic discrimination against men."
- Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Legalizing Misandry, 2006
"...the early ‘90s was the heyday of extremist feminism; after taking over mainstream feminism in the early ‘80s and silencing most of its critics within the movement by shame, “if you’re not for us you’re against us” rhetoric and arguments from a false concept of sisterhood, the “gender feminists” quickly established “women’s studies” departments and put a stranglehold on the government and foundation grants second-wave feminism had earned. Thus large, wealthy organizations were essentially tricked into funding neomarxist social-engineering schemes which indoctrinated an entire generation of young women into a hateful campaign against half the human race; even the Hitler Jugend was never so successful at brainwashing. As with all hate movements, “gender feminism” needed to create a devil, a wholly imaginary or grotesquely exaggerated bogeyman on which to focus its efforts; for gender feminists that was “rape culture”."
All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women. In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.
Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?
Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.
As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there
are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights than men were given in even 0.1% of historical instances, falls flat.
It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive. It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is.
Homo Sapiens (humans) is the most successful species on Earth because it made the most effective use of division of labor.
Henry Ford was the first to make automobiles affordable for average families because he was the first to use division of labor. Life on Earth evolved beyond single-cell organisms because multi-cell organisms employ division of labor. Division of labor allows different workers in a factory, organs in an animal, or sexes in a species to specialize in different tasks.
Homo Sapiens is successful because human females specialize in reproduction while human males specialize in resource acquisition, particularly animal meat which supplies the nine essential amino acids. Humans evolved with females providing males access to reproduction in exchange for resources acquired by those same males, therefore insuring that people were rewarded in proportion to the effort each person put forth. This arrangement allowed humans to outcompete all other life on Earth. This arrangement - essentially sex for money - is the reason you are alive and reading this web page. Feminism has perverted this natural arrangement by causing governments to restrict prostitution, then forcibly steal the same money from men via income taxes and give it to women with nothing in return.
From day one, Feminism has been about controlling men. Feminism's objective is to maximize male resource output while minimizing female sexual availability. Referring to the Feminism Timeline below, we see that long before requesting voting rights for women, feminism concerned itself with maximizing and directing male resource output towards women and away from coffee, alcohol, and sexually available women. The first wave of feminism was in direct response to the introduction of the rubber condom, which allowed sexually available women to effectively compete for husbands' money. ("(T)hey began to compete with prostitutes for their hus
bands' continuing attentions.", Sex in History, Reay Tannahill, p 411) As with any product or service, competition lowered the price. The reduced price meant men did not need to work as hard (resource output) to get their needs met. Feminism's original motive was to eliminate this competition in order to restore the higher level of male resource output towards women.
Freud wrote “Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex.” In the first decade of the 20th Century, feminists ("Progressives") realized the best way to maximize and direct male resource output towards women was to make world governments take income taxes from men and redistribute that money to women. Read The Socialization of the Costs of Sex. In the United States this took the form of the Sixteenth Amendment (source). In the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere, this took the form of Communism. In Germany this took the form of Nazism. In all cases feminism succeeded in forcing men to provide free food, housing, protection and government jobs to women so that fewer women need provide men with access to sex. Scarcity of sex meant men had to work even harder for it, and consequently pay much higher income taxes. Hatred of men was key to feminism's success, which is why "the origin of misandry in popular culture ... has its ultimate source in the ideological branch of feminism." (Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Legalizing Misandry, 2006)
In accordance with the standard anthropological theory, homo sapiens became the dominating animal species on earth because we were the only primates who adopted a permanent upright posture, leaving our hands free to use for other purposes, rather than to stand on them, or use them for walking or hanging on tree branches.
The earliest hominids who walked upright populated some areas in East Africa some four million years ago.
Allegedly, a pattern developed that gave humans a clear procreative edge over other primates (including today's gorillas, the females of which bear a single child on average only every five years). The human edge consisted of freeing mothers of young children from the task of gathering or hunting food as this allegedly was handled by males (and possibly a small number of females who had no young children to take care of). This sharing of responsibilities allowed the females of the species to become pregnant every year, and at the same time to take care of a considerable number of offspring.
For caring husbands and fathers, it was essential that an upright posture had been adopted. The members of a four-legged but handless species could not efficiently manage the transportation of the food supply for their wives and children, left behind at a safe location.
Still in accordance with the standard anthropological theory, the primary incentive for males to become food suppliers was the availability of females for sex year round, and not just during fertile periods every few years. (You bring me food, I let you enjoy sexual satisfaction whenever you like.)
Evolution and natural selection favored, for the species homo sapiens, rather hypersexual males (in comparison to other primates who mate only when females are fertile), and females that could raise in a parallel fashion several subsequent birth-year
s of offspring (which is unusual for mammals; the standard pattern is that a next set of offspring is born when a previous one has been weaned).
Humans are no record-breaking offspring producers when compared with rats but are doing fine when the competition is with other primates. And the procreational rate definitely is an important factor in the evolution of animals. Rats are, apart from humans, good proof for this axiom.
There are other patterns that I believe are biologically encoded. For example, that the equation "sex for food" is inherently understood, even though it has long been stigmatized by moralists. Prostitution has been branded the world's oldest profession, and it is but a modification of the sex-for-food equation.
While in present-day Europe and Northern America, there is little situational pressure on young women to choose their sexual partners with a clear eye on a man's stature as a provider, such concerns are still primary most everywhere in the world. Women in practically all Third World societies evaluate potential husbands first of all by the man's breadwinner potential.
Typically, women among themselves discuss such matters very realistically. Towards men, the subject is often obscured by talk about love and other esoteric components of a relationship. Men everywhere in the world don't want to be married for their money. Which is why women confess that the faces of aging, and potentially richer, men show character rather than… well, age.
Men typically have priorities other than wealth. They value beauty, which stimulates them to be sexually active, and youth, because younger women not only are more attractive but also more likely to remain healthy for childbirth, more than once.
Explaining the evolution of feminism, GirlWriteWhat says much the same:
Angry Harry: Were Women Oppressed in the West? and "As a young Canadian girl who just got an interest in history, I have found that every textbook and teacher just seems to spew the same stuff: women had no choices, women had no rights, etc. ... Whenever I look at the textbooks now and see pages and pages of men dying horrifically, I am appalled and saddened. ... How could women, who were saved from the horrors of life, consider themselves oppressed, compared to what men had to face? It's ridiculous. ... Feminism is like a plague and it is permanently affecting the minds of those around them."
In the USA, the feminist-dominated yet taxpayer-funded public education system teaches that women have always been victims of oppression, rather than members of a society that survived against competing societies only because it maximized the strengths and abilities of its individuals. Let's cut through the propaganda and set the record straight:
The 1674 Women's Campaign Against Coffee was a feminist effort to make the British Government prohibit coffee. Feminists saw the introduction of coffee houses as causing men to lose sexual interest in their wives, thus threatening wives' economic leverage over their husbands.
Lydia Chapin Taft voted in three New England town meetings, beginning in 1756, at Uxbridge, Massachusetts.
Declaration of Independence. Men were not allowed to vote unless they owned property. By 1850 nearly all requirements to own property or pay taxes had been dropped. (Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (2nd ed. 2009) p 29)
New Jersey gives the vote to women owning more than $250. (source) Other states and territories followed.
"Suffrage: This term means the right to vote. The history of suffrage in the United States is about the removal of various limitations on voting for citizens. In the Colonial era church membership (in early New England) and property qualifications limited suffrage, and it was considered a privilege rather than a right, as it is today. Some colonies disfranchised males owning less than 50 acres in land, Jews, free blacks, Catholics, and dissenting Protestants until around 1700. It was not until after the American Revolution, however, that states began removing property qualifications on white males for voting. In 1800, five states allowed male taxpayers to vote for most offices. Still, over half the adult population was excluded from voting when the new nation moved into the nineteenth century: property-less men, women, the enslaved, most free blacks, apprentices, indentured laborers, felons, and those mentally incompetent." (from The History of the Supreme Court)
The American Civil War resulted in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 men (source) According to the 1860 Census, there were 13,849,087 white men and 13,115,843 white women in the United States and territories in 1860. (source) If the vast majority of men who fought in the Civil War were white then more than 5% of white American men died in the Civil War. In 1860 there were 733,244 more white men than white women in the United States. This suggests the entire excess of white men died in the Civil war.
Founding of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the oldest feminist organization that continues to exist today. According to the WCTU website, "The WCTU was organized by women who were concerned about the destructive power of alcohol and the problems it was causing their families and society." "The WCTU was very interested in a number of social reform issues, including labor, prostitution ... The first president of the organization, Annie Wittenmyer, believed ... that it should not put efforts into woman suffrage" (wikipedia) Just as the invention of the birth control pill touched off the second wave of feminism, the introduction of rubber condoms touched off the first wave of feminism. The introduction of rubber condoms allowed prostitutes to effectively compete with wives for their husbands' dollars. ("(T)hey began to compete with prostitutes for their husbands' continuing attentions.", Sex in History, Reay Tannahill, p 411) The WCTU's second president, Frances Willard, perhaps the most famous feminist of the 19th Century, argued that women were "the superior sex" (wikipedia). "In the U.S., leaders of the feminist movement campaigned for the abolition of slavery and Temperance [prohibition of alcohol] prior to championing women's rights." (wikipedia) Suffrage (voting) was not a WCTU priority because, at the state level where American political power was concentrated, many women already had the right to vote.
"Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was eventually quite successful; by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen." ("The Campaign to Raise the Age of Consent 1885–1914". Women and Social Movements in the United States, 1600–2000. Retrieved August 25, 2011.)
"Between 1909 and 1930, thirty-three states enacted compulsory eugenic sterilization laws. Although not universal, many feminists supported these eugenic laws. The National Federation of Women's Clubs, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the National League of Women Voters, and a variety of state and local feminist organizations at some point campaigned for eugenic legal reforms." (Ziegler, Mary (2008). "Eugenic Feminism: Mental Hygiene, The Women's Movement, And The Campaign For Eugenic Legal Reform, 1900-1935". Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 31 (1): 211-236) It was eventually decided that the best form of eugenics was to free women from the burden of material needs (i.e. provided for by primarily male taxpayers) so that women could select only the most powerful and physically attractive men for breeding. This is the prevalent form of eugenics today.
WCTU feminists successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Mann Act, prohibiting prostitution. Naturally, this did not stop women from marrying men with money and avoiding men without money.
Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment, giving federal government the power to collect income taxes and reflecting a gradual shift of political power from state governments (many of which allowed both men and women to vote) to the federal government. Before this there were no federal income taxes. Instead, "the federal government was run by user fees and sales of government land and assessments to the states for services rendered." (source)
Congress passed the Seventeenth Amendment, removing the power of state legislatures to elect senators and reflecting further shift of political power from state governments (many of which allowed both men and women to vote) to the federal government. Note that the ability of women to vote at the federal level became more important as political power shifted from the states to the federal government.
WCTU feminists successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting alcohol. It was repealed in 1933.
Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote. Since women already had the right to vote in many states, the main effect of this amendment was to allow women more influence over the relatively small federal government. The federal government at the time was a tiny fraction of its current size.
"the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) voted to draft and promote a bill that would embody the ideal of no-fault divorce" and "The most prominent advocate of this position was feminist law professor Herma Hill Kay" (wikipedia)
The introduction of the birth control pill in the 1960s touched off the sexual revolution. In response, in 1969 feminists succeeded in pressuring California to become the first state to enact "no-fault" divorce. Other states followed. "No-fault" divorce rewarded women for breaking up their families because it encouraged women to abandon their responsibilities to their husbands yet keep their husbands' property and money.
"Total enrollment figures show that females outnumbered their male counterparts for the first time in the late 1970s, and they have steadily increased their numerical advantage ever since." (Forbes)
As a woman I can honestly say that for the most part it is true that men are more at risk for poverty and general unhappiness in life.
1) Government services, intervention services and charities pander to women more as they tend to be caregivers whether or not they actually decide to have kids
2) Socially, women are not expected to bear the burden of financial responsibility. Due to this, if a man does not achieve a certain level of success financially or occupationally he will never find a mate nor will he find recognition anywhere.
3) I know several friends who never sought out higher education, training or experience doing anything occupationally and planned to marry into money. So far their success rate is 100%...
4) When it comes down to it, men require less from their mates on a lot of levels as far as dating is concerned. If you can put up with him and put out you can get a man for the most part. For men though it can be difficult to cater to all the needs of a woman. Beyond the need for romanticism and sex comes a whole new level of dependency on another that women need for the most part.
5) If you just want to get laid, a woman can accomplish this so much easier than a man. Think about open relationships and why they always fail: the woman finds many men eager or willing to indulge in sex without strings attached or friends with benefits, however the man will have a much harder time finding a woman who is interested in that kind of relationship.
6) The world is kinder to women in general: Since radical, cultural and social feminism broke out in the 1920's the world has begun to become much more sensitive to women. In part it is because the world feels they owe women something after so much maltreatment and lack of equal rights in the past.
7) Men are more prone to alcoholism (it is a fact)
8) Men are more prone to sexual dysfunction, and earlier than women
9) Women tend to outlive men for the most par
Women do have it pretty good in comparison to men...
I'm an anti-feminist woman. I'm seventeen years old, living in Ireland, and my state exam results at age fifteen placed me among the 100 brightest students of my age group in the country. At the age of sixteen I did DATs (Differential Aptitude Tests) which showed I was among the top 5 brightest students of my age group in my county of about 150,000 people. I'm going to college this year and plan to have a masters degree in physics by the age of 21. I then want to do a doctorate and work in research, probably in mainland Europe (I'm fluent in four languages, including English). I am currently attending school full-time, studying extra subjects outside school, and have a part-time job in which I work about 20 hours a week. Both of my parents are unemployed, so things are difficult, but I am going to be able to get enough scholarships to make going to college easy. I have managed to achieve all these things despite the fact that my family is extremely disfunctional (my father suffers from serious mental illness and alcoholism, and my parents have huge amounts of debt due to bad business investments).
I don't have a 1950s (there's no apostrophe by the way) mindset. I just don't think I should have life any easier than my male counterparts because I'm female. Feminism has led to a situation where society seems to go out of its way to make sure everything is easier for women than it is for men. If you really believe that women are as capable as men (as I do), why do you think we have to make sure things are easier for women? As though compensating for some natural inferiority?
While feminists claim to be pursuing justice for women, it is becoming ever more apparent that their actual goal is the obliteration of justice. More precisely, their aim is to eliminate that which makes justice possible: objective standards.
Instead of urging employers, for example, to adopt objective standards of merit in hiring and to apply them consistently to all candidates, irrespective of the (irrelevant) fact of gender, feminists call for the very opposite. They demand the lowering or the suspension of standards, in order to accommodate certain women. They no longer argue that women who meet objective qualifications ought not to be rejected solely on account of their sex (an argument which would merit moral, though not legislative, backing); rather, they declare that females who fail to qualify should be accepted solely on account of their sex.
Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology? Have you had your fill of feminist "Ms./Information"? Have you been mislead by factually challenged professors?
TAKE THIS TEST:
Campus feminism is a kind of cult: as early as freshman orientation, professors begin spinning theories about how American women are oppressed under "patriarchy." Here is a list of the most common feminist myths. If you believe two or more of these untruths, you may need deprogramming.
The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths:
1. Myth: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape.
Fact: This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their "attacker" again.
Rape is a uniquely horrible crime. That is why we need sober and responsible research. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria. Truth is no enemy of compassion, and falsehood is no friend.
(Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, "The Making of an Epidemic," Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993; and Neil Gilbert, "Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape," Current Controversies in Family Violence eds. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132; and Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. *According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.)
2. Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.
Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
(Essential reading: Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, published by the Independent Women's Forum and the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.)
3. Myth: 30 percent of emergency room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.
Fact: This incendiary statistic is promoted by gender feminists whose primary goal seems to be to impugn men. Two responsible government studies report that the nationwide figure is closer to one percent. While these studies may have missed some cases of domestic violence, the 30% figure is a wild exaggeration.
(National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary , Hyattsville, Maryland, March 1997; and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments: Washington, D.C., August 1997.)
4. Myth: The phrase "rule of thumb" originated in a man's right to beat his wife provided the stick was no wider than his thumb.
