MRm!

- collected

A few years ago, websites and blogs began appearing with provocative articles and thoughts that deserved further exposure. This prompted me to start up 'MRm! Magazine' (which was really just me copypasting articles that resounded with something in me, and failing miserably at dressing them up a little with illustration). A grand total of 6 issues were created, spanning some year and a half of articles from what became known as the 'Manospohere' (the first reference to the Manosphere appears on about page 110 or so in this PDF). While we as a society have moved beyond these rough outlines of theory, they are important concepts still, and merit a few minutes of your time. For those curious about the Manosphere, and those interested in it's history, this anthology is a good place to start. As Editor, and Publisher of botht the original magazine as well as this collection, I hope you enjoy the read, and find at least one thing that changes your perspective in some way. After all, the best kind of day is the day you expand your knowledge.

-Factory

Table of Contents
What Would Happen If You Found Out What They Don't Want You To Know? -Fidelbogen 5 Give A Dog A Bad Name, And Expect To Get Bitten. -Amfortas 8 Accused! -Paul Elam 14 Male Bloggers: Failing Miserably To Understand The Issues. -Angry Harry 17 Is Feminism A HAte Movement? -Fidelbogen 20 Catalog Of Anti Male Shaming Tactics. -ExposingFeminism 23 Game Is The Red Pill -Hawaiian Libertarian 28 Men, Math, And Marriage. -Paul Elam 32 Where's My Socket Set? -Christopher Vogel 34 Marriage Is Fraud. -Federz 36 Why Couples Counselling Rarely Works With Abusive Women. -Dr. Tara Palmatier 40 Divorced From Reality. -Stephen Baskerville 43 Is He 'The Loser' Or Is He 'Dad'? Teri Stoddard 50 Female Freedom And The Death Of Marriage. -Fidelbogen 55 Not All Women Are Like That. -Zed 59 Dear Ioana. -Heretic 62 Feminism And The Prison Industrial Complex. -Welmer 66 Why Game And Choice For Men Elicits So Much Hate. -Obsidian 67 False Rape Accusation Awareness: Steps Toward Understanding And Avoiding. -E. Steven Birkimer Hate Bounces: How Man Hating And Man-Bashing Harms Women. -Zed 72 The Plague Of Modern Masculinity. -Paul Elam 75 Conservative Misandry. -Hestia 81 Young Veterans Out Of Luck. -Welmer 85 Training Boys To Be Dogs. -Welmer 86 Fairness Is A Disease. -Jordan Woodward 87 To Man Up(tm) Or Stand Down. -Paul Elam 89 AbuseGate: A Generation Deceived. -Trudy Schuett 91 The White Woman's Burden. -Snark 93 Marry Him! (Really?): A Clear Example Of The Eternal Solipsism Of The Female Mind. -Obsidian What Do Men Find Attractive? -Welmer 100 A Slut By Any Other Name. -Elusive Wapiti 102 The Oversaturation Of Female Flesh. -Snark 104 On "Whining". -Jack Donovan 107 Anger Management. -Paul Elam 109 A Quick Primer On The Sexual Marketplace. -Obsidian 112 What Is "Feminist Sex"? -Hestia 115 The Real Reason We Do Not Have A Male Pill. -Robert O'Hara 118 Suicide - Men's Dilemma. -Vargas 121 The Non-Violence Lie. -Welmer 123 Suicide Among Men And Boys. -Kim 124 And This Person Wants To Transform All You Men. -Mark Richardson 126 VAWA: Pure Government Evil. -Anonymous 128 Masculinity Redefined? -John Hembling 132 The Myth Of Women's Oppression. -Bernard Chapin 134 Men's Studies: The Complete Freak. -Paul Elam 137 How Long Can They Pin It On 'Fringe Radicals'? -Snark 142

70

96

October 2009

What would happen if you found out what they don't want you to know?
-Fidelbogen

What do the feminists really mean by the term "patriarchy"? When this word rolls off a feminist tongue, what does it specifically refer to? Is it possible to discover what they are talking about in terms of the utmost clarity, simplicity, and above all usability, and reduce it to a formula that will smack the nail bang on the head every time? Understand, that we wish to unpack the occulted lexical thread of signification which the word patriarchy carries throughout ALL examples of feminist rhetoric. When THEY talk about patriarchy, THEY assuredly mean something particular, something consistent, something examinable, something that would manifest their devices if it were brought to light. From the highest towers of the academy to the lowest reaches of the pop-feminist gutter, they all talk about "patriarchy", and in their varied accents they are all referring to the same thing. It is to this thing specifically that we direct our enquiry, in order that we may know it and name it and decode feminist speech by the light of it. Here is the secret: When feminists speak of patriarchy, all they are really talking about is male power. It's just that simple. All of their circumlocutions dance endlessly and evasively around thisthat patriarchy is exactly synonymous with male power, neither more nor less than male power, and that in all cases the terms patriarchy and male power may be interchanged with a negligible adulteration of meaning. Try the experiment yourself. Find a piece of feminist writing where the word patriarchy occurs; replace this word with male power; see if it makes any fundamental difference. Also, see if it throws an unexpectedly revealing light upon the matter, yielding a sense and consistency superior to the original version.

If you wish, replace the word patriarchy with the simple word "men", and it will yield similar results. I know that many feminists have denied that patriarchy equals "men", but think for a minute: is not bare existence in itself a form of power? Tell me who has more male power: a man who exists, or a man who doesn't? No feminist understanding of "patriarchy" makes any ultimate sense if you divorce this word from the idea of male power. If you aren't talking about male power in some way then you are wasting your time talking about patriarchy in any way whatsoever. Let that thought be your femspeak decoder template. Feminist answer experts, seeking to confuse the issue, might reply that patriarchy is male power plus something else. Maybe so. But if you subtracted the male power part, the "something else" part wouldn't stand up any better than an empty gunny-sack, whereas the "male power" parteven by itselfwould remain fully serviceable within the calculus of meaning. Every feminist analysis that I'm aware of (for example, that of John Stoltenberg) does no better than make "something else" to be a form of male will-to-power emanating from the allegedly "constructed" nature of maleness in the first place. But this is a completely circular explanation that will never boost the discussion beyond square one, so we might as well scrap it. Besides, the whole mess boils down to male power anyway, so that in the end all you are really saying is that patriarchy is male power plus male power. So in the end, you can't go far wrong if you simply set

"patriarchy" equal to "male power". You'll go further wrong if you select any other option. It follows that any feminist who talks about "ending" patriarchy or reducing it in some way, is also talking about ending or reducing male power in some way. So what does male power mean? It means: any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to possess. And exactly what is this thing called...power? That is a very good and very important question. In the realm of human affairs, as near as we can make it, power is a substance compounded of two ingredients: IDENTITY, and AGENCY. Identity means the sum of all factors, both mental and physical, which identify you as a discrete center of conscious awareness in contradistinction to other such discrete centers. Agency means your capacity to either effect or prevent change through the exercise of your volition. Let that sink in. Take a break for a few minutes, if you want to. Get away from the computer. Go outside , look at the clouds, listen to the birds, enjoy the fresh air. Very well, you are back. Let's recapitulate. Patriarchy is a feminist code word for male power. Male power means any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to posess, and power specifically means identity plus agency. So in practice, the feminist keyword patriarchy maps to the identity and agency of any male citizen. Gentle reader, you as a person posess identity and agency. In other words, you posess power. You mightn't think you have enough of it, but you do have some. And so long as you have some, you have freedom. Again, possibly not enough for your liking...but some. And some is always enough to get you startedenough to leaven the dough, you might say. Be glad of it, and work intelligently with it. Let's see how feminism enters the picture. Feminism is an anti-male hate movement, and it is perfectly natural that

when you hate something you will seek to deprive it of powerthe more the better. We have equated power with identity and agency, and so have the feminist ideologuesalthough not necessarily in the same terms. Still, they have copped the base mechanics that we've outlined here. They know it instinctively. In order to undermine male power, the women's movement over the years has set afoot a variety of actions, both large and small, tending to vitiate the identity and agency of men. Indeed, nearly everything which feminism has accomplished has made some contribution to this overall effect. This "campaign" has cut a gradual, descending swath from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from the political to the personal - striving always toward a finer granularity of control, a greater concision of shades and subtleties in the realm of daily life. Dry alterations to the fabric of law and the outward form of institutions didn't satisfy them for longthey thirsted for the essential juice of life, and in particular, the life juice of anything male which crossed their path. The last thing they wanted was a workplace or a world filled with insouciant, free-spirited, self-esteeming men and boys. Something had to be done to correct male joie de vivre and male autonomy. Men were to be subjugated, but if they didn't know this, and if they didn't act like they knew it, then the whole thing would be pointless. It was necessary, then, for the reach of matriarchy to become omni-locational and allpervadinglike the ideological presence of a totalitarian social order. So, it was and continues to be important to the feminist effort that every possible shred of male identity or agency be appended to the shadow of ideology in some manner. ANY speck of uncolonized male space or male autonomy constitutes a bit of turf still in the grip of patriarchal power. Or at any rate, that's how they see it. Case in point: what is a "sensitive male"? For starters, it is a sexist expression in exactly the same way that "good negro" is a racist expression. This is a VERY exact paralell. If somebody employs the term "sensitive male", or worse, calls you one, then you ought to feel seriously offended.