Fact: This is an urban legend that is still taken seriously by activist law professors and harassment workshoppers. The Oxford English Dictionary has more than twenty citations for phrase "rule of thumb" (the earliest from 1692), but not a single mention of beatings, sticks, or husbands and wives.
(For a definitive debunking of the hoax see Henry Ansgar Kelly, "Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick," The Journal of Legal Education, September 1994.)
5. Myth: Women have been shortchanged in medical research.
Fact: The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH's National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trails.
(Essential reading: Cathy Young and Sally Satel, "The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine," Washington, D.C.: The Women's Freedom Network, 1997.)
6.Myth: Girls have been shortchanged in our gender-biased schools
Fact: No fair-minded person can review the education data and conclude that girls are the have-nots in our schools. Boys are slightly ahead of girls in math and science; girls are dramatically ahead in reading and writing. (The writing skills of 17-year-old boys are at the same level as 14-year- old girls.) Girls get better grades, they have higher aspirations, and they are more likely to go to college.
(See: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000.)
7. Myth: "Our schools are training grounds for sexual harassment... boys are rarely punished, while girls are taught that it is their role to tolerate this humiliating conduct."
(National Organization of Women, "Issue Report: Sexual Harassment," April 1998.)
Fact: "Hostile Hallways," is the best-known study of harassment in grades 8-11. It was commissioned by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1993, and is a favorite of many harassment experts. But this survey revealed that girls are doing almost as much harassing as the boys. According to the study, "85 percent of girls and 76 percent of boys surveyed say they have experienced unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with their lives."
(Four scholars at the University of Michigan did a careful follow-up study of the AAUW data and concluded: "The majority of both genders (53%) described themselves as having been both victim and perpetrator of harassment -- that is most students had been harassed and had harassed others." And these researchers draw the right conclusion: "Our results led us to question the simple perpetrator-victim model...")(See: American Education Research Journal, Summer 1996.)
8. Myth: Girls suffer a dramatic loss of self-esteem during adolescence.
Fact: This myth of the incredible shrinking girls was started by Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Gilligan has always enjoyed higher standing among feminist activists and journalists than among academic research psychologists. Scholars who follow the protocols of social science do not accept the reality of an adolescent "crisis" of confidence and "loss of voice." In 1993, American Psychologist reported the new consensus among researchers in adolescent development: "It is now known that the majority of adolescents of both genders successfully negotiate this developmental period without any major psychological or emotional disorder [and] develop a positive sense of personal identity."
(Anne C. Petersen et al. "Depression in Adolescence," American Psychologist February 1993; see also, Daniel Offer, and Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, "Debunking the Myths of Adolescence: Findings from Recent Research," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, November 1992.)
9. Myth: Gender is a social construction.
Fact: While environment and socialization do play a significant role in human life, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 40 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. In general, males have better spatial reasoning skills; females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk takers; females are more nurturing.
Of course, this does not mean that women should be prevented from pursuing their goals in any field they choose; what it does suggest is that we should not expect parity in all fields. More women than men will continue to want to stay at home with small children and pursue careers in fields like early childhood education or psychology; men will continue to be over-represented in fields like helicopter mechanics and hydraulic engineering.
Warning: Most gender scholars in our universities have degrees in fields like English or comparative literature--not biology or neuroscience. These self-appointed experts on sexuality are scientifically illiterate. They substitute dogma and propaganda for reasoned scholarship.
(For a review of recent findings on sex differences see a special issue of The Scientific American "Men: The Scientific Truth," Fall 2000.)
10. Myth: Women's Studies Departments empowered women and gave them a voice in the academy.
Fact: Women's Studies empowered a small group of like-minded careerists. They have created an old-girl network that is far more elitist, narrow and closed than any of the old-boy networks they rail against. Vast numbers of moderate or dissident women scholars have been marginalized, excluded and silenced.
(Essential reading: everything by Camille Paglia; Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge--Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies; and Christina Hoff Sommers--Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women)
**Should you encounter an item of Ms/information in one of your classes, in a textbook, or a women's center "fact" sheet, let us know. We will print it on our campus website, SheThinks.org, correct it with accurate information, and politely inform the source of the mistake.
We are a women's group dedicated to restoring reason, common sense and open discussion to the campus.
In 2007, 905.6 American men died for every 643.4 women who died. That means American men died 1.4 times as often.
In 2007, 18.4 American men committed suicide for every 4.7 women who committed suicide. That means American men committed suicide 3.91 times as often. It doesn't take a psychologist to recognize that people become depressed and commit suicide when they have no hope of getting their basic needs met.
In 2007, 9.6 American men were homicide victims for every 2.5 women who were homicide victims. That means American men were killed 3.84 times as often.
In 2007, 55.2 American men died from accidents (e.g. men felt the need to assume jobs with greater risk) for every 25.8 women who died from accidents. That means more than twice as many American men died from accidents.
Do you suppose those facts are taught in women's studies classes?
Understanding how the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey of 2010 defines "rape"
The broadening of the definition of rape results in a corresponding expansion of the reported incidence. Amongst other things, this has implications regarding the perception of the extent of the problem and the need for resources when various bodies apply for funding.
A commonly cited study looking at the incidence of rape at 32 American colleges found that, according to the definition of rape used by the director of the survey, Mary Koss, 17% of 6,159 female students had been victims of rape or attempted rape an average of twice between the ages of 14 and 21. Koss was, however, appalled that most of these women did not know they had been raped. in fact, 73% whom Koss categorized as victims did not think that they had been raped, and 42% had subsequently had sex again with the man who supposedly raped them (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). Some feminist authors, for instance Catherine MacKinnon (1987) and Andrea Dworkin (1988) even suggest that because of the power imbalance between men and women, women can never freely give consent, and all acts of sexual intercourse are effectively rape.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey takes similar liberties with the definition of rape:
The report states "1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives" yet also states "Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime; most men who were made to penetrate someone else reported that the perpetrator was either an intimate partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance (44.7%)." Since when does being forced to have sex not constitute rape?
This report fails to account for men being raped in prisons. The report states "although potentially mitigated by the use of a cell-phone sample, RDD surveys may not capture populations living in institutions (e.g., prisons, nursing homes, military bases, college dormitories), or those who may be living in shelters, or homeless and transient;"
The survey was conducted by telephone. Some people chose to participate in the 24.7 minute (median length) survey; others did not. People wanting to report sexual violence were more motivated to participate the survey. People who had not experienced sexual violence were less inclined to participate in the survey, or invent fictional stories of sexual violence. The survey is inherently biased (greatly overstates the rate of sexual violence) because it does not represent people who chose not to participate in the survey. The $10 reward offered to survey participants may have led participants to believe they would only complete the survey, thus receive the reward, if they reported stories of sexual violence.
The survey does not distinguish between completed rape, attempted penetration, consensual sex involving alcohol or drugs, and consensual sex where a person did not receive what they expected in exchange for sex. According to the report, all of these constitute rape. The report states "population-based surveys that collect information directly from victims remain one of the most important sources of data ... that may not be considered a crime by victims ..."
The report defines "harassing a person in a public place in a way that made the person feel unsafe" as sexual violence victimization. When asked the question "have you ever felt harassed in a public place in a way that made you feel unsafe", a yes answer was listed as an incident of sexual violence victimization.
According to the report, survey participants were asked "How many people have ever exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?" The survey did not ask whether this had occurred in a consenting context. Any response other than "none" was classified as an incident of sexual violence.
According to the report, survey participants were asked "How many of your romantic or sexual partners have ever kept you from having money for your own use?" Survey respondents who interpreted this to mean that their partners did not give (or pay) them enough money were classified as victims of sexual coercion.
The report defines "sexual coercion" as sexual violence victimization, and states "Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is ... repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy;"
The report states "More than half of female victims of rape (51.1%) reported that at least one perpetrator was a current or former intimate partner (Table 2.5). Four out of 10 of female victims (40.8%) reported being raped by an acquaintance."
Only 2.5% of women respondents (13.8% of self-identified rape victims) claimed they had been "raped" (defined to include attempted by unsuccessful penetration and consensual sex involving alcohol or drugs) by someone they had not chosen to be with.
The report defines unwanted telephone calls as violence. By its own definition, the very act of conducting this telephone survey could be considered violence!
The report defines name calling as "expressive aggression" and violence.
Only female interviewers administered the survey. These female interviewers were clearly asking for reports of sexual violence, rewarding such reports with sympathy and attention, and did nothing to discourage false reports.
This survey and report serves to perpetuate misandry in the United States and was funded at taxpayer expense.
False information propagated by government = propaganda.
If a woman were similarly wounded by a man, no one would treat it with ghoulish humor. Men are evidently fair game...
No, the feminists didn't choose Lorena Bobbitt because she was a good victim. She doesn't symbolize battered women at all. They chose her for another reason, perfectly articulated by one of the spectators at the trial: "It's every woman's fantasy," she said.
That's it. This case is gripping the media because they really believe that most women feel that way deep down. And that is not just crazy, it's very sad. If feminists are seething with such hatred for men, that is evidence of a politics bordering on pathology.
To see the mutilation of a man's body as a political act and to signal secret approval and a vicarious thrill is not [the original] feminism -- it truly deserves the label "the politics of hate."
If, like so many others, your reaction to the above was "What must he have done to deserve it?" then you have already found him "guilty by reason of penis."
“. . . this whole saga drives home the need for swift passage of a comprehensive version of the Violence Against Women Act . . . .”
"On the plane to Chicago, preparing to bow out as president of NOW, feeling powerless to fight the man-haters openly and refusing to front for them, I suddenly knew what had to be done." - Betty Friedan Explains Writing The Feminine Mystique, Witness to America: A Documentary History of the United States from the Revolution to Today, Douglas Brinkley, page 463
Does the National Organization for Women speak for you? Is the cutting of a penis an act of violence against women? Does honesty matter to you? Would you want to be known for supporting a dishonest cause? Would you like to know why fewer women today are openly calling themselves feminists? If their doctrine had influenced, affected or shaped your life, would you want to know how? If so, keep reading...
Let's try an exercise to evaluate your way of thinking. Has it ever bothered you that only males are expected to sign up for the selective service? That it is only males expected to go and die in case of a national emergency? Does that bug you? Okay, now imagine that congress in all its wisdom has changed the law and decided that we need to draft only girls and women until an equal number of women and girls have died in combat to the numbers of men and boys who have died. Would that upset you? Why? Do you value women and girls more than boys and men? How about if we decided to draft only Black people? Maybe only Jews? Would either of those groups being sacrificed upset you? Would you protest for any of those to not be the only group drafted? Can you feel in your bones how upsetting that would be? If you answered yes to any of those questions, how was your response different from thinking it is okay to draft only men? If you had a different reaction then you are likely holding some of that tendency to consider men and boys to be more disposable.
You can see this tendency in many places. Boys and men comprise almost 80% of suicides and yet we have no outcry or services specifically for this. Men and boys are over 90% of the workplace deaths in the United States but no one seems to notice. Over 97% if the deaths of U.S. servicemen in Iraq are men and boys and yet we hear no protest in support of men and boys or calls for equality. Men are the victims of domestic violence in considerable numbers and yet we have no services directed towards their needs. All we need to do is open our eyes to see the extent that men and boys are seen as expendable. It is all around us. Ever heard of the wife telling the husband she will go investigate the loud noise that awoke them from a deep sleep?
Yahoo Questions: Q: "Why do most women reject feminism?" A: "Because they can see the lies, hypocrisy, double-standards, sexism and blatant hatred within the movement."
"We’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses; we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule.” -Christina Hoff Sommers, 2011
As much as nearly every American woman (and many men) seems to have been brainwashed to believe that women need men like fish need bicycles (how many women do you hear speaking out against this?) the truth is the USA would rapidly become a land of mass starvation if all men suddenly refused to work the oil rigs, work the iron and coal mines, build and fix the factories, ships and heavy machinery, and do the physically strenuous jobs that cause men to suffer 94% of workplace fatalities. Sooner or later we're going to run out of oil - get ready to see a lot of fish riding bicycles.
"The story of Abusegate is as much about the attempt by feminists to obscure their real intentions as it is about feminist attempts to conceal the reality of partner abuse, in order to claim the issue as their own, and possibly the only issue available at the time to keep this essentially destructive philosophy alive." (Trudy W. Schuett: Abusegate: a generation deceived)
Understanding the foundation of a dishonest ideology: "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman" - Catharine MacKinnon, leading feminist
"The phenomenon of false rape allegations is an ultimate feminist taboo; indeed, leading feminist legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon has stated that “feminism is built on believing women’s accounts of sexual use and abuse by men.” In some instances of political correctness run amok at universities, students and professors have been accused of “harassment” for so much as raising the possibility of false accusations in class or in online discussions ... 40 percent of rape reports filed in an Indiana town over a 10-year period turned out to be false by the “victim’s” own admission ... a Washington Post investigation in Virginia and Maryland found that nearly one in four rape reports in 1990-91 were rejected as unfounded, and many of the women in those cases admitted they had lied when the newspaper contacted them." (Cathy Young, The Noble Lie, Feminist Style, The Weekly Standard) (Note: accusations of harassment frequently result in expulsion or termination of students, professors and staff.)
"According to the logic of IDPOL (identity politics and ideological policing), one must always act in one's own group's interest as long as that group is oppressed. Oppressors are assumed to be doing the same for their side, but they should be castigated for doing so. Thus, a man who does not support a feminist cause is automatically a sexist; a white person who disagrees with a black person's position is a racist. The reverse, however, is not the case. Consequently, those defined as oppressed place a high premium on keeping that identity." (Feminist and former Director of Women's Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Daphne Patai & Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies, 2003)
Google: feminism is "nothing more than female supremacy" (About 983 results) Some may be surprised to learn that many of the laws we are required to follow today, such as no-fault divorce and taxation to fund housing for women only, were originally written by feminists. Does arbitrary divorce help children? The statistics used to promote feminism and the creation of the laws we must live with today, such as "1/4 of college women have been raped", "only 2% (or 8%) of rape charges are false", "women only make X cents per each dollar a man makes for the same work", "men inflict more domestic violence than women" and "single mothers have no problem raising healthy, functional, well-adjusted kids without fathers" are simple blatant lies. Why must we continue living a lie? Why must innocent children continue paying for feminists' lies?
The places on our planet that have little or no feminism are populated by children who know their own fathers.
Did you know that breast feeding is proven by the National Institutes of Health to significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer? If feminists wanted you to know that, don't you think the media would have told you that by now?
"People who confuse feminism with egalitarianism have missed the conspiracy of feminism." (nagaitosiya.com)
"In January, prodded in part by outrage over a series of articles in the New York Review of Books, the Justice Department finally released an estimate of the prevalence of sexual abuse in penitentiaries. The reliance on filed complaints appeared to understate the problem. For 2008, for example, the government had previously tallied 935 confirmed instances of sexual abuse. After asking around, and performing some calculations, the Justice Department came up with a new number: 216,000. That’s 216,000 victims, not instances. These victims are often assaulted multiple times over the course of the year. The Justice Department now seems to be saying that prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes committed in the US in 2008, likely making the United States the first country in the history of the world to count more rapes for men than for women." (source)
About the myth "rape is a crime of violence, not of sex": "Feminists somehow managed the nigh-miraculous feat of getting nearly everyone in American society to drink the “rape has nothing to do with sex” kool-aid despite the fact that most of the people repeating this inane mantra are adults who know very well that rape cannot be accomplished unless the rapist is sexually aroused! But despite its absurdity, the “rape as asexual” dogma continues to be promulgated in the US by both government and neofeminists for the very good reason that if women realized that rape is largely caused by sexual frustration, they would collectively demand that prostitution be legalized and that would NOT satisfy the prohibitionist agenda. A number of cross-cultural studies such as this one have shown that in every culture where prostitution is legalized, the rape rate dramatically decreases;"
"Feminism has been on the down-low with old school chivalry right from the start, and they might seem like strange bedfellows but they are not because both concepts are built on a firm foundation of female self-interest." (girlwriteswhat)
"One of things they will never acknowledge is that no matter how your perspective is, the feminists, white knights, the media misandrists, and politicians will not come to grips that they have a mammoth hand in crafting the anti-male environment we have now. Openly admitting it would be confessing their guilt even with all the blatant disgust for men and masculinity that has been ongoing. Yet when men criticize feminism and its supporters and adherents for what they are and what they do, we are automatically branded as misogynists. It’s damned if we do, and damned if we don’t." (failuresforgodesses.blogspot.com)
Kay Hymowitz, Why Are Men So Angry? "That’s the bait; here comes the switch. Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure."
"clearsight" writing on Jezebel: "Yes, privilege is not evenly distributed amongs the members of the privileged class. But, honestly, I think that the vast majority of women could have done this at least at some point in their life. I truly believe that women are held to lower standards of coolness than men is a more universally true privilege than men are held to lower standards of beauty. Women who benefit from this are not necessarily trophies whose men do not respect them. I think that men feel more pressure and women feel less pressure to be interesting. Women make up for this in other ways such as being beautiful, considerate, loving, and just plain being there. Clearly you dislike this, and so do I. I wish everybody tried to be the best person he or she could be. But I also recognize that if I stopped caring about being interesting I could definitely get away with it, because I am female. And that is unearned privilege. Your posts portrays men as negatively as possible, and portrays women as oppressed as possible. I believe that men often will pay for dates simply because they just want the woman's time and attention. I have written my opinions further up this thread if you want to check them out."
Just as every person who buys food participates in the economy, every person who has sex participates in the Sexual Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_economy). The oldest feminist organization still in existence (the Women's Christian Temperance Union) was the driving force behind the prohibition of alcohol (which lasted for a few years) and prostitution in the United States (see below).
"Most women recoil from genuine equality. Responsibility as men know it is usually not much fun. But while women want equal pay for equal work, they don't want to have to work unless they want to. Women are infuriated by any perception that they are inferior to men, but also infuriated by the prospect of men not paying for dates. Women who disdain traditional gender roles in all other aspects of life - at home, at work, etc. - will gladly embrace traditional gender roles when it comes to dating. Why? Simple, those roles in dating work in their favor. No risk of rejection (at least initially) since they rarely ask men out and less expense since men undoubtedly pay the lion's share of costs during dating." (source unknown)
The Story of a False Accusation
I was taken to Oregon State Penitentiary, Oregon's toughest prison, holding the most violent offenders in the state. I slowly adjusted to the harsh realities of prison life. Six months later I was taken in front of five members of the Oregon Parole Board to decide if I would spend the whole ten years the judge had sentenced me to in this hell hole.
Also present at my hearing was the DA who wrongfully prosecuted me, the hate filled rape crisis counselor, and the "victim," looking again pathetic. Throughout the hearing the "victim" cried and blubbered repeatedly, but this time her "show" didn't work.
Since this was not a rape trial, I could present all the evidence to the parole board. I presented them with the "victim's"" past psychological reports that showed her to be very unstable long before I ever met her. I showed them how she lied that I was the father of her child, her motive in making her claim of rape in the first place, the $24,000 profit she gained by her imaginary "attack," and her past false accusations of rape.
These "three stooges," the DA, rape counselor, and the "victim," were stunned. the DA said I was dangerous and had been caught in Alaska with a "loaded" shot gun. I showed the board the arrest record saying the gun was unloaded, nor did I have any shells on me. The DA was warned not to lie to the parole board. The rape crisis counselor said that even though there was no physical evidence nor was this poor girl harmed in any outward appearance, she had suffered greatly and was now under a psychiatrist's care. Again she begged for the "victim" to receive more money.
The Parole Board concluded that "the victim" was not harmed in any way, physically or emotionally, and there were not even threats of violence. The chairman of the parole board questioned the "victim" on her lies that I was the father of her child and also stated there was evidence this "victim" aided in the criminal episode. Six years would be deducted from my p
This still left me to serve four years in a prison for a crime I did not commit. A month after this hearing I escaped from prison. I was a "free man" for 18 months until my recapture. I was sent back to prison in Oregon and given more prison time.
As for my "victim," I hear she bought a new truck with her "blood money" and spent the rest of it on drugs. She is now broke, back on welfare, and continues with her sorry life. I wonder if she has been "raped" again and has filed another law suit for "damages." It was easy enough the first time.
False accusations of rape are nothing new. From the Bible, Egyptian Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Joseph. When this failed, she accused him of rape and had him thrown in prison.
Motives for falsely accusing men of rape make up a long list.
The justice system in the U.S. used to recognize that false accusations are easily made and common place, and used to require some sort of evidence in charging a man with rape, bringing him to trial, and then throwing him in prison.
In this day and age, however, no evidence is needed, just the accusation. The American public has been so programmed by the radical Feminist controlled medias that no one even seems to realize that false accusations of rape have been destroying men's lives and their families for years. The media is full of bias against men and over inflated statistics to keep the fires at the stake burning on the over reported rape issue.
Here is an example of the male hating rhetoric I have read. Some of these are so ingrained into the public's mind they are taken as fact:
"One in four men are rapists."
"Only ten percent of rapes are reported."
"Most women do not know when they've been raped."
"All women are victims of men."
"Rape is the most under reported crime."
"Even innocence should not be a defense in an accusation of rape."
"Any sex between a man and a woman is rape."
and so on ...
Even though these and other statements go against proven fact and common sense, the medias continue this type of feminist propaganda and myth that portrays all men as predators. That only promotes false accusations.
In The Liberator's "Statistic of the Month, April 1992", we see the way Feminist propaganda is exposed by fact:
"Percentage of female students estimated by feminists to have been raped on the UC Berkeley Campus: 25 percent. Number that comprises 25 percent of the females on the UC Berkeley campus in an average year: 3,000. Over the last two years the number of rapes actually reported at the UC Berkeley: two."
Here we have an example of feminist rhetoric that would have us believe that 3,000 rapes are committed at UC Berkeley every year. But when one looks at the facts only two rapes were actually committed in a two year period--we can see that the statistic given by the feminists is outrageously overblown. Why do they wish to make UC Berkeley appear so dangerous to women? It is clear they do not wish to promote equality and justice, but these types of feminists wish to promote hatred and fear among the female population at the campus to that they in turn will join the noble cause of the Militant Man-Hating Feminist movement. Be creating a false rape hysteria at the school they hope to further their cult of eternal victims of men.
A. We live in a society in which most females still expect the males to pay for the expense of dates, and dating regularly is far more expensive than many males can afford. And, a great many women are attracted to men who appear to have a lot of money to spend on them. If a woman is unemployed, she can still go out on dates with men who pay for everything. Conversely, they don't generally want to go out with guys who are broke and have nothing, particularly if a guy doesn't have a job. I've personally heard women who were talking about men in general say that at least a thousand times.
In other words, it is far more important for a man to have material possessions, like a nice car, spending money, etc., than it is for a woman. Virtually all men are aware of this, even though women almost invariably claim that such things don't matter to them, when it really does. Hence, many more men feel the necessity to commit crimes much more than women do, mainly in order to obtain more material possessions and live a more affluent lifestyle, thereby attracting more women-or at least some woman.
Besides that, many more women commit crimes than you might think. However, when women do get caught, men will often take the rap for them, usually so that their children will have a their mother free to care for them.
Besides that, guilty women often turn state's evidence against the men, in order to get themselves off without being convicted and sent to prison, because they don't want to lose their children. Any cop knows that a complicit woman is almost always the one to lean on for cooperation (snitching), particularly if she is in danger of losing her children by going to prison.
I can already hear the screaming, shrieking chorus of outraged women denying all the things that I just said, for a multitude of different reasons-even though most women know that all these things are very often true.
The Oppressed Class With a Privileged Status
The feminist claim that women are an oppressed class of people is one of the biggest lies of all time. It would be impossible to find a single example in history in which a group that cast more than 50 per cent of the vote got away with calling itself the victim of oppression. Or an example of an oppressed group which chooses to vote for their "oppressors" more than it chooses to have its own members take responsibility for running for office. Women are the only minority group that is a majority, the only group that calls itself "oppressed" that is able to control who is elected to every office in virtually every community in the country. Power is not in who holds the office, power is in who chooses who holds the office. Blacks, Irish, and Jews never had more than a small fraction of America's vote.
Women are the only "oppressed" group to share the same parents as the "oppressor;" to be born into the middle-class and upper-class as frequently as the "oppressor;" to own more of the culture's luxury items than the "oppressor;" the only "oppressed" group to own the majority of wealth in a nation, the only "oppressed" group to have 142 per cent more net worth than the "oppressor", the only "oppressed" group whose "unpaid labor" or unearned income, enables them to buy most of the fifty billion dollars' worth of cosmetics sold each year; the only "oppressed" group that spends more on high-fashion, brand name clothing than their "oppressors;" the only "oppressed" group that watches more TV during every time category than their "oppressors."
If men are the "Ruling Class", they must be the most self sacrificing, and benevolent bunch of dictators in history!
"In her elegant, feminist cri de coeur, A Room of One's Own, written in
1928, Virginia Woolf wondered why men, who have so much power in the
world, always seem to be so angry. She did not get it that in addition
to men's natural male-beastly competitiveness, they get irritated about
being such a disposable class of human beings in the world. If women are the victims, why is it the men who wind up dead?
Not so long before Woolf wrote, for example, World War I destroyed an
entire generation of European men on the battlefield -- 8.5 million of
them. Woolf and her sisters did not fight in that war. Similarly, the
names of more than 58,000 men are on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial
in Washington -- and those of eight women.
Feminism's stated goal of real equality between the sexes will
begin to be credible when females are required to register for the
draft at 18, as males are, when 50% of combat units must be women -- in
short, when women are paying 50% of the real price, not only in war but
also in society's other sacrificial exercises.
Why -- aside
from the fact that they are jerks -- do men get angry? Does it have
something to do with the fact that they die seven years earlier than
women do, with rates of heart disease, ulcers, suicide, alcoholism and
other stress diseases considerably higher than those of women? Are they
angry because something in their conditioned or instinctive social
roles as men revs them up in order to expose them to the worst dangers,
like dying in war, like being killed in the line of duty as policemen
and fire fighters, or otherwise doing the dirty, dangerous work; 93% of
people killed on the job are men. The more dangerous the job, the
greater the percentage of men who are doing it. Federal, state
and local governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars protecting
women workers from sexual harassment, while millions of men are still
left substantially unprotected from premature death by industrial
Actually, the real reason men get angry is
not the danger or premature death. It is mostly because they feel
unappreciated. Men are fairly simple creatures.
has made men's case admirably in a book called The Myth of Male Power.
Farrell for some years was the country's leading male feminist
advocate. But he came gradually to the conviction that the feminist
take on men left out an important part of the story: the real
powerlessness of most men. In any case: "Feminism suggested that God
might be a 'she,' but not that the devil might also be a 'she.'
Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of
women. It neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men."
quarrel lies not with feminism per se, but with feminism incompletely
or dishonestly or opportunistically pursued. Women must do their share,
not just take the share they find attractive. Equality must be equality
in all things, not just in the professional opportunities that white
middle- and upper- middle-class women wish to exploit. Equality is a
matter of real responsibility and risk, of accepting the liabilities as
well as claiming the assets.
Women now control the
vast majority of consumer dollars in America -- especially the
discretionary dollars. If that is not power, and privilege, what is? An
extraplanetary visitor, scouting a report for The Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy perhaps, might look at the evidence of their lives (the
myriad labor-saving devices, the opulent food and shelter, the sheer
abundance of choices that most of the rest of the world desperately
envies) and come to the conclusion that white middle- and
upper-middle-class American women -- from whose ranks themajority of militant feminists arise, the ones who call themselves "womyn" to keep the hated syllable "men" out of their identity -- are the most privileged people in the history of the planet. The alien would be stoned to death for saying it, however.
will women take full responsibility, fifty-fifty with men, for
initiating sexual contacts, thereby assuming the occasionally painful
risks of rejection? That risk of rejection makes men, who usually must
take the active part, not only look foolish many times, but also appear
to be sexual harassers, when in fact they may be merely inept. A
successful approach to a woman is called romance and courtship. An
unsuccessful approach is called sexual harassment and may be a crime.
politics goes against the animal behaviorist's insight that females
organize their lives around the getting of resources (food, shelter,
nice things) while males organize themselves around the getting of
The collision produces a dishonest configuration. Women
elaborately manipulate and exploit men's natural sexual attraction to
the female body, and then deny the manipulation and prosecute men for
the attraction -- if the attraction draws in the wrong man.
Women cannot for long combine fiery indignation and continuing
passivity (attempting to have the best of both those worlds)."
Above text quoted from Time Magazine, Men Are They Really That Bad? by LANCE MORROW;John F. Dickerson/New York, Jon D. Hull/Chicago and Martha Smilgis/Los Angeles
"We will never stop fighting for our rights? You make it sound like we don't already have them, and in spades. I am a 32 year old woman with a husband, four kids, a college education, and I have served ten years in the military. You could safely say that I have access to all the things the "feminist" movement was crusading to earn. The problem is that once they got what they wanted, there was nowhere to go. We were left with thousands of strong, fired up, angry women who no longer had a cause to fight for.
It reminds me of a line from the end of The Princess Bride, where Inigo Montoya has finally found and killed the six-fingered man. He says, "Revenge has become my whole life. Now that's it's over, I don't know what to do."
So instead of saying that their cause was legitimate, they won their rights, and moving on, they looked for new things against which to fight. They became litigious and petty. "You oppose abortion? That's because only women can get pregnant and you hate women." "You disagree with the opinion of a female politician? That's because you're a sexist and you can't stand to see women in power." "My boss promoted a man instead of me. It can't be because I was late six times in the last month, it must be because he likes men better."
I don't agree with the article completely - I don't think that feminism alone has ruined America. But I do think that the more recent part of the feminist movement is what caused the decline of the nuclear family."
"Okay, if you're a feminist does that not make you explicitly sexist? In fact more than anyone else in society -- at par with the male chauvinists. Think about it.
"Feminists and feminist marriage counselors tell women and men that women should only have sex when they feel like it and to disregard men’s needs. This message has become common in mainstream marriage counseling. In all sincerity, is this not the ultimate in self centeredness? Is not love defined as putting the needs of your partner above your own. It is widely reported in studies published in women’s magazines that about 60% of the married couples out there have sex about once a week. For most husbands that is tantamount to a starvation diet of sex once a week or less.
Typically the woman gives her husband sex on Saturday night. The idea being, that she is now rested and relaxed enough to engage in sex, knowing that it is not a work night for her. Would any woman support giving kids a hug only once a week on Saturday night. Imagine when a child is feeling bad or sad and comes to mom for a hug and she says; “now you know that I only give hugs once a week on Saturday night.” Of course that notion is ridiculous and yet the feminists support the notion of doing it to their husbands. It is a logical and factual inconsistency and a continuing example of dominance demanded by the feminists. In what way does that resolve the issue of frequency in a marriage?
Most feminists are liars! That of course is an inflammatory statement. Before you dismiss that claim, allow yourself to read the ongoing evidence in this chapter with an open mind. At the end of the chapter, you must decide for yourself the veracity of that statement.
Feminists claim to desire equality. They don’t want equality, they want ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE. If feminists truly wanted equality, that would include equality for men as well. Equality after all means that both men and women are equal and should receive equal treatment. Do men get equal treatment? Well the feminists claim that women should only have sex when they feel like it. If men and women were truly equal in a relationship, men would have the opportunity to have sex with their wives on one night, and the women would have the opportunity to not have sex on the next night. If men were equal, then the wives would be giving their husbands sex 3-4 times a week. If that were the case, then we would not be arguing about sex. After all, sex is one of THE BIG THREE that couples argue about. There is nothing equal in demanding the right for women to refuse sex to their husbands any time that they want to. After all, isn’t the ultimate definition of equality is sharing equally? Is not the definition of love putting your partner’s needs above your own? Would any woman support the notion that a husband should only be allowed to eat when his wife feels like allowing him to eat?
If you reduce that demand to its logical consequences, it reduces men as nothing more than stud service on demand. The man does not get sexual satisfaction when he wants it. He has to wait until the wife is in the mood and willing whenever that might happen. Far too many men have complained not only in counseling but in letters to Ann Landers and Dear Abby, that they suffer from frequency of once or twice a month. Other men have complained about not getting sex literally in years. Explain how anyone can justify that as equality?