Beyond that, a sensitive male is simply an emotional puppet whose strings are available for any woman to pull, whenever and wherever. In short, a man curiously lacking in power; a man of abbreviated identity and agency. Sometimes they will rate you on whether you "know how to cry". Reason being, that if you know how to cry then it follows that you can be made to cry. That's what they are really looking for in the long run. And here's an extra thought that occurred to me: how would you like to be told that "it's okay to cry" by the very same person who made you want to cry in the first place? You'd be damned if you'd give them the satisfaction, wouldn't you? These examples are given because in my opinion they implode the circumference of male power about as far as it can be pushed, at least in the daily realm of social interplay. Even to a point where the drive for control reaches straight into a man's inner world, breaching a barrier which civil propriety forbids should be violated. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Know therefore that your coolness, aloofness, guardedness, your methodological skepticism, or even your native lack of response to certain stimuli which others might find compelling, are all vital elements of your identity.

Your agency. Your autonomy. Your.... manhood. In other words, your male power. Oh, very well then, call it patriarchy! Ha! And you thought that "patriarchy" was just a one-sizefits-all guilt-o-matic gizmo designed to put men eternally on the defensive while giving women a carte blanche moral advantage in any given situation!

Well it is that indeed. But as you can see now, it goes deeper. . .

Give a Dog a Bad Name, and Expect to Get Bitten

-Amfortas

Feminism has long drawn attention to and fought against stereotypical and sexist portrayals of women in mass media, but new research shows that media portrayals of gender have largely executed an about-face in the past decade or so. There is a deliberate and unprovoked gender war and the main target of discrimination is not women, according to research - it is men. The Feminist so-called Gender studies have claimed that mass media portrayals and images are key influences that both reflect and shape societys views of women and womens self-identity. They do not consider men. As well as attacking so-called sexist media portrayals such as page three girls and girlie magazines, - which, incidentally feature young empowered women taking their clothes off and doing what they want to for copious amounts of money - feminists have challenged objectification and negative portrayals of women in movies, advertising, TV drama and other media content. Although it is increasingly hard to find any such representations not driven by women themselves, their argument that such portrayals are damaging have won eager support from legislators and from most media professionals including film makers, advertising producers and editors. After all, it is women who are the primary consumers of medias fruits. Until recently, gender theorists and media researchers have argued and lied or simply assumed that media representations of men are predominantly positive. Men have allegedly been shown in mass media as powerful,

dominant, heroic, successful, respected, independent ...they say... and in other positive ways conducive to men and boys maintaining a healthy self-identity and selfesteem. All things that feminists do not like one bit. But hey, Errol Flynn died decades ago. Marlboro man too. The mendacious feminist view has come under challenge over the past few years. John Beynon, a Welsh academic, examined how masculinity was portrayed in the British quality press including The Times, The Guardian and The Sunday Times and more, over a three-year period from 1999-2001. He didnt look deeply at the more crass tabloid press where matters are considerably worse. Susan Faludis 2000 best-seller Stiffed: The Betrayal of Modern Man, also finds and exposed the myths and lies and rings alarm bells about the false image of men in our society. Beynon concluded in his 2002 book, Masculinities and Culture, that men and masculinity were overwhelmingly presented negatively and as something dangerous to be contained, attacked, denigrated or ridiculed. In Australia a broader and more extensive content analysis of mass media portrayals of men and male identity was undertaken in 2005 at the University of Western Sydney, by Dr Jim Macnamara .
It focused on news, features, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media, and found that men are widely demonised, marginalised, trivialised and objectified in non-fiction media content that allegedly presents facts, reality and truth.