Remember that back in the 80′s women sportswriters sued the NFL because they were not allowed in the men’s locker rooms. They claimed that they were being unfairly discriminated against. The men’s right to privacy was completely abdicated and the women have been in the locker rooms ever since with naked men running around. The feminists argued that the right to privacy allowed them to kill their unborn children, but they did not see irony in denying a man to his right to privacy in the locker room. Now if there were equality, would it not stand to reason that male sportswriters should be allowed in women’s locker rooms? Do you see men sportswriters in women’s tennis player’s locker rooms? Of course not. Do you see men allowed in the locker rooms of women volleyball players? Of course not. Do we see men sportswriters in the locker rooms of women golfers? Of course not. I ask you, are we practicing equality? We are practicing reverse sexism and dominance on the part of women.
Women have successfully sued to join men’s clubs and golf clubs. Do we see women’s clubs opening up their clubs for male members? Of course not, we are seeing dominance and reverse sexism.
Women have successfully sued to have women allowed to attend all boy’s academies and colleges. Yet when an all girl’s school officials decided to open enrollment to men because of declining enrollments, we saw televised pictures of weeping women tearing out their hair and screaming and throwing themselves on the ground. Please. Feminists don’t want equality, they want dominance. Their behavior and attitudes portray nothing but that.
In the city of Saint Paul , Minnesota , women successfully sued the Fire Department claiming that the physical testing requirements were designed to keep women out of the firefighter’s department. What the physical requirements were designed to do is to weed out weak men. After all, for example, a firefighter is called upon to pick up a 200lb unconscious man in a fireman’s carry and run down a flight of stairs so as to save his life. The requirements were watered down to satisfy the successful lawsuit where two female firefighters can now drag that same 200lb man down the flight of stairs. Now you have 3 people whose lives are at stake. What about the injuries incurred by the unconscious man as he is being unceremoniously dragged down the steps? Now we have two women taking the place of one man. What happened to equality? Feminists scream about equal pay for equal work and yet the two firefighters taking the place of one firefighter will get the same pay for half of the work. Is this equality? No, it is dominance and reverse sexism. Suppose a woman comes home and finds out that her house is on fire and her husband is trapped inside unconscious from smoke inhalation on the second floor bedroom. What emotions would go through a wife’s mind as she saw two female firefighters going in to get him out? How would she feel watching them dragging her husband down the flight of steps, his body and head banging on the steps on the way down? Would she not rather have a big strong man throw her husband over his shoulder and run down that flight of steps? According to the feminists, that woman would be guilty of sexism if she had wished it was a man carrying her husband or adult son down the steps. Is it worth risking his life in order to have social engineering? These are the kinds of attitudes and ideas foisted upon the public that causes men to have tremendous resentment towards women. Truly the battle of the sexes has not improved but gotten more entrenched. More and more we have a liberal court practi
cing political correctness and giving to the feminist’s dominance rather than equality.
If a woman gets pregnant, she can saddle the man for child support for up to 22 years. If the man does not pay, he can be jailed, have his driver’s license revoked, his salary garnisheed, his tax refund’s seized, etc. If the woman does not give the man court ordered visitation the courts do nothing to the offending mother. Is this equality? No, it is dominance.
If a woman gets pregnant, she can decide on her own to kill the baby in her womb. The father has absolutely no say so or any rights to the child. Is this equality? It is dominance.
If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the child and she is hit by a car, then she can have the driver charged with vehicular homicide if the baby is killed in the accident. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance, it is playing God. It is a baby if she decides it is for lawsuit purposes, but not a baby if she chooses to kill it through abortion.
If a woman gets pregnant, she can go right to term and have the baby delivered feet first in the breech position. The whole body is delivered, but the head is still in the birth canal. The physician stabs the baby in the skull and sucks its brains out and collapses the skull and delivers a dead baby. Is this murder, no, it is legal abortion. If anyone kills the baby after the head slips out, then it is murder, but as long as the head is still in the birth canal, then it is considered legal abortion. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance but legalized infanticide. What about the baby’s equal rights as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. The first right in the Bill of Rights is the right to life. This is dominance personified.
We are seeing gross reverse sexism called misandry in the TV commercials. Men are portrayed as hapless boobs where the heroic woman sweeps in to save the day.
Another example for example is a guy trying to do the family’s taxes using a software program; the wife comes in to ask him questions in a condescending tone. When he admits to having a problem she verbally belittles him in a very insulting and condescending manner. Women would not stand for that kind of attitude but it is okay to insult and belittle men. More importantly they encourage that behavior on the part of women. That is not equality but absolute dominance.
The definition of Misandry, from Wikipedia Misandry (pronounced /msndri/ ) is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. It is parallel to misogyny , the hatred of women. Misandry () comes from Greek misos ( , “hatred”) and anr , andros ( , ; “man”). Misandry is also comparable with misanthropy which is the hatred of humanity in general.
Wendy McElroy , an individualist feminist and Fox News commentator, argues that some feminists “have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex” as “a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred.” She argues that men as a class are considered ireformable, all men are considered rapists , and marriage, rape and prostitution are seen as the same. McElroy states “a new ideology has come to the forefront… radical or gender, feminism”, one that has “joined hands with [the] political correctness movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of ‘ dead white males .’ Conservative pundit Charlotte Hays argues “that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer.” Analogies to other forms of bigotry Masculist writer and frequent speaker at the Cato Institute Warren Farrell compares dehumanizing stereotyping of men to dehumanization of the Vietnamese people as ” gooks .” In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism , and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor."
Read the rest of the above excerpt from Marriagecoach1's blog here.
Feminism is a hate movement? Keep reading and decide for yourself...
Wikipedia: "Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms. In the narrow sense, the term antifeminism connotates individuals, organizations, or ideologies that criticise or reject feminism of the modern industrial countries of the West, claiming that the use of the feminist ideology in its praxis did more damage than good. These critics primarily refer to radical feminism, which antifeminists accuse of encouraging misandry and female sexism. For these reasons, the term antifeminism has started to signify feminists, of feminism for straying into extremism. In which ultimately, Antifeminist view Feminism as a Hate group... Many antifeminist proponents say the feminist movement has achieved its aims and now seeks higher status for women than for men."
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." - Valerie Solana, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)
"With each additional year of higher education, (women) ... learn more about their superiority." - Gloria Steinem, Attitudes: War Against Women, Lifetime TV, June 25, 1992
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress
"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed" - Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women
“I’d like to burn you at the stake!” -- Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique and founder of the so-called "women's liberation" movement, to Phyllis Schlafly in Bloomington, Illinois (source: The New Yorker)
"Women have always been the primary victims of war: Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." - Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State
Please carefully consider the above quote for a moment. Is this not like an early 1800's Southern American slave owner claiming to be victimized because his slave died? Does it not suggest that the slave owner's comfort was more important than the
life of the slave? Suppose Hillary had said "Whites have always been the primary victims of war: Whites lose their blacks in combat." Why is a member of a hate group appointed to the high office of Secretary of State? In World War II alone, more than sixteen million American men served in the military and more than one million American men were killed or wounded (source: Congressional Research Service). Romantic notions of chivalry, knowledge and preparedness that we as boys and men may one day be required to die* for all the women back in our home country, and the rejection and shame we are made to feel about our natural** biological needs: these are but a few things that combine to make males feel disposable beginning the day we are born. Despite women comprising more than half of U.S. voters (source: America.gov), voters reversed the movement toward ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment when it became known that it could subject women to the draft, thus risk making females just as disposable as males. (source: The New Yorker)
* All American males, but not females, are required to register for Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. ** Maximum exploitation of men's natural biological needs is deliberately taken via simultaneous artificial stimulation by cosmetically-enhanced women throughout the United States. Would men ever deliberately exploit women's need for food by withholding food from them while simultaneously teasing them with delicious culinary confections?
How to keep abortion legal So Mississippi is voting on a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it the first US state to define a fertilized human egg as a person. That would effectively outlaw abortion. When it comes to voting for or against a measure like this one, the vote is "yes" or "no". Other than not voting, there is no in between. The vote in Mississippi will be close: 45% in favor, 44% against, according to a recent survey. Personally, I'm pro-choice but if that vote came up in Massachusetts today, I would vote in favor of making abortion illegal. There are others like me and, with such a tiny margin, it doesn't take many of us to make a difference. The reason that I'm pro-choice but would vote against abortion is the extreme position taken by feminists on every issue relating to women. Anyone who criticizes any aspect of feminism is automatically labeled a misogynist. I love women and am in a happy relationship with one, but very few women openly oppose radical feminism. Most people don't even know what misandry is. Very few people would support spending even one single dollar for men's health research if it meant taking a dollar away from women's health research. Very few people bother to check the statistics constantly being repeated by taxpayer-supported professional feminists, or even know that our tax dollars are paying those feminists. Nobody seems to wonder why four of every five unemployed people are men. Very few people bother checking the accuracy of women's history as taught in grade schools across the nation. Did you know that most men didn't have the right to vote either? All we hear about is ongoing oppression of women. Yes, I will be falsely accused of saying "All women this" and "All women that". Feminists pretend to speak for all women; feminists pretend that anyone who criticizes feminism is criticizing all women, therefore must be a misogynist. I know that just for writing this, I will be labeled a misogynist - and that
's why pro-choice men like me will vote against legal abortion. Really, it has very little to do with abortion and everything to do with the radical feminist redefinition of our current legal system. Women need men like fish need bicycles? Those same male taxpayers who are, for the most part, forced to pay professional feminists' salaries? Remember, sometimes all it takes is a few men to make a difference.
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love,desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence." - Judith Levine, author, journalist, co-founder of the National Writers Union and No More Nice Girls, board member of the National Center for Reason and Justice and the Vermont chapter of the ACLU'
Leading women’s advocates have, with little substantiation, made statements about men that never would be tolerated if said about women:
“As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene.” (Germaine Greer, in in an invited address at the Alert! Conference.)
"All men are rapists and that's all they are." (Marilyn French, author of the feminist classic, The Women’s Room, in a People magazine interview.)
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." (Former congresswoman Barbara Jordan)
None of those leaders suffered significant reprisals. In contrast, consider what happened when Harvard president, Lawrence Summers, in an internal brainstorming meeting, in response to a request to be provocative, merely hypothesized, with multiple qualifications, that innate differences might partly explain why more men are in science. That statement, especially when opined in a private meeting, is not only less devastating to women than the above statements are to men, substantial research supports Summers’ hypothesis. Yet, a national firestorm led by NOW ensued demanding Summers’ firing, and Harvard’s 762-member Faculty of Arts and Sciences issued an unprecedented and career-devastating vote of lack of confidence in Summers.
This establishes a new double standard: you can, without reprisal, viciously denigrate men without substantiation but dare you make a milder statement about women, your career is eviscerated. That double standard will make academics, leaders, and the media think 10 times before saying something negative about a woman, but not about a man. That will immeasurably hurt how men are treated today, and in future generations.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
A Woman Against Feminism and For Men's Rights: "Just like the title says. Feminism has given women privileges without responsibility, and men are left with no choice but to pick up the slack. It's not fair, it's not 'equal rights' and I won't stay quiet about it."
Double-standard reinforces a universal underlying concept that men are disposable: "The practice by females of using female sex as a disability instead of doing the right thing and litigating for the responsibility of selective service... Women's refusal to demand responsibilities is indicative of how immoral feminism is in the United States. There is nothing communist or fascist or unpatriotic about feeling that responsibilities should apply to everybody."
Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil, Satoshi Kanazawa, Psychology Today: "Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d'tre is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off
than men... However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare - longevity and reproductive success - women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success;"
"Feminism is doomed to failure because it is based on an attempt to repeal and restructure human nature." - Phyllis Schlafly, Feminist Fantasies, 2003, p28
"Saving the males is an unlikely vocation for a 21st-century woman. Most men don't know they need saving; most women consider the idea absurd. When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: 'Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It's women who need saving. Screw the men!' Actually, that's a direct quote. The reality is that men already have been screwed - and not in the way they prefer. For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life's ills. Males as a group - not random men - are bad by virtue of their DNA. -- Kathleen Parker, The Sunday Times
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -Sheila Cronin, leader of the feminist organization NOW
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." - Robin Morgan
"As one of the world's most gender-equal countries - a land where 80 percent of the women have jobs, where about half of the members of Parliament are female - does Sweden need a feminist party? Many people thought so this spring, when a number of high-profile Swedish women began Feministiskt Initiativ, or Feminist Initiative... At its recent founding congress, for example, instead of tackling a mainstream platform as planned, the party presented proposals to abolish marriage and create 'gender-neutral' names." (Source: New York Times)
"As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because the male, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist. When genetic control is possible - and soon it will be - it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples." - Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men)
"Men haven't turned away from smart, successful women because they're smart and successful. More likely they've turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged
them to be hostile and demeaning to men." - Kathleen Parker, "Feminism's devolution from hoaxers to whores"
It is now well understood that "no-fault" divorce (the same kind that tears children apart from their fathers even when they have done no wrong) was a feminist invention: ".. advocates for no-fault divorce argued that the law should be changed to provide a straightforward procedure for ending a marriage ... The most prominent advocate of this position was feminist law professor Herma Hill Kay (a former dean of UC Berkeley School of Law)." (Source: Wikipedia citing Bishop, Katherine, "Sweet Victory for Feminist Pioneer at Law School." New York Times, 3 April 1992, sec. A, p. 19)
"Across age ranges divorce is being driven by women, and the likelihood of a couple divorcing in any given year tracks very strongly with whether the wife feels it would be to her advantage not to keep her promise." (Source)
Two-thirds or more of all divorces involving couples with children are initiated by mothers, not fathers, and the main reason "cited by women as a cause of divorce" is not cruel or abusive husbands, not adultery, but "a lack of closeness or of 'not feeling loved and appreciated.'" (Source: Glenn Sacks Source Page)
"Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent." (Source: Jean Beth Eshtain, "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children.", The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21.)
"...under the innocuous guise of women's rights and women's empowerment, radical feminists have systematically destroyed the institutions of family and marriage in most Western countries. They directed their attack at the so-called "developing" nations like India, which is known for its strong family culture and marriage values, and where the only means of social security is the extended family.
The weapons and tactics employed in feminist terrorism are:
* Hate speech against men and family * Fabricated and false statistics * Blatant lies * Opportunistic arm-twisting, guilt-tripping and bullying * Draconian gender-biased laws"
"Feminism comes from a French term -- feminisme -- that is essentially the idea that gender is culturally, rather than biologically created. This is the root of feminism as a concept." (Source: Yanna Krupnikov, "Feminism is still alive and kicking")
The idea that gender is culturally, rather than biologically created, completely ignores the legitimacy and importance of the male sex drive, without which none of us would even be here today. This is not to say that men are more important than women, only that both, biologically distinct as they are, are indispensable to human procreation. To say that sex and gender are distinct and that they are created by two different things, biology and culture respectively, is to say that when babies are born their differences are only skin deep. To deny the legitimate existence of the male sex drive is not only denying the obvious, it is the pinnacle of dishonesty. As the root of feminism, denial of something so obvious could cause any honest person to question the credibility of feminists, and everything they have ever done or said. The assertion that gender is culturally, rather than biologically created is a cornerstone of feminist psychological warfare. Aside from the fact that science and all available evidence have conclusively disproved this idea, the denial of innate masculinity is misandry at its core. Boys of our generation, brought up by divorced mothers in broken families, daycare centers and female-dominated school systems all proceeding on the basis that gender is culturally, rather than biologically created, that all aspects of masculinity are learned therefore can be forgotten, are brought up to be ashamed of the very gender differences that make us who we are. This great failed experiment we call Feminism has caused an entire generation of boys to be brought up to be ashamed of who we are.
"...it saddens me that we even have to have a women's movement and a men's movement but really there was no choice. I couldn't stop the feminist movement from hi-jacking my work in London at my refuge in Chiswick. They wanted funding and my work, twenty-five years ago - as the first refuge in the world seemed heaven sent for them. No matter that I told them that out of the first hundred women that came into Chiswick sixty-two were as violent as the men they left. I couldn't get any coverage for the truth. 'All men are bastards and rapists' is the only truth that the women's movement were prepared to hear....Now, with the help of this evil movement father's role in family life seems to be irrelevant....." (Source: Erin Pizzey, founder of the world's first women refuge)
I'm a teacher--there's an ENDLESS list of programs to help girls. It's not the girls that need help, and it hasn't been for at least two decades now--it's the boys. Boys' learning styles are different than girls, but there is NO accommodation for that, in fact such accommodations are actively discouraged by an education establishment increasingly dominated by feminist dogma.