Examine the quality and scope of the evidence. The study involved collection of all editorial content ( no cherry picking) referring to or portraying men from: 650 newspaper editions (450 broadsheets and 200 tabloids), 130 magazines, 125 TV news bulletins, 147 TV current affairs programs, 125 talk show episodes, and 108 TV lifestyle program episodes. They were from the 20 highest circulation and rating newspapers, magazines and TV programs over a complete six-month period. Media articles were examined using in-depth quantitative and qualitative content analysis methodology. This comprehensive and exhaustive research found, in volume, that fully 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral. Men were predominately reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identities showing men in one of these four ways. More than 80 per cent of media mentions of men, in total, were negative, compared with 18.4 per cent of mentions which showed men in a slightly positive role. The overwhelmingly negative reporting and portrayals of men in mass media news, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media was mainly in relation to violence and aggression. Violent crime, including murder, assault, armed robberies and attacks such as bashings, accounted for almost 40 per cent of all media reporting of male violence and aggression, followed by sexual abuse (20.5 per cent), general crime (18.6 per cent) and domestic violence (7.3 per cent). Disregarded is the fact that crime is a feature of a tiny minority in our society and the vast majority of men are law-abiding, family-supporting, self-sacrificing chaps going about their lawful occasions. Men who are increasingly dismayed at the ease and frequency with which women denigrate them. Other topics of media coverage of men were fatherhood and family, male sexuality, work and career, and mens social behaviour. In all of these categories, men were

predominantly reported and portrayed negatively. Fully one third of all media discussion of male sexuality examined in the study was in relation to paedophilia which demonstrates the appalling distortion inherent in debate on men, given that an infinitismal proportion of men are pedophiles. Fatherhood, a prominent also-ran subject was discussed in 361 media articles and features during the period of the study. Some media coverage positively discussed men as fathers, pointing to increasing recognition of the importance of fathers in childrens lives. However, along with recognition of the importance of fathers and the depth of many mens emotional connection with their children, discussion contained an almost equal number of criticisms of men as deadbeat dads, commitment phobic and as perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual abuse within families. That sexual abuse is far less common in a family with a biological father in it than without in fact, statistically negligible - is totally ignored or suppressed. The National Family Violence Survey in the US for instance found women just as likely to commit violence against men as men are against women, and a US National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect report in 2000 that found where maltreatment of children led to death, 78 per cent of the perpetrators were female, Where is that ever reported by our media? The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau reported in 2005 that TV commercials drew a record and increasing number of complaints from men during 2004 while those from women are decreasing. The Australian Federal Governments 73 Million Dollar advertising campaign against domestic violence which targeted only men as perpetrators of domestic violence and only women as victims was labeled propaganda against men with many men criticising its negative and blatantly false stereotypical portrayals as reported in The Age, January 3, 2005. One notable Australian commentator described it as the worst piece of deliberate Government black propaganda

against a biologically distinguishable group ever seen outside of Nazi Germany. Doris Lessing, the famous British early feminist author, said at the Edinburgh Book Festival, in August, 2001: "I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed.

such TV shows seem to be preaching a message of defer to the woman as the only way of impressing her or stopping her being violent - and failure to do so will result in a smack to his face. Violence toward men, physical and verbal, direct and indirect, is treated as comedy or deserved. Whatever happened to There is no excuse for violence? . Doris Lessing said Men seem to be so cowed that they cant fight back, and it is time they did. Now, how does one expect men to do this when there is so much legislation that forces them to keep their opinions and protests to themselves, and so much misandric vilification in all arms of our media-driven culture; the media that just wont give men a voice? With the rapid rise of female and feminist influence, seemingly devoid of the famed and hubristically claimed empathy and compassion, our media institutions are dominated by subtle verbal thugs. How do you think it affects Justice in the Family Courts, where an industry of rent-seeking hangers on suffused with false and awful images of men, pass judgment? Men are less cowed than chained to a post in the back yard, like a dog. Let us examine the effects of this chaining up. I want to show how women have lost a valuable resource thrown it away - the care and concern of even the nicest, kindest and most intelligent men that Lessing refers to.

...
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, illeducated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests." Her audience was stunned.

Bumbling idots? Losers? Who likes those?