Among adults, the concepts of masculinity, fatherhood, and the role of men as heads of families are all being disparaged by an increasingly feminized society.
Go to court sometime in a divorce case where property division and child custody are at issue. A woman can be an blatant adulteress and make an income equal to or greater than the man, and most of the time she will STILL get alimony and custody of the kids. It's the most unfairly rigged system imaginable.
Women want full independence — Women want male protection when things get rough or dangerous
Men and women can vote — The draft and compulsory military service are male only
Men are expected to work in jobs that they do not care for to support their families – Men are lazy for not doing half of the housework
When boys perform badly in school there is a “crisis in masculinity” — When girls or women perform badly they are being discriminated against
Women “get rid of jerks” — Men “cannot commit”
Male circumcision is a proud tradition — Female circumcision is abhorred, even the kinds that are milder than male circumcision
Commenting on a woman’s cleavage is sexual harassment — A woman who purposely flaunts her cleavage at work is not sexually harassing anyone
All good men pay for the date — All good men support gender neutral pay
Men’s financial power must be controlled — Women’s sexual power must be liberated
Fathers should take care of their children — Children aren’t DNA tested to establish paternity
Men prey on women — Women exercise their sexual freedom
The overarching inconsistency: Men are responsible for their actions and failures — Women are victims of circumstances or societal structures
Definition of "Feminism": "Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes)." (Source: Oxford English Dictionary)
"For example, a wife who never works and never pays taxes is entitled to a retirement benefit equal to 50 percent of her husband's benefits. After he dies, she is entitled to 100 percent of his benefits." (Source: NCPA)
901,000 females, vs. 875,000 males, enrolled in college in the U.S. in 2006. The number of females enrolled in college has exceeded the number of college enrolled males every year since 1974. (Source: U.S. Department of Education)
“In January 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor received the results of a study it had commissioned from an outside consultancy on male and female wages. The report, ‘An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages,’ concluded that there is no gender-based wage gap.” (Source: World Tribune)
"In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts." (Wall Street Journal)
"Males are keenly aware that when they go to college they are entering a hostile environment. Freshman orientation alone has had a distinctively anti-male cast for years: heavy emphasis on date rape, stalking, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual harassment amount to an unmistakable message that males are patriarchal oppressors and potential sex criminals. The lesson is quickly taught: only women are vulnerable, and men are the cause of their vulnerability. At one elite university, at least, the first thing a female freshman gets from the administration is a whistle to blow in the event that a rape-minded male accosts her. The freshman male is likely to acquire a new feeling about himself: he is the designated potential perpetrator until proven innocent...The campus environment is so hostile toward men that it doesn’t allow hostility toward men to be considered a 'hostile environment.'...When I did the research for Why Men Earn More I discovered, for example, that women who had never married and never had children earn 117% of what comparable males earn. Mentioning this will increase his potential for rejection—for being accused of 'creating a hostile environment.'" (Warren Farrell)
The Founding Fathers of the United States believed that taxation is a form of slavery. In the United States, taxation disproportionately forces men to subsidize both mothers and childless women through welfare:
Not including those caring for children or others, in 2004, 11.3% of non-working U.S. women, vs. 2.4% of men, chose not to work simply because they were not interested in doing so. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
In 2003, 48.0% of individuals in U.S. families maintained solely by women received welfare, vs. 25.7% of families maintained solely by men. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
In 2004, 27,088,000 U.S. women between 15 and 44 had no children and 3,645,000 of these childless women (13.5%) received welfare. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
"Women consume more medications than men..." (Source: Society for Women's Health Research) Where women and men pay the same health insurance premiums and in socialized healthcare, men are effectively forced to subsidize women.
"Interestingly, at all ages, the net tax payments are smaller for women; relative to men, women pay fewer taxes and receive more benefits." (Source: Jonathan Gruber, Public Finance and Public Policy (2005): 100)
In 2011, in the U.S. 16.8% of all employed people worked for federal, state or local governments, and in 2010, 56% of full-time government workers in the USA were female. This does not account for part-time government workers, the vast majority of whom are female. (Source: U.S. Congressional Research Service, Selected Characteristics of Private and Public Sector Workers)
The New Rules of College Sex: How the federal government and a Malvern lawyer are rewriting the rules on campus hookups—and tagging young men as dangerous predators
What if men started acting even a little like feminists? Here would be their demands:
Paternity fraud and birth control lies should be felonies. Hard to prove? Invert the burden of proof: "Men never lie about birth control".
Drinking, smoking, overeating during pregnancy should be felony reckless endangerment of a fetus.
Gender quotas in prison are urgently needed to get 51% female prisoners. We recommend stricter punishment for female felons and special mercy for male criminals. Gender is socially constructed: if there are 7 times more men in jail then women, then this clear gender discrimination needs to be remedied.
Domestic violence against men is 98 % underreported: "Has a women ever slapped you, shoved you, thrown an object at you"?
Raise men's awareness of rape: "Have you ever said 'Stop, I am tired', or 'Not now' and the woman did not stop that exact second? Then you are a rape victim!" 3 out of 5 men have been raped and are not even aware that they were victims of a crime.
An infant can not consent to eating unhealthy food. Feeding health damaging food to an overweight non-consenting infant thus is felony "child poisoning".
Sexual innuendo, bantering should be protected free speech
Disdainful female rejections and typical put-downs ("loser", "nerd", "small dick") create a hostile work environment and are harassment.
Freedom to buy and sell sexual services should be a universal human right
Like priests and psychologists, prostitutes should have the professional duty to keep their clients secret. Spilling the beans about infidelity destroys families and thus is bad for the children. The press should be held to the same secrecy standards, as it was common during President J. F. Kennedy and still is customary in France. .
Find an equally offensive motto equivalent to the feminist war cry: "all men are rapists". "All women are gold diggers" is not good enough, gold digging is not a felony. Maybe "all women are bank robbers". Just re-define "bank robbery" like feminists re-defined "rape", "consent", "child", and "pedophilia".
Why Not A Feminist Overhaul of Higher Education?" by Daphne Patai, former director of the Women's Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts, January 1998, describing abuse of power and the conflict of interest between Women's Studies programs and their own dictation of sexual harassment policy on the campuses that house them:
"It begins by invoking the purportedly sorry state of women in higher education. Few reasonable observers would accept this claim today, given increases in female graduation rates, and women's entry into professional schools and faculty ranks, but relentless feminist propaganda has confused the evidence. At the University of Massachusetts, for example, female students interviewed in December by a local newspaper readily asserted that they had not personally encountered bias in the classroom; nonetheless, they assumed that it exists... it is the distance between the actual and the putative condition of women, and between the positive-sounding goals and the sanctions threatened against resisters and nonconformists, that exposes the power game being played... it is a plan for policing the struggle for gender equity, based on the anachronistic insistence that inequality characterizes women's status in every aspect of university life... Women's studies got its first foothold in academe by invoking the liberal values of tolerance and intellectual openness. Once entrenched, however, and in defiance of both the historical record and common sense, women's studies has turned on those very values, rejecting them as helping to sustain the hated status quo... Will it be any comfort that Big Brother will have turned into Big Sister?"
Massnews.com: "Extreme Feminists at UMass Have 'Hate Men' Rally to Keep Money Flowing to Rape Crisis Centers"
"...in the face of successful legal challenges to speech codes, for some years now universities have been putting into effect harassment policies that restrict speech and can actually cost professors their jobs for saying something in class that someone considered sexist or racist. A score of universities have even shamefully revealed, by designating special 'speech zones' on their campuses, that the college as a whole is, as the civil-liberties attorney Harvey A. Silverglate has called it, a 'censorship zone.'"
"But, like harassment policies (which invariably include 'verbal acts' of certain types among proscribed conduct), such restrictions have not aroused vigorous protest, least of all from feminists and other campus activists who have seen the codes and policies as a means of enforcing their own agenda. Again, where were the newfound defenders of free speech when politically incorrect speakers were shouted down at universities around the country? When campus papers of a conservative cast were seized or stolen, with no protest from campus administrators? (Check The Shadow University, by Alan Charles Kors and Silverglate, for details.) Evidently, some ideas deserve not only a chill but the deep freeze."
"What, precisely, does 'chilling' of free speech mean? According to Greg C. Lukianoff -- the director of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization formed for the defense of the civil rights of professors and students, of all political persuasions -- the concept of 'chilling effect' generally refers to the likelihood that vaguely defined and overly broad rules governing acceptable speech will cause people to censor themselves, since they cannot be sure whether their speech is illegal or not. But the term is often invoked to 'chill' other people's use of free speech."
"'Manly' is a lonely word on college campuses today. Although recovering the lost art of manliness is gaining interest in the nation at large, colleges and universities do their best to stifle it. Most institutions offer degrees in women's studies but not men's studies, and they have women's centers but not men's centers... Last year, women comprised 46.5% of the workforce and 57.2% of higher education enrollment in the United States... Colleges seem to want to keep women back, to make them retain victim and minority status when they are no longer a minority. Ironically, in doing so, they victimize and invite discrimination against men."
"Let me begin by stating what I believe indoctrination to be and what it is not. Indoctrination is presenting opinion to students as though it were scientific fact or as though no rational, decent, and moral person could have any other view. It is the equivalent of presenting students with ready-made conclusions which they cannot realistically feel free to challenge. There are entire fields of study that are in fact programs of indoctrination. For example, all Women's Studies programs with which I am familiar are programs to train students to be radical feminists and specifically to instill in them the doctrine that gender differences are "socially constructed" - that they are artificially created by male elites to subordinate and oppress women."
"The social construction of gender is not a theory that students in Women's Studies courses are free to adopt or reject. It is taught in the same way university courses in physics teach Newton's laws of motion. When, at a recent academic conference, I confronted the president of the American Association of University Professors over this very issue, he replied that he did indeed teach the social construction of gender as a scientific fact but because he allowed students to take the opposite point of view it wasn't indoctrination. But what does it mean to let a student who is seeking a good grade argue against a scientific fact, except that you are allowing him to make a fool of himself?"
Recent bans on professor-student relationships are founded on two
assumptions: that sex between teachers and students generally is
initiated by experienced male professors with naive female students
and that a power imbalance between vulnerable students and powerful
faculty members renders even consensual relationships essentially
non-consensual. Like mantras, both assumptions owe their power more to
frequent chanting than to thoughtful analysis.Recent bans on professor-student relationships are founded on two assumptions: that sex between teachers and students generally is initiated by experienced male professors with naive female students and that a power imbalance between vulnerable students and powerful faculty members renders even consensual relationships essentially non-consensual. Like mantras, both assumptions owe their power more to frequent chanting than to thoughtful analysis.
"Recent bans on professor-student relationships are founded on two assumptions: that sex between teachers and students generally is initiated by experienced male professors with naive female students and that a power imbalance between vulnerable students and powerful faculty members renders even consensual relationships essentially non-consensual. Like mantras, both assumptions owe their power more to frequent chanting than to thoughtful analysis.
One of the many things about sex that the Neo-Puritans who support such bans don't understand is that many sexual encounters are initiated by female students, even the most sheltered of whom are less naive than their protectors seem to believe -- especially if "sexual encounter" is understood to include gestures, dress, suggestive jokes and stories, body language, and deliberate "accidental" touching. Such behavior traditionally has been understood to be cognitively ambiguous -- that prolonged stare, that racy joke, that arm around the shoulder might be invitations, but they also might not be. Recently, such gestures have been redefined by harassment theorists as unambiguous indications of sexual interest, and therefore objectionable, and therefore proscribed. But to be fair, if such actions are defined as sexual overtures when initiated by professors, they should be defined as sexual overtures when initiated by students."
"Hoff Sommers said that modern feminist theorists have bolstered their views with urban myths and 'egregiously false information.' She said she had found that many commonly cited statistics, such as that violence against women increases 80 percent on Super Bowl Sunday, did not have any basis.
"'Over and over again, you could count on theorists to overstate,' Hoff Sommers said. 'The truth is so much more complicated. If you want to help women, help them by using the truth.'
"According to Hoff Sommers, the feminist movement has also become increasingly hostile towards men, 'implicating an entire gender.' It does so by focusing on the bad behavior associated with 'aberrational masculinity' rather than what most men are like. 'We get the worst-case male standing for masculinity,' she said."
"The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.
"Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media."
"The political genius of the feminist movement was its intuitive sense that it could appeal ... by emphasizing expansion of rights and avoiding expansion of responsibilities. Had the National Organization for Women (NOW) fought to register 18-year-old girls for the draft, it might have lost a few members. Had feminism emphasized women's responsibilities for risking sexual rejection, or paying for men's dinners, or choosing careers they like less to support the family more, or marrying down, its impact would have been more egalitarian but less politically successful."
"22 states - Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming - provide in their constitutions either inclusive or partial guarantees of equal rights on the basis of sex."
"Since the 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws, why do we still need the ERA?"
"Aren't there adequate legal protections against sex discrimination in the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Titles VII and IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, court decisions based on the 14th Amendment, and more?"
"Reverse discrimination goes hand-in-hand with affirmative action. Affirmative action, defined through Dictionary.com is the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, esp. in employment.
"In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law an Executive Order regarding race neutral Affirmative Action. Throughout the order the following '...without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin' is used. You can view this Executive Order here. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is similarly worded stressing non-discrimination and is neutral towards race.
Both the Executive Order signed by LBJ and the Civil Rights Act, signed by JFK are essentially, for what it's worth, worthless, in regards to affirmative action, a.k.a. reverse discrimination. Beginning in 1966, the 'Equal' Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Civil Service Commission began implementing their own rules regarding hiring. Because of their variations, they joined forces and issued the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP).
The Executive Order and the Civil Rights Act are simple reading in comparison to the UGESP. There are now rules in effect that govern employers and which job applicants they choose, NOT based on their experience and ability, but on whether they fall within the 'minority' class."
"Because of their commitment to radical egalitarianism, most early radical feminist groups operated initially without any formal internal structure. When informal leadership developed, it was often resented. Many groups ended up expending more effort debating their own internal operations than dealing with external matters, seeking to 'perfect a perfect society in microcosm' rather than focus on the larger world. Resentment of leadership was compounded by the view that all 'class striving' was 'male-identified'. In the extreme, exemplified by The Feminists, the upshot, according to Ellen Willis, was 'unworkable, mechanistic demands for an absolutely random division of labor, taking no account of differences in skill, experience, or even inclination'. 'The result,' writes Willis, 'was not democracy but paralysis.' When The Feminists began to select randomly who could talk to the press, Ti-Grace Atkinson quit the organization she had founded."
In an era of post women's lib and 3rd (some will say 4th) wave feminism I think more men should insist on women fending for themselves. I think men are more prone to sacrifice themselves too much for women without stopping to consider if women would do the same for them.
Unfortunately what we see are far too many women wanting to have their cake and eat it too; and men allowing them to get away with this behaviour. As result western women will perhaps be the most spoilt group of women you'll ever come across in the world. That's just my humble opinion.
To be fair, men also have to carry a lot of the blame for this. You have some men who insists on coddling women and encouraging their entitlement syndromes merely to satisfy their own urges to feel like Mr. Invincible. Esther Vilar in her groundbreaking novel The Manipulated Man addressed this very issue quite eloquently. This is a book all men and any self-respecting equity feminist should read.
What a lot of these "mr. invincible" guys don't realise is that by disregarding their own interests -- in a world which completely caters to women and where women overall care mainly about themselves and children -- will only hurt them in the long run. In contemporary times we see how this has manifested itself through divorce court, jobs, equal protection under the law, the draft and various other areas.
Many modern feminist groups and individual feminist women aren't seeking equality, because men and women in the west are pretty darn equal -- what they want is female supremacy. And the only way to balance the scales is for men to join the conversation. Insist that women give as much as they demand.
Please note that I'm not talking about the social climate for men and women prior to 2nd wave feminism. I'm talking about contemporary times in nations of a 'western' ideological persuasion.
And by the way, before anyone start blasting me that I'm a woman hater and what not just know that I'm female and very well educated in women's studies. I'm also married with 2 college aged sons -- which makes this topic all the more important and relevant to me."
"When it comes to the opposite sex, males from many species are easily deceived. Male fireflies flirt with penlights. Male turkeys become randy at the mere sight of a fake, female turkey head. Male humans find feminine decoys equally beguiling. Women recognise this. And they have shrewdly, cannily and knowingly deployed artifice in their ceaseless battle to captivate the inherently roving eye of the male ... As much as it initially galled the feminist inside me to admit this, women have been the driving innovative force behind many of these inventions."
"All healthy male sexual expression is criminalized in our culture today. Look around and the examples are scattered about everywhere. The leftist feminists consider all men to be potential rapists while their right wing sisters believe all men are potential adulterers...
"Men were made to appreciate female beauty and to respond to it. Such responses are noble and help us make new life and move forward as humanity. A man admiring a beautiful woman is as natural as admiring the beautiful view of a mountain or a flower filled valley, even a spiritual experience at times, and a positive part of human life...
"Considering this normal, natural response to be a negative one, as is done today, has criminalized male sexuality and left it open for abuse. Women dress and behave in ways that allow them to use their beauty power over men, men whom they have no intention of sharing themselves with, all to earn favors or manipulate men into performing for them. This is a terrible abuse of something good, a perversion, and is causing a great rift in gender relations, one that is already breeding hatred and upset and will continue to until it is stopped."
"Like it or not, men react on a very basic biological level to sexual stimuli, even when they are virtuous enough to not want to follow through on anything illicit. Do we, as men, stop to think about what the constant barrage of female sexuality does to our mental and emotional health, if not our spiritual health? Think, for instance, about the unwanted sexual tension and the mental and emotional stress, anger, and depression that all too often follows. Think about all the compromises that men make with regard to their dignity and self-worth in order to fulfill a strong drive that has been overstimulated...
What is particularly galling about discussing this matter is that it will be greeted in three very unhelpful ways:
1) Mockery: A man will be accused of being a 'frustrated loser.'
2) Apathy: You will be regarded as a prude. After all, it is supposed that men want non-stop titillation by women.
3) Chivalrous male-bashing: There may be some acknowledgment that wanton displays of female sexuality are a problem, but men will be held solely responsible. Men will be regarded as lecherous beasts, while fashion models, porn stars, and other immodest women will be regarded as precious, unfortunate victims who have been exploited."
"'I've always depended on the kindness of strangers.' uttered Blanche DuBois, in 'A Streetcar Named Desire'. A line once so antiquated and indicative of a long dead era -and irresponsibility- is slowly and insidiously making a comeback, that is, if it ever really left. It seems to me that the women's liberation movement is making a tremendous backslide in American culture as a result of two major factors. The first being movies and television making it a male's duty to cater to a woman's needs if she is attractive, or should I say, sexually alluring, enough. And the second being women who are eager to exploit this opportunity to sell their bodies, and their dignity, for an easy ride without being honest about the nature of the sale. In fact, these days, shaking your ass for preferential treatment isn't so much an attack on dignity, as it is accepted commerce. Strippers make more money than many socially vital positions. Which is fine because they are honest about it, my problem is with those who are every bit as much sex dealers, but without the sand to be honest about it.
"I say we repeal sexual harassment laws entirely. If women don't want to be called toots they shouldn't wear jeans 2 sizes too small and spend more money annually on makeup than they do on healthcare."
"The urge for sex stems from the human instinct to procreate, which at times can be stronger than the urge to survive. It is a completely natural human instinct." (Penalties for rape are second only to penalties for murder because the human instinct to procreate is second only to the human instinct to survive.)
"Throughout history, humans have used their bodies to get what they want -- from ancient Egyptian ruler Cleopatra, who cemented her power through liaisons with Roman rulers Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, to the man and woman who were arrested at a Fort Wright, Kentucky, motel in late June for allegedly swapping sex for gasoline. Regardless of our motivation, scientists say we're hardwired to use our bodies as a bargaining chip.
A recent study of 475 University of Michigan undergraduates ages 17 to 26 found that 27 percent of the men and 14 percent of the women who weren't in a committed relationship had offered someone favors or gifts -- help prepping for a test, laundry washing, tickets to a college football game -- in exchange for sex. On the flip side, 5 percent of the men surveyed and 9 percent of the women said they'd attempted to trade sex for such freebies.
And although they weren't hard up for resources, the students surveyed 'recognized the value of this socioeconomic currency system,' says Daniel Kruger, research scientist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, who published his findings in the April issue of 'Evolutionary Psychology.'
'It's more about getting what you want than getting what you need,' he says. 'Unless you think everyone needs a $200 Louis Vuitton bag.'"
Western Women Prey Sexually On Poor Foreign Men: "Women's sex tourism is especially popular nowadays. Sources state that about 600,000 women come to the countries of the Caribbean Basin every year in search of men's attention and love."
The women who want to steal your guy:
"According to new US research, "mat e poaching" - in which single women prey on other people's partners - is very common, with women shown to be significantly more interested in attached men, rather than their single counterparts."
Sex Tourism | Prostitution: "Female sex tourism is a thriving business. Women pay for sex with boys in vacation resorts from the Caribbean to Africa, Asia and beyond."
Female sex tourism: "Female sex tourism is travel by women, partially or fully for the purpose of having sex... Barring some isolated cases of women traveling for sex among North American Indian tribes, female travel sex (involving American and English women) began in Rome in the late 1840s, at the same time as first wave feminism, which encouraged independence and travel...Female sex tourism's first and second waves coincided not only with feminism but with Victorian era man shortages that began in England and later occurred in continental Europe and the United States."
It is clear that the driving force the behind the prohibition of prostitution (feminists, in the form of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and others) in the United States went hand in hand with the proliferation of female sex tourism.
Traditional Female Power Balanced Male Power
Why is prostitution illegal in 49 of the United States when nearly everyone does it???
"Whether some people want to admit it or not, both pornography and prostitution serve a very widespread need." -Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Legalizing Misandry
It is a commonly believed myth that some sort of patriarchal conspiracy is the reason why prostitution is illegal in the United States. The oldest feminist organization still in existence (the Women's Christian Temperance Union) was the driving force behind the prohibition of alcohol (which lasted for a few years) and criminalization of prostitution in the United States. Wikipedia: "In the United States, prostitution was originally widely legal. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union..." wctu.org: "Today the WCTU is the oldest voluntary, non-sectarian woman's organization in continuous existence in the world." Wikipedia: "The purpose of the WCTU was to create a "sober and pure world" by abstinence, purity and evangelical Christianity. Annie Wittenmyer Frances Willard, a noted feminist, was its second president and made the greatest leaps for the group ... Willard pushed for the "Home Protection" ballot, arguing that women, being the superior sex...". Feminists made prostitution illegal in America in order to vastly increase the price of sex. Marriage represented a sexual trade union and prostitutes were providing men with a much less expensive alternative. Rather than being able to get their sexual needs met in exchange for say, one week of his earnings, instead men were forced to make a lifetime commitment just to get his basic needs met.
"Women are certainly not above telling 'white lies,' or even bald-faced ones, if it serves their purposes ('size doesn't matter,' 'we can still be friends,'), while at the same time demanding total honesty from men...A man will be constrained to submerge his true personality and adjust his opinions in the hope of getting a little sex. And instead of allowing men to express themselves openly and honestly, most women force men to be "politically correct," sometimes even at the threat of losing their jobs. This isn't honesty -- it's catering to an extremely sexist society, biased toward women. Of course, she'll wear makeup, dye her hair, and put on a padded bra, and it won't even occur to her that she's deceiving anyone (including herself)." -- Matthew Fitzgerald, Why Men Have To Lie To Women
Kate Devlin, Telegraph U.K.: "Buying a woman presents could help men get them into bed, a new study which shows that chimpanzees have sex for gifts suggests."
"Men’s biologically determined sexual eagerness and women’s resultant ability to choose have led to a universal expectation in women, and in men, that men who desire sex will offer women gifts." (Malinowski 319; Buss, The Evolution 99-101)
According to nationally acclaimed clinical psychologist Willard F. Harley, Jr., sex is a man's number one need. "Need" is clearly distinguished from "want". A "want" is optional, a "need" is not optional. We are using "need" in the sense of "something required to live or make living worthwhile" as in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." For most men, a life without sex is a life not worth living, as evidenced by the risks men take to pay for sex (90% of workplace deaths are men, 97% of soldiers killed are men, almost 80% of suicides are men who cannot afford to pay for sex, etc).
Sex is a universally-recognized (except in feminism) need. Maslow's hierarchy of needs includes both sex and sexual intimacy. In general, men require more sexual activity than women. It is taboo in many societies to openly acknowledge sex as a need because those societies would then be forced to recognize an obligation to meet that need. Women have always maintained power by controlling access to sex just as certain social hierarchies maintain power by controlling access to food and water. Men need sex. How would you feel if the leaders of our society maintained control by preventing you from having food and water?
Sexual Currency • At some point In an attractive woman's life - usually before she's an adult - she realizes that she has a certain power over men • Attractive women often become so good at using this power, offering it and withholding it, and getting things they want with It that It can be accurately described as "Sexual Currency" • If you think about It for a moment, you'll realize that this alternate form of currency Is far more powerful than most forms of currency, and If you go further and apply standard economic principles to the situation, you'll realize that since this currency is in high demand, it's value or price Is very high • I've seen young, attractive women who were broke college students that didn't have a penny to their names trade their time and company for everything from money to Jewelry to thousand dollar meals • "You might think there's only one market, but there are actually two: The labor market and the mating market. Men use their wages to supplement their masculine charms (if any) when they woo." (Bryan Caplan, Library of Economics and Liberty)
"If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning." - Aristotle Onassis (husband of First Lady Jackie Kenedy)
"In the year following a divorce, women's living standards fall by 27 percent while men's living standards rise by 10 percent. So says a widely quoted study by the Social Science Research Council." (Slate: Why Men Pay To Stay Married) In other words, men, on average, pay 10% of their income to a woman to be in a sexual relationship with her.
Feminists deny that women have ever had power by denying that sex is a real need. With straight face, feminists will openly state that women need sex but that men don't need sex. America's unique blend of puritanical and highly sexualized society means it is taboo to speak of men's need for sex while men's need for sex is amplified by constant exposure to sexual imagery; yet men are offered no support. Many other nations acknowledge and support the need for sex by decriminalizing sex. Feminists' denial of sex as a real need is the key to feminists' claim that women have always been more oppressed by virtue of not being able to get their needs met. Feminists deny that women have ever exploited men's need for sex. Read "What is a life without sex like?" Feminists' claim to oppression simply could not stand if sex were ever acknowledged as a genuine need. Women control men by regulating sex. Were sex not a genuine male need, and women not exploiting that need, then none of the following would be true:
According to Catherine Hakim, a professor at the London School of Economics, erotic capital is a combination of “beauty, social skills, good dress sense, physical fitness, liveliness, sex appeal and sexual competence.” ... Women have more erotic capital than do men, she writes, because of what she calls the “male sex deficit" (source)
"A woman's sexuality is her ability to arouse a man. In a healthy society a woman acts sexual for one man. In a debased, declining society women dress and act like hypersexual animals in heat at all times while demanding men to be in control of their desire to act on womens hypersexuality at all times. Intentionally and repeatedly subjecting a male animal to a female animal in heat and then yanking his leash and beating him down would be considered sadistic and cruel. A person that did that would considered mentally deranged, in need of therapy. Yet modern women delight and demand the right to do exactly that to all men." (source) (Yet this is exactly what feminists did when they made prostitution illegal in 49 states. The USA is the only major western nation where prostitution is illegal.)
Feminists exploit male genital mutilation to consume foreskin beauty cream: "Carlsbad-based SkinMedica Inc. sells chemical peels, facial cleaners and toners and creams ... SkinMedica's flagship product called TNS Recovery Complex is a topical solution consisting of human growth factors derived originally from neonatal human foreskin at the San Diego biotech Advanced Tissue Sciences Inc ... TNS' price tag hasn't deterred patients, said Heidi Lindner ... "It's flying off our shelves" (SkinMedica seeks niche in skin-care drugs, products) (Side point: Do you suppose feminists wear makeup made of human foreskins while simultaneously protesting female genital mutilation?)
Women's sexual power over men is so well known, it's universal knowledge: “For a man to walk into a bar and have his choice of any woman he wants, he would have to be the ruler of the world. For a woman to have the same power over men, she’d have to do her hair.” (Bill Maher) “My success has allowed me to strike out with a higher class of women.” (Woody Allen) "Man comes from the womb and spends the rest of his life trying to get back there." (George Bernard Shaw) The power of sexual suggestion is so strong that sex is a cornerstone of modern marketing and advertising. Laws giving women "veto power" over sex have carried the same weight as murder laws since the beginning of recorded history. How can you say that women could not own property when women, in effect, owned men? How can feminists seriously claim women never had power? Society has always maintained female power by discouraging women from approaching men and encouraging women to force men to come to them as the only way to get their needs met. It's a double-standard and a one way street. It's the elephant in the room that everyone refuses to talk about. So much for any hope of equality.
"Do men really have stronger sex drives than women? Well, yes, they do. Study after study illustrates that men's sex drives are not only stronger than women's, but much more straightforward." (Richard Sine & Louise Chang, MD, WebMD, Sex Drive: How Do Men and Women Compare?) "Fifty-six percent of men reported thinking about sex at least once daily versus only 19 percent of the women. " (CBS News Healthwatch) As a woman, is your sex drive always optional? Are you able to simply turn it off whenever you want? Do certain stimuli bring it back? How does it feel to be teased mercilessly and not have that need fulfilled? Now imagine that feeling multiplied by X. What might you do to make the pain go away? Would you feel exploited?
"men do everything they do in order to get laid. This is mostly unconscious on the part of the men; they don’t necessarily know that they do everything they do in order to get laid... they are evolutionarily designed to compete and achieve, and, when they do, women seek them out as sexual partners." (evolutionary psychologist Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa: Psychology Today)
Sexual Starvation: "A basic tenet of human behavior is that frustration leads to fixation. Starve a puppy and the grown dog will just never seem to get enough to eat. In 21st Century America, sex is the commodity that is doled out on a starvation ration and the result is a population with an insatiable appetite for anything even remotely related to a carnal act." (source)
Poll: "Ladies: Can you get sex whenever you want it?" Results: 88% answered "Of course! I'm a woman!" (source)
"But in most marriages, one spouse, usually the husband, has a much greater need for sex than the other." (Marriage Builders)
Juli Slattery, Focus on the Family: "One of the biggest differences between you and your husband is the fact that he experiences sex as a legitimate physical need."
"A new study out of Duke and Boston College states uncategorically that high school boys want sex, high school girls want relationships, and that equilibrium is reached according to classic economic principles... “scarcity determines value” and that dating is a marketplace that adheres to economic tenets." (Sex is Economics, Even in High School, by Susan Walsh)
“The price of sex is about how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual,” said Kathleen Vohs, of the University of Minnesota, who has authored several papers on “sexual economics.” “It might mean buying her a drink or an engagement ring. These behaviors vary in how costly they are to the man, and that is how we quantify the price of sex.” (Moral of the story: Women rarely give men sex without first making men pay for it.)
Women electing prostitution, despite having equal opportunity to pay for themselves: "A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange... The social exchange analysis emphasizes that sex is a female resource, so that men must offer women other resources in exchange for it. But how much? The price of sex (so to speak) may vary widely. To commence a sexual relationship with a particular woman, a man may have to offer her a fancy dinner, or a long series of compliments, or a month of respectful attention, or a lifetime promise to share all his wealth and earnings with her exclusively. This price is negotiated between the two individuals in the context of the prices that other, similar couples set.
Sexual norms thus constitute a kind of local going rate as to the appropriate price for sex. Across cultures and across different historical periods, the going rate may vary widely. Within a given community, however, it probably varies much less. Market forces will tend to stabilize this rate within a community (but not necessarily across communities). To illustrate, suppose a particular woman demands too high a price for sex, such as if she refuses to have sex until the man has promised to marry her and has given her an engagement ring. Her suitor may abandon her and turn his attention to another woman—but only if other women in the community will offer sex at a significantly lower price. If all the woman in her community demand an engagement ring before giving sex, however, the man will be more likely to agree.
A related prediction is that a low price of sex favors men, whereas a high price favors women. Therefore men will tend to support initiatives that lower the price of sex, whereas women will generally try to support a higher price. Ideologies of “free love” (that is, sex unaccompanied by any other obligations or exchanges) will appeal to men
more than women.