Stupid is also an increasing thematic portrayal of men, especially in television adverts which the Australian study did not cover. Men are routinely portrayed as "fools, idle, good for nothing and inept" usually a second fiddle to their so much smarter and more decisive female partners. In adverts, the savvy, empowered, successful Executive woman is married to a stupid boy-man who cannot open a can of beans and whose children are more capable at doing year 4 homework than he is. Canadian authors, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young in a controversial 2001 book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture reported widespread examples of laughing at men, looking down on men, blaming men, de-humanising men, and demonising men in modern mass media. They concluded: the worldview of our society has become increasingly both gynocentric (focused on the needs and problems of women) and misandric (focused on the evils and inadequacies of men). This seems pervasive too in many TV dramas. It is clear

Why should I care?

Not to put too fine a point on it, mistreated dogs bite. I have provided a lot of detail from contemporary research which shows the systematic destruction of masculine reputation foisted upon us by an anti-male media, driven by the education women receive in our Universities. Men are rubbished and mistreated daily. Good men;

ordinary, hard working men; family men. The good name of men is soiled at every opportunity by ordinary women repeating feminist agitprop. Women have eagerly adopted the habit of disrespecting men, making it a sardonic sport, so much so that even an early feminists like Doris Lessing are horrified at the destructiveness, callousness, crudity and downright lies. What can men do about it? What are men doing about it? Men are generally doers rather than talkers, present company excepted. And when good men stop doing what good men do, women lose out. Anthony Nazzaro writing for the National Organisation for Men has pointed to incidents and behavioural trends. Lets look at some: The Baltic Sea; Estonian-Swedish ferry sinks, over 800 die. A disproportionate number of women drown. Many say the "Law of the Sea" (women and children first), was forgotten, and "The Law of the Jungle" (every man for himself ) prevailed. The screams of women drowning were heard by many men, it was reported. Montreal, Canada; 14 women students were killed by a mentally disturbed man. Many media commentators were bothered by the fact that the male students didn't risk their lives in an attempt to protect the women. Feminists used this as yet another male-bashing exercise. They have an annual protest accusing those boys and all men of being complicit. New York City, the Twin Tower Bombings: in the panic to get out of the buildings, some women reported of being shoved out of elevators by men. One or two of the 300 odd firemen who died in the inferno perhaps? Was it the actual case that women were pushed out? Maybe it was just a whine from a woman or two who broke a heel. But men were criticized, in a tragedy. On the radio in the UK, a lost child, a little girl, is reported as found wandering the aisles of a businessmans train from Glasgow. Women phone in condemning men on the train for not helping the child. Their tone is heated, bordering on calls for lynching. The

many business-women passengers who did not help are not mentioned. A small girl wanders from a kindergarten in England; she drowns in a pond. A man-hunt looks for a van seen in the area. The man is found and cleared but is vilified for not stopping to help a wandering child. He says, I was afraid to talk to a strange child and be accused of being a paedophile. In the book Male and Female - A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World, there appears an opinion "that men have to learn - to want to provide and protect others, and this behavior, being learned, is fragile and can disappear rather easily under social conditions that no longer teach it." [...Or flat-out deride it. -ed] Phyllis Schlafly, a well known American writer, has written that male soldiers are now being trained to disregard female soldiers' pain and suffering if captured, since the sexual assault of a U.S. female POW during the gulf war (who turned out not to have been sexually assaulted at all, by the way). She's afraid if this attitude gets out to the general public, it could be devastating to male-female relationships. Well it has, and it is. Destroying chivalry by continually criticizing it and blaming men for being polite and helpful is one thing, but are women willing to forfeit the paternal feeling that most men still have for them? Today, men are starting to refuse to see themselves as the providers and protectors of women. In an equal world why should they be? The provider protector role we are told is oppressive. This archetypal male role has been rubbished - by feminists and their legions of media whores and legislators. Women are hardly noted for stirring themselves to provide for and protect men. Quite the opposite in fact. Every opportunity to abandon men is taken, as Doris Lessing pointed out in disgust at her feminist sisters. Feminist legal scholar and Professor Catharine MacKinnon has said that the increase in domestic violence and rape are symptomatic of male attitudes toward women. Hah! She