The price of sex is not restricted to money, of course. Our broad conceptualization of resources (as money, material gifts, respect, love, time, affection, or commitment) is consistent with arguments that women do not select their sex partners on the basis of material goods alone. A recent analysis (Miller, Putcha, & Pederson, 2002) noted that during much of humans’ evolutionary history, people lived in small groups. Typically, a group of men brought back meat for the group and all the meat was shared. Miller et al. argued that this arrangement obscured individual hunting ability, and therefore women could not easily use gifts of material resources as a sign of long-term mate potential. With a broader conceptualization of resources, however, it would still be possible for a woman to detect the desirability of individual men within her community because she could see how much attention, affection, or time each gave to her.
In short, we may regard a local sexual marketplace as a loose community in which men and women act as individual agents seeking to find an advantageous deal. Men will act like buyers who want to get good sex or plenty of sex without spending too much (in terms of time, effort, money, or commitment). Women will act like sellers who want to get a high price for their sexual favors. Each couple may negotiate its own price, but whether this price is a better deal for the man or for the woman depends on how it compares to the going rate within their community. Because much sexual activity is conducted in secret, there is likely to be considerable ambiguity about what the actual norms are. Another prediction is therefore that men and women will seek to convey different impressions. Men would be likely to try to create the impression that many couples are having sex at a low price. Women are more likely to emphasize that sex is unusual outside of serious, committed relationships. Male conversation may feature and exaggerate sexual activity, whe
reas female conversation should conceal and understate sex.
Supply and Demand
The laws of supply and demand can be substantiated in all sorts of marketplaces, and there is no reason that sex should be an exception. With sex, the female resource hypothesis depicts that women constitute the supply and men constitute the demand. Patterns of sexual activity should change drastically with the balance between supply and demand, such as the sex ratio. When the pool of eligible women (i.e., young, unattached female adults) is much larger than the pool of eligible men, supply can be said to exceed demand. The price will therefore drop, which means that men will be able to obtain sex without giving or promising much in return. In contrast, a shortage of eligible women relative to men means that demand outstrips supply, and so the price is likely to be high. Thus, contrary to any simple view that power in the marketplace depends on having a majority, the price of sex will tend to favor the minority gender. More precisely, men will give women more resources for sex when men outnumber women than when women outnumber men.
Another common result of shortages of desired goods is that low-cost substitutes become available. Prostitution and pornography may be regarded as low-cost substitutes for the preferred alternative of having sexual relations with a special, desired partner (e.g., Cott, 1979). The economics of the sexual marketplace would suggest that such low-cost alternatives will be targeted for men and to varying degrees will be welcomed by men. In contrast, women should generally oppose them as if they represent a threat to women generally—which they do, in an important sense. Put another way, why should a woman care whether men in her community purchase pornographic materials and masturbate? But if pornography satisfies some of the male demand for sex, then it may reduce the total demand for her own sexual favors, and
as a result the price she can obtain will be lower. Assuming that most men would prefer to have sex with affectionate female partners (as opposed to prostitutes or by masturbating while watching pornography), the women in a community would potentially have a monopoly if they could band together to reduce competition among themselves. A rational economic strategy that many monopolies or cartels have pursued is to try to increase the price of their assets by artificially restricting the supply. With sex, this would entail having the women put pressure on each other to exercise sexual restraint and hold out for a high price (such as a commitment to marriage) before engaging in sex. Economic history suggests that such efforts, as in the case of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are only intermittently successful and may often be undermined as individuals seek to underbid each other. Still, monopolies are sometimes sufficiently successful that most developed nations have found it necessary to enact laws against them. It would therefore not be surprising that economic self-interest would occasionally drive women to work together to restrain the availability of sex.
Competition Among Women
We have said that the sexual marketplace links together the negotiations and sexual activities of all the different couples and will tend to stabilize the price of sex. This process of stabilization will remain incomplete, however, except in rare or extreme cases. Usually the price of sex will vary somewhat within a community. Some women can command higher prices than others for their sexual favors. In this section we consider some of the factors that will contribute to these variations in price. The more men desire any particular woman, the higher a price she can command. This is true in both senses of the word “more:” more men and stronger desire. Most obviously, her sex appeal will influence how much and how many men want her. An a ttractive woman can command a higher price than others. To some extent, this reflects the irrevocable facts of physical beauty. Still, beauty can be enhanced by clothing, makeup, dieting, and other factors designed to make her look good. These are again tied to the local culture and community, such that strategies for enhancing sex appeal in one culture might be counterproductive in another (Ford & Beach, 1951), and so the individual woman will maximize her attractiveness by conforming to local norms and standards in which she is competing for male attention. A woman is analogous to an entrepreneur bringing a new product to market, and so enhancing appeal is a rational strategy. Advertising is also a viable, rational way to increase demand for one’s product. Flirting, wearing sexy clothes, and in general creating the impression that sex with her would be especially pleasant and satisfying, would be economically sensible strategies for a woman to pursue. The importance of stimulating demand helps resolve a seeming paradox that has spawned a long, ideologically complicated debate. Feminists have long objected, with considerable justification, to the fact that women who wear sexy clothes sometimes become the targets of male harassment (or worse). They assert that women should be permitted to dress however they please without attracting unwelcome male attention. Opponents point out that wearing sexually revealing or enticing clothes may convey an impression that some men might reasonably misperceive as indicating that she is sexually available. After all, they say, why dress in such a sexually revealing fashion if she does not want to attract sexual attention? The social exchange analysis makes it understandable that it is fully rational for a woman to seek to stimulate more male desire than she wishes to satisfy. By analogy, a house seller may want to have many different interested parties to bid up the price even t
ho ugh he or she ultimately can only sell a given house to one person. If men could be brought to understand this, they might recognize that a woman may dress in a sexy manner without it meaning that she wants to have sex with all of them or even with any particular one of them. Given her role in the sexual marketplace, she will rationally seek to get many men to desire her, but she does not want to have sex with most of them...
The sexual importance of women’s socioeconomic position in society suggests an important link between the social exchange analysis and feminist theory. Feminists have long treated it as axiomatic that men have sought to oppress and subjugate women, including denying women opportunities to participate freely in the economic activities of society. Indeed, many feminist analyses of sexual behavior (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975) suffer from reliance on the highly questionable assumption that men’s treatment of women is motivated by a primary concern with power, with sex being secondary. In contrast, the exchange analysis offers an explanation for men’s pursuit of power over women while allowing the possibility that what men want from women is mainly sex."
"One of the most important aspects of the fight for sex worker rights is pointing out that prostitution is not only normal and natural, but that it exists on a continuum with other female behavior. While it’s not entirely accurate to say “all women are whores”, it is accurate to say that there is no clear line delineating prostitution from other female sexuality. A minority of women never do anything which even remotely resembles transactional sex, and a minority are professionals, and a huge majority occupy the immense grey area between those two extremes, occasionally or frequently trading sex for money or other things they desire, whether with strangers or employers or friends or boyfriends or lovers." (Maggie McNeill)
"Prostitution happens everyday in every State. The fact that it is not legal in most States doesn't stop it, just pushes it into the "seedy" areas and categories. If a woman wants to use her body to get any kind of benefit, that is up to her and her alone. There are women who "prostitute" themselves on an almost daily basis and yet look down on the prostitutes who openly do it for money. Some women go to clubs, bars etc and get a night of drinking in return for sex, it makes them feel that they aren't prostitutes, they are but they just don't earn as much money, they do it for a night out. There are many many wives who give their husband sex, not because they love them but to get a good lifestyle or a new condo or a new car or a big bank balance. They often cannot stand the sight of the husband but will have sex with them for gain. This happens in many many many neighbourhoods in all walks of life and yet is ok. Prostitution should be legal and regulated. This keeps the girls as safe as possible, as safe anyway as the girl who picks a stranger up in a bar for a "fun night". It will also put money into the economy and can be taxed. Clean conditions can also stop the spread of certain diseases and the girls can be checked regularly and supplied with condoms. It is the oldest profession and nobody has the right to criminalize something for some people and say it isn't a crime for others who use sex for gain but don't actually accept cash in hand." (source)
"I’ve met lots of whores in Latin America – some desperately poor with kids, some living luxuriously and independent. Regardless which there are more of, 100% of non-prostitute women would condemn the business anyway.
Why? It spoils their game. Yes, sometimes women have sex just because they want it. But in the long run, especially with a recurring partner, it always ends up with the woman trying to get something out of the man – marriage, a house, child support, etc. It involves seduction and long-term manipulation. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for settling down and monogamy. But the way human sexuality is designed, it’s in the woman’s reproductive interest to convince the man not to have sex with other women (and possibly having kids, spreading his resources thin), in favor of committing to and supporting only her and her kids. Those women who seduced their men into committing and supporting them had children (males included) who survived at a higher rate, so we’ve evolved this way.
What’s the point? Non-prostitute women abhor prostitutes and their clients because it throws their whole scheme upside down. Prostitutes made the economic decision – whether by necessity or choice – that they weren’t going to try to get a guy to stick around and provide for a family. Instead, they unveiled the veiled economic transaction, or got down to brass tax. It exposes the transaction that all non-prostitute women are working for. And non-prostitutes need that transaction to work." (source)
"Prostitution is evolutionarily familiar, because mating is evolutionarily familiar and prostitutes (at least the classy ones) are no different from other women, whom men also have to pay – not in cash payments but in dinners and movies, gifts, flowers, chocolates, and motor oil – if they wanted to impress them enough to have sex with them." (Psychology Today: Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?)
"Women’s sexual pleasure is directly linked to their partner’s wealth, says new research. Cassie is unrepentant about dating rich men. “Of course it is much better to sleep with men with lots of money,” said the 27-year-old lawyer from London. “Any girl who tells you different is lying....”. Cassie is living proof of the latest scientific discovery about human sexuality: that the number and frequency of a woman’s orgasms is directly related to her partner’s wealth... Many will object to the idea that women are hardwired to be gold-diggers. Perhaps, however, they will be appeased by the revelation that the same kinds of primitive forces are at work in men too. They may operate in different ways and produce different behaviour - but they come from exactly the same source: a genetic code fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution to make us seek out whoever offers us the best deal in life." (The Sunday Times: Why women have better sex with rich men)
"I consider myself a feminist. I feel that men and women are equal in damn near everything... Women aren't being exploited, we are exploiting men. I learned at a rather young age that I could get damn near anything I wanted from a man, simply because I am female. (I was really good at it too. I once had a man literally give me the shirt off of his back.) Women have a power over men..." (http://www.womanpages.org/writings/mo_old3.php)
Sexy girls have it easy See traditional female power in action: "...donning a sexy exterior earned her £20.50 (approximately $41) of free goods more than her dowdy duds did."
Ashley Dupré: "Let me say this - most girls, to varying degrees of course, want to be pampered and have nice shoes, designer handbags and gorgeous clothes. I know many women who target guys with money and use them to get these things. They toy with them, flirt, go on dates, have sex and then drop hints about that new dress at the store down the street or being short on rent money – and the guys deliver it. This is a dishonest relationship." (Note: What makes this a dishonest relationship is not that sex is being exchanged for money/resources. Sex is exchanged for money/resources in nearly all sexual relationships. What makes the relationship dishonest is the fact that the exchange is not acknowledged openly. In conventional sexual relationships, the convention is for both parties to pretend that there would continue to be sex without money. Today's rate of divorce, made possible by feminists and initiated primarily by women, makes it clear: when the money is gone, she is too. Sadly, this may hurt children of divorcing parents the most.)
Every single adult female human is 100% aware that men can be easily manipulated; almost every woman who abuses her traditional female power by underdressing in public, the workplace, etc. to manipulate men for her personal gain rationalizes her behavior by claiming that men have the choice to control themselves. Mens' behavior is unconsciously biased by female sexual power, therefore, under the influence of such female sexual power, men do not have the choice to fully control themselves. This is why every nation on Earth has common sense laws against obscenity, etc. Manipulating a person against his will and for personal gain (even just for an "ego rush") is exploitative, dishonest and wrong.Sexually manipulating a man against his will is sexual harassment and sexual abuse.
The male urge to procreate is so strong that it influences men's behavior both consciously and unconsciously. Evolution has seen to it that men's bias toward attractive women is beyond men's conscious control. Women know this so well that they gauge their power in terms of their sexual attractiveness, and artificially increase their sexual attractiveness by way of cosmetics to gain even more power to exploit men. Psychology Today: Men do everything they do in order to get laid, Why women will always have more power than men BBC News: Sex cues ruin men's decisiveness "Dr George Fieldman, principal lecturer in psychology at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, told the BBC News website: 'The fact men are distracted by sexual cues fits in to evolutionary experience. It's what they are expected to do. They are looking for opportunities to pass on their genes.' He said the study confirmed what had been suspected by many." Psychology Today: "A spate of recent studies suggests that beautiful women can indeed provoke dangerous outcomes unintentionally, because they induce men to take risks, make mistakes, gamble more freely, and generally behave impulsively."
"Involuntarily celibate people may suffer from unusually intense loneliness, frustration, and depression. In most Westernized, sex-positive societies, there is the additional social pressure for people in 20s or 30s age ranges to have experienced sexual interaction in some form. If the person neither has nor gains any such experience while all of his or her peers do, serious psychological consequences can result." ("Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis" D. Donnelly, E. Burgess, S. Anderson, R. Curry, J. Dillard, Journal of Sex Research 38(2), S. 159–169. (2001))
"Involuntary celibacy in everyday life can be actively destructive to a person's emotional and interpersonal well-being, rather than just a periodic nuisance or inconvenience, as is usually the case with relatively short-term 'dry spells.' Behaviors associated with involuntary celibacy can include self-absorption and an unhealthy preoccupation with sexual activities, which is a backlog of sexual arousal that can have an adverse effect on social interactions. The sexual arousal backlog would also make it more difficult for an affected individual to channel sexual energy into other pursuits. Meanwhile, internal consequences that can have external manifestations in an incel person tend to follow the standard sexual frustration pattern of being tense, irritable, belligerent and to have trouble sleeping; mood swings; perpetual agitation; stress; and anxiety." (Russell, Bertrand. 1970. Of Marriage & Morals. Liverlight Publishing Corporation. New York. pp. 286–291)
Women would never intentionally torture men or any other living being, would they? Huge demand for cosmetics continues despite well known and widespread animal testing. In a well known psychology experiment, volunteer subjects were instructed to press a switch to deliver actual electrical shocks to a live puppy, the shock level increasing by 15 volts every time the switch was pressed. As the voltage increased, the puppy first barked, then jumped up and down, and finally started howling with pain. The majority of subjects, twenty out of twenty-six, kept pushing the shock button right up to the maximum voltage. The six subjects who refused to go on were all men. All thirteen women who participated in the experiment electrocuted the puppy right up to the maximum voltage. (Sheridan, C.L. and King, K.G. (1972) Obedience to authority with an authentic victim, Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 7: 165-6).
"Although women account for slightly more than half (52 percent) of the U.S. population, they write 80 percent of all checks and are responsible for 85 percent of all consumer spending. In fact, for years women have been the ones primarily responsible for purchasing household goods and services in our country. From Kellogg's Corn Flakes to Calvin Klein jeans to Ethan Allen furniture, women control the purse strings." (LIMRA's Market Facts)
Let's connect some dots. Feminists consider all heterosexual sex to be inherently violent, and complain about a pay gap that causes men to earn more money because women choose to work fewer hours and in easier jobs. Women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending in the U.S. If women earn <50% of total national income but spend 85% of total national income then where does the >35% difference come from? Prostitution is prohibited in the United States. It seems that men with female partners are coming home from work, handing over their paychecks, and getting something that they would otherwise not be getting in exchange.The Sex for Reward Continuum But what are single, lonely, taxpaying men getting in exchange for their tax dollars that make it possible for 17% of U.S. women to live off of government welfare? How many hard working, taxpaying men are single, lonely and living in pain because 17% of U.S. women are married to the government instead? Female gender preference in the form of affirmative action is icing on the cake.
Who is paying women to not get married? According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
In the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes . This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group's tax share has grown faster than their income share.
The facts speak for themselves. In the USA, the ratio of males to females in a state predicts the suicide rate in that state. In general, the more males a state has for every female, the greater the suicide rate in that state. In the USA, seven of the top nine "suicide states" are also among the top nine "male states". Suicide.org: There are about 4 male deaths by suicide for each female death by suicide, and more than 742,000 Americans committed suicide from 1977 through 2001. How many of these men died because they refused to live in slavery or misery from inability to pay the price to be with a woman?