would say that, wouldnt she? What increase? She speaks absolute nonsense. There has been a consistent decrease in domestic violence and rape against women in all western countries. It is womens domestic violence and false allegations of rape which has seen a marked increase. More lies and vilification from the Womens Studies Departments infecting our Universities, and our legal system, but then what can one expect from Professor McKinnon? She emulates Professor Mary Koss who created the infamous and ubiquitous 1 in 4 women raped statistic by publishing self-selected data collected through the Feminist Ms Magazine. Despite being exposed and torn apart by Christina Hoff-Summers' in her book "Who Stole Feminism?", there is barely a Womens magazine in circulation that has not continued to repeat this wicked lie to terrify its readers and turn them against decent men. There's equality, and then there's equality... Could Feminisms AgitProp Gender Politics, designed to suborn women, have changed mens attitudes so that men now see men and women as just people? Have feminists pushed women off the pedestal? Perhaps they have opened mens eyes to an historical Confidence trick. Is this a good condition for our society? According to a recent poll, many fewer men would give up their seat in a lifeboat to a woman today, quite a difference from the 1912 Titanic disaster where mostly women were saved. Even more than children. In a riot, disaster or war, will it mean every man and women for themselves? Many men today demand that women be obligated for the draft and combat along with men. Mel Feit, of the National Center for Men, in the USA, has stated that "a male body isn't any more capable of withstanding a bullet than a female body." Women hold political office and Board-room positions, and are police officers and some are even firefighters. Why should men still risk their lives to protect them? Geraldo Rivera on a show regarding male-female violence stated, "The way I was brought up, men should always

protect women." But isn't this attitude patronizing and demeaning? Feminists tell everyone it is, taking every opportunity to berate men. Some women call this equally disrespectful attitude, misogynistic. What friggin nerve! Some men call this a result of societal equality, poetic justice. If being equally respected is what women want, then perhaps women could make a start on being respectful. They have had several generations of feminism and equality but seem yet to make that start. Meanwhile, being equally disrespected could be a natural and inevitable by-product of their systematic disdain, even if it is back-firing on women. It seems to me that to stop this rot in society and specifically the media and the Law- sponsored, forcedredundancy of men, will need a revolution in society. Maybe brought about by calamity. If, say, an invasion were to occur and men were to turn their backs on the defence of the nation as we are now "redundant", what would the prevailing attitude of the female gender be then? If such an invading force was one that sees women as nothing more than chattel to be used abused and discarded at a whim, would we then, as men, be good for something? Ahhh yes, we would be good at defending the freedom and advancements that these women claim for themselves. This shows that the claims the feminists have made in respect to the advancement of women are nothing without the men to protect and ensure those gains. They are only guaranteed existence by a willingness of men to uphold them. But why should men stand up and defend the rights of the feminists and their followers who label men redundant, violent, abusive, child abusers, perverts, rapists, etc, as they are fond of vomiting in the main stream media. Remember the feminist catch-phrase? ALL men are rapists?

Perhaps it will never come to be that men will en-masse turn their backs in such a situation as we all have mothers, sisters, daughters and female relatives whom we hold dear to our hearts. But even these are increasingly disrespecting men, divorcing and dispossessing their husbands and estranging themselves and the children from their fathers. Children, particularly girls, are developing an horrendous image of men, starting with their fathers. They will likely grow totally distrustful of men altogether. Boys self-esteem is terrible as they look to a future when they too will become the men they see portrayed. There is a self-fulfilling prophesy bearing down on us. 66% of divorces are initiated by wives, wanting to rid themselves of the men Doris Lessing spoke about. Nice men. Intelligent men. Kind men. These men are deliberately mis-labeled and dragged into the Family Court, sometimes by policemen who have thrown them out of their homes on false allegation. Men are dispossessed of their homes and their families in The Best Interest of the Children, Adolph Hitlers wicked phrase. It is not only mens image that is ruined. Men just might leave women all to themselves.

It will not be from anger. Despite being so mistreated, men in general have not shown anger toward women. But men are feeling profoundly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted. Western women have not raised any objection to being manipulated by feminism. Instead they have embraced its seductive, destructive mantras and mendacities. They punish faultless men who they see as all the same. All bad. They have permitted calumny and few have raised objection like Doris Lessing. They have chosen to follow a pernicious and socially destructive Marxist-Feminist agitprop path to a bed of their own making that they have to lie in. Alone. No doubt they will blame men, for being commitment phobic.