"Perhaps they are concerned about appearing 'sexist,' but I found it disappointing that the article on the 'marriage gap' failed to state the (somewhat obvious) main reason married women vote Republican and single women vote Democrat. Well, I'm a woman, so I'll say it ...
Women, no matter how independent they may believe themselves to be, are always subconsciously looking for someone to take care of them, and having children makes that need all the more powerful. Married women have their husbands, so they want the government to back off and stay out of their husband's pockets. Single women have no one, so they look to the government to take the place of a husband and provide for them.
"Sexual power is a pistol loaded with only one bullet
I feel kind of sorry for Monica Lewinsky. It's not that I consider her a victim, by any stretch; when a young woman heads to Washington with the expressed intention of earning her presidential kneepads, she forfeits any future right to claims of sexual exploitation. But neither do I see Lewinsky as a post-feminist power girl, wielding her feminine wiles in a brazen bid for an easy G-15 rating. To me, she's just a painfully sentimental, pathologically vulnerable, sexually available young woman who honestly believed her expensive haircut and starry gaze were enough to bring the Leader of the Free World to his knees. If I weren't a feminist, I guess I'd call her a pathetic little slut.
That's a hard thing for me to admit, and a difficult word for me to use. But over the last few months, I've been horrified to hear a soprano chorus of 'lipstick feminists' crow over the exploits of Monica the Power Babe. In one recent New York Times op-ed, headlined 'Monica Lewinsky, Career Woman,' Katie Roiphe complained that we lack a term for 'the opposite of sexual harassment, when a person of less power uses her sexual attractiveness or a personal relationship with a person of greater power to get ahead.' Frustrated by her stalled career, Roiphe reports, Lewinsky 'used her personal power over the President to get results,' threatening him with public exposure if he didn't land her a new job, pronto.
'There is nothing inherently wrong with Ms. Lewinsky's way of thinking, or with her attempt to translate her personal relationship with the President into professional advancement,' comments Roiphe, who is apparently unfamiliar with the legal concept of blackmail. 'It is a time-honored female tradition to use sexual power as a way to try to improve one's position in the world....'"
"The way we need to understand what the heck happened in the last 40 years is that it was all incremental for women."
"In other words, when women talked about 'equality' -- that never really happened. In order for equality to happen (and it never would be perfect anyway because perfect equality is a utopian ideal), women would have had to have given up their very real privileges -- privileges around children, sexual power, military service, courtship rituals, things like Systems is mentioning and so on.
"Feminism talked a bit about getting rid of these things, but of course nothing much happened to them, because apart from the radical Marxist bitches in the academy, most women had no interest in giving up their power bases (sex and children) or the privileges they had accreted over the ages relating to these, even as they eagerly embraced the new powers and freedoms given to women by feminism: sexual freedom, economic opportunity and so on.
"So at the end of the day it was all incremental power and freedom for women. They surrendered pretty much none of their traditional power and privilege, yet colonized the male power base and eroded areas of male privilege in the name of 'equality'...
"Basically it's fair to say that women defended their own power bases and actually increased their power over them substantially such that they have a near totalitarian power over their own traditional bases of children and sex (abortion rights, VAWA, rape and harassment laws, c/s regimes, family law) while aggressively colonizing the male space. When women speak of equality, therefore, I think what they really mean is (1) equality between men and women in what was previously the male space coupled with (2) absolute power of women in the female space.
"Most men and women still believe that, in the mating ritual, the man should unilaterally pursue the woman:
'The man calls the woman. The man arranges the date. The man picks up the woman to drive her to the date. The man pays for the date. The man initiates the goodnight kiss. The man returns the woman to her home. The man calls the next day to thank her for allowing him the privilege of spending his money on her. Then, the man calls a few days hence to determine whether this woman is available again for another opportunity to entertain her.'
Yes, in 2004, when women are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, mayors, and governors, the majority of romancers still play this obsolete, disempowering game... So, when you make a man buy you — by forcing him to pursue, court, wine, dine, and vacation you — he will feel ownership of you and act accordingly. He may smile and pretend that nothing is wrong, assuming he will close the deal on his new possession at the night’s end, while secretly resenting the whole charade. Quite simply: If you don’t want to be a possession, don’t act like one."
As far as courtship and dating are concerned, the vast majority of women are still "pay for play". Men do not pay for dates with the expectation that the relationship will forever remain strictly platonic. The bottom line is that money is being exchanged for sex. When money is exchanged for sex, regardless of whether he pays now and gets sex hours, days or weeks later (i.e. "dating"), gets sex now and pays later (i.e. spousal financial support during marriage and divorce), or gets sex now and pays now (i.e. escort service), the act is still prostitution. Counting the precise number of seconds between payment and sex is simply splitting hairs.
"Forty some odd years ago, feminists bellowed their way into mainstream attention, launching a major offensive on what they called a patriarchal system that had oppressed women for centuries.
Painting women as downtrodden and powerless, they railed against men with the missionary zeal of abolitionists and with largely the same message.
In short, women were slaves and men were their masters. They demanded liberation and have been making demands ever since.
They did a magnificent job of pitching all this. That could be a testament to the inherent truth in their ideas. Or it might be something else, like the fact that they already had so much power that few were willing to question anything they said in the first place.
You can put your money on the latter, because even a remotely objective examination of the facts leads to a far more reasonable conclusion.
Women were never oppressed to begin with. Not even close."
Similar situation in Ireland:
Inside Cork Thursday 8 July 2004
'Brides of the State' and the Family Man
By Katie Mythen
It is generally presumed, both at home and abroad, that Irish Society affords a high level of protection for parental rights and for the welfare of children. However, as society moves further and further away from the traditional values of marriage, wedlock and two-parent families, embracing what has become a comparatively liberal reality, the outline of a father's duty in the upbringing of children has become somewhat blurred.
For years, many men have found themselves on the outside of what was once their family life, faced with the stark realisation that having
rights and actually being able to exercise them are two completely different issues. One of the prime activities of the National Men's Council of Ireland is to monitor, on behalf of parents, how legislation and social policy impacts on the family, marriage and, particularly, on children.
Roscommon man Roger Eldridge, Chairman, National Men's Council of Ireland told Inside Cork, "Recently an unmarried father complained about his treatment as a parent saying, "Men can rear children, wash dishes, cook meals, clean houses just as well as women can. The only thing they can't do is give birth. "The obvious reply is, of course men can do all the practical things. The problem for men lies in the second sentence, "The only thing they can't do is give birth." Thi
s leaves this man and all unmarried men with the problem of how do they propose that women let them "rear children, wash dishes, cook meals, clean houses?"
Roger continued, "What the National Men's Council of Ireland are saying and what is in the Constitution (for the Common Good) is that only marriage allows a man to have a legitimate opportunity to have a family life as this man describes. A man earns himself a role by being family protector and provider. As long as the woman values his role she will agree to him being part of her family."
According to the French novelist and social anthropologist Briffault: "The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the fem
ale can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place". - Robert Briffault"
"This somewhat harsh analysis derives from the empirical data which show that, despite our delusions about women being the more romantic partner in a relationship, 90% of women marry a man who has more assets or earning potential than they do." Said Roger. "If women married for love the law of averages suggests they would marry a richer man only 50% of the time. The state is aware of Briffault's Law and through social welfare policies and illegal judicial activism in the family courts has sought the place of the husband. Effectively the army of "unmarried mothers" and 'separated wives' in Ireland today are "Brides of the State".
For example the state is able, through the so-called 'One- Parent Family Payment' scheme, to offer young women a disposable income that 99% of young men can not compete with. We have calculated using up-to-date figures how much a man must offer just to compete with the equivalent cash-in-hand that an unmarried mother is currently receiving by way of benefits, including housing, clothing, fuel allowances etc. If the mother has 2 children, gets Child Benefit and the One-Parent Family Payment and she avails of the scheme where she works 19 hours a week at times that suit her, her cash in hand will be roughly 450 euro per week. She pays no tax or PRSI on this. On to this must be added the cost benefits of the free Medical Card, Fuel Allowance, Back-to-School Clothing Allowance, say at a minimum another 30 euro. She will be put at the top of the Local Authority housing lists and will then get a reduced rent or mortgage payment benefit equivalent.
For a young man to generate an equivalent disposable income he must provide as take-home- pay the same 480 euro she is getting plus he must provide equivalent secure housing which means a mortgage costing him a minimum of 150 euro per week. So now he must provide 630 euro per week in his hand to provide the equivalent of what the state gives to the mother for her and her two kids. We must not forget his basic needs. The most important being that he needs is a car so that he can get to work so he needs again a minimum of another 70 euro in his hand for insurance, tax and running costs. The state allowance for a single man on the dole is 130 euro so let's assume he lives on the breadline. This means that he must bring to the relationship 630 + 70 + 130 = 830 euro in cash to enable his wife and him to live at the level that the mother could enjoy from the state on her own without him. This cash is after tax and PRSI deductions so his gross pay must be in the region of 1250 euro! It is obvious that only exceptionally fortunate young men (or any man) can compete with the state for the mother's 'hand in marriage'.
The average gross pay for 20 to 30 year old men is actually less than half what he needs to be an 'eligible' bachelor." Hence the state, having wooed the mother with our tax-paid money, then acts in the nature of a jealous husband who will countenance no rival suitors and so ensures that she will never marry a man. If the mother sh
ould meet a man who might have the potential to foot the bill for her, this is where the state gets really nasty. It says that if she is even seen with a man about the house she will lose all her benefits!"
Roger feels that the untold pressure on the modern Irish man contributes significantly to the country's climbing suicide rate, "We shouldn't be at all surprised to see that the rate of suicide amongst men in Ireland is one of the highest in the world," he said, "and that it peaks for males between the ages of 20 and 35, when men should be at he prime of their lives and getting married so they can start a family and enjoy the comforts and benefits that it brings." A recent World Health Organisation report, entitled Young People's Health in Context, wh
ich studied the health and behaviour of 11 to 15-year-olds in 32 European countries, as well as Canada, America and Israel, cited family structures as an "important factor" in young people's health.
Jill Kirby, the chairman of the family policy group at the Centre for Policy Studies, said: "There is a mass of evidence that children brought up by only one parent are at risk of under-age sex, drug abuse and drinking." Roger asks, "So how does the state justify promoting the position of unmarried mothers to the detriment of their children? And why, with the Irish Constitutional position clearly encouraging families based on marriage, is the state penalising the formation of marriage and RTE hell bent on preventing groups like us who promote marriage for it
s well-documented benefits from being heard by the people? The answer frighteningly must lie with the fact that the unholy alliance between big government and big business wants us all to be isolated, vulnerable individuals without family or community supports so that it can do what it wants with us, ie enslave us. Isn't it time that the decent family men and women of Ireland stood up for themselves?"
As always, Inside Cork welcomes your views (Broadcasting House, Patrick's Place, Cork). For more information on the National Men's Council of Ireland, visit the organisation's website at www.family-men.com or email familymen@...
I love Economics, I've taken at least 3 Economics courses in my time (and also plenty of classes that touch on economics, such as finance and international trade). You can't begin to appreciate the dynamics of large societies unless you take a class in microeconomics and a class in macroeconomics- just my opinion.
Women treat sex like a tradable commodity. Like every other commodity, sex is subject to the sacred underpinnings of economic law: Supply and Demand. You ever notice that when a woman has sex a little more freely than other women approve of, she's called 'cheap'? There's a reason for that.
It's a classic cartel situation, like OPEC. Women pretty much control the supply of sex: they ration it out and create an artificial shortage. Yet, demand is hot. That is why they can get us pay to through the nose for it.
Women don't always consciously realize that this is what they're doing. There's no big conspiracy, this is just how women naturally seem to behave. They are embedded within a larger process, so individual woman have internalized the process' imperatives and live their lives entirely unaware of the process' imperatives. Please excuse me if I sound conspiratorial, but I'm trying not to. Frankly, I think it's more disturbing that there is no cabal of conspirators who are behind it all. This system is on auto-pilot, with its unwitting female cadres just going about their business. Women are billions of different individuals, most of whom hold similar attitudes towards their sexuality and how to use it to their advantage. Most of them withhold sex while appearing to offer it, if the man meets her conditions. As a result, the aggregate efforts of all these individual women acting in their own self-interests to optimize conditions for themselves have dovetailed together into what merely seems like a conscious implementation of a massive cartel.
Frankly, I think it's a bit more disturbing that nobody is in charge of the whole cartel.
Ironically, a woman who has sex with too many men is a 'whore'... yet a woman who only puts-out in return for an extravagant evening of wining, dining and gifts somehow isn't a whore. Blink Wha? Maybe 'romantic courtship' is a less blatant way of expressing 'hooking'? I challenge you to say the following to any woman: 'it's not manly to pay for everything.' She will look at you like you're nuts.
The cartel is how women managed to bargain some measure of control over just about everything.
Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d'etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry 'armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality'.
And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.
To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post-peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.
"They're Still Working Against Marriage with Our Tax Dollars.
This story about the 25th anniversary of a women's center in Greenfield explains how feminists have intentionally destabilized marriage throughout Massachusetts. They believe that women will not be 'free' until marriage has been eliminated."
"I am struck by the idea that even in our criminal courts, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but in our family courts, a father is usually presumed to be guilty of not being as good a parent as a mother, of not being worthy of equal time with his children. It is strange to me that women are treated only as if they have divorced their spouses, but men are treated as if they have divorced their children as well. Women, by virtue of their gender, something as arbitrary as the color of their skin, are assumed to be the rightful custodial parents."
Read the story of the father who poured gasoline over himself and burned himself alive in front of a New Hampshire courthouse.
"I used to think feminism stood for equality. I've seen for myself it does not. Someone with a 'loud voice' needs to take a look at the facts, someone who doesn't benefit financially by the outcome. Then they need to use that loud voice to talk louder than the father-haters."
"In the spring of 2006, an estimated 13.6 million parents had custody of 21.2 million children under 21 years of age while the other parent lived somewhere else. The number of custodial parents has remained statistically unchanged since 1994 (Table 1). The 21.2 million children living with their custodial parent represented 26.0 percent of all 81.6 million children under 21 years old living in families... In 2006, 5 of every 6 custodial parents were mothers"
"Some fathering advocates would say that almost every social ill faced by America's children is related to fatherlessness. Six are noted here. As supported by the data below, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional problems. Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens."
"Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple, touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women's rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs--her daughter, Rebecca, 38. Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises--a mother. ... I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother--thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman. ... In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from enslaving me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late. ... As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families. ... Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It's helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems its caused for my contemporaries? What about the children? The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn't take into account the toll on children. That's all part of the unfinished business of feminism. ... Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating. But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women's movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them--as I have learned to my cost. I don't want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations. "
"I was born in 1970, in the middle of women's lib. My mother and her peers were conscious-raising and feminist... One feminist mother of a friend of mine never let her daughter clear the table or wash up - her brothers were expected to do it - because she didn't want her daughter to think domestic chores were women's work. My mother bought my brothers dolls (which they used as guns) and me an early computer. At my girls' school we were told to forget cooking and were given talks on how we would become the judges, politicians and scientists of the future. No one, not my family or my teachers, ever said, 'Oh yes, and by the way you might want to be a wife and mother too.' They were so determined we would follow a new, egalitarian, modern path that the historic ambitions of generations of women - to get married and raise a family - were intentionally airbrushed from their vision of our future... Why are so many alone? I remember interviewing Margaret McDonagh, then general secretary of the Labour party: 'You don't get to your early forties, childless, by accident,' she said sagely. 'I've made my choices along the way.' If you want a family, that has to be a priority. My friends and I just assumed the right man would appear at some point. Some of us were lucky (I met my husband backpacking in India), some of us were not. At dinner with girlfriends the other night, the feeling was we'd been let down. That society, by leaving us to fend for ourselves and offering no guidance or advice on the crucial subject of finding a mate, had failed us."
"For a number of decades the birthrate has been falling steadily throughout the western world. In most developed countries it is now well below the replacement level of 2.1... in Spain, Italy, South Korea, and Japan, it has fallen to around 1.3 or even less... feminism has a huge role to play in the infertility of Japan's females."
"And I wonder, if civilization continues for another 40 years (no guarantee on that one, imho) how these lonely women, their fatherless children, and our society will function consequent to what can only be termed our Feminist Holocaust."