Accused!
-Paul Elam

David Evans. Collin Finnerty. Reade Seligmann. Dont be surprised if the names sound only vaguely familiar, though not so long ago they were the subject of national headlines. Perhaps the mention of another name will jar your memory. Mike Nifong. Yes, Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann were the accused in the stridently publicized Duke Lacrosse rape case. A rape that never happened. A case that never should have been. _ In a supersonic rush to judgment, these three young men were subjected to a virtual lynching at the hands of the media, the Duke administration, the prosecutors office, police and every other public institution that could help toss a rope over a tree branch. Dukes administration canceled its lacrosse season, fired coach Mike Pressler, and ignored death threats against Pressler and the team. Indeed, the university administration fanned the flames of public outrage and hysterical student protests against the players by publishing a letter that addressed the accusations with the following: The students know that the disaster didnt begin on March 13th and wont end with what the police say or the court decides...To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard. Duke reacted to the allegations without the least regard for the concept of assumed, or even actual innocence or for the rights of those three members of their student body. Instead, they lit torches and incited the mob. All these actions were given inertia by the knee jerk outrage of a public that didnt have the facts and appeared

not to want them. It may be too generous to say that the public didnt have the facts. The public did have enough to question the cases integrity, but ignored it. It was understood from the beginning what this woman did for a living. I know, I know, in this all too enlightened world we live in, I am supposed to take great pains to point out that ones profession isnt an excuse for rape. Consider it pointed out. But let me also point out that her life as a pathological liar, stripper and drug addled hooker didnt diminish her credibility for a moment, and it didnt take the railroading of those young men off the fast track. Such is the power of accusation when it comes to men and women. It is a power that has unjustly ruined the lives of untold thousands; a power that goes unchecked and unchallenged, all because we live in a culture that cannot imagine women as anything but victims; men as anything but perpetrators. The results of this cultural psychosis are written in statistics that should outrage anyone remotely interested in justice. Charles McDowell, a researcher in the United States Air Force Special Studies Division studied 1,218 cases of rape that were reported between 1980 and 1984 on Air Force bases around the world. Initially, 27% of those cases were found to be fraudulent because the alleged victims admitted to lying when asked to take a polygraph or after just having failed one. Another 212 of the cases were exposed as frauds with no polygraph involved, as the alleged victim convincingly recanted the accusations early in the investigation. In other words, 45% of all the rape charges were proven to

be hoaxes. The great majority of those did not recant until they were caught in the lie. A 1996 study published by the U.S. Department of Justice revealed 28 cases in which men were exonerated by DNA evidence of rapes for which they had been convicted and sent to prison. The men were released after having served an average of seven years behind bars. Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman is quoted as saying. For 16 years, I was a kick-ass prosecutor who made the most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. A command officer in the Denver Police sex assault unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45%. The Innocence Project, which seeks to secure the release from prison for those falsely convicted of crimes, reported that Every year since 1989, in 25% of sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. And those men freed were just the ones lucky enough to have DNA evidence available. There are certainly more who remain incarcerated. And by the way, the crime for which The Innocence Project has had the most success in freeing the wrongfully convicted? Rape. Men, scores of them, have been Nifonged, robbed of freedom and reputation, all on accusations that no one bothered to scrutinize. Or worse, as in the Duke case, their innocence was known and they were prosecuted anyway. This problem has infested the criminal justice system, which marches on like a Nazi battalion while the masses throw ticker tape. Unfortunately, it doesnt stop there. False accusation has become the WMD for modern women who choose to use it, and by the frequency it happens, that is no small number. I know, I know, in this all too enlightened world, I am supposed to take great pains to point out that not all women falsely accuse men of wrongful actions. Consider it pointed out.

But let me also point out just how pervasive the problem is. It happens in family courts where allegations of spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual misconduct and the like are routinely fabricated to facilitate restraint orders that are dispensed with no corroboration. In those courts, the lie is just another tool for winning a case. It also happens in the workplace, where accusation alone of sexual harassment or discrimination can snuff out a career and generate huge legal settlements that companies feel compelled to pay to keep the allegations out of the press, truth and justice be damned. Allegation has become the fiat currency of social power over men, and it is working in spades. Corporations cave in, shrinking from the bad press of lawsuits that go to trial. Prosecutors that cannot politically afford to be seen as soft on sex crimes, or hard on women, run innocent people through with grinding wheels of injustice without compunction. And John Q. looks the other way, unwilling to take an honest assessment of this behavior and the women who commit it. Vindication is of little solace. This is not innocent till proven guilty. It isnt even guilty until proven innocent. It is guilty until proven innocent, but still guilty in the eyes of the world, even if your only crime was to have a whore point a finger at you and cry rape. Try a Google search on any one of the Duke three. Their connection to rape charges will be there for life. What does a man released from prison for a rape he didnt commit tell an employer? Yeah, I did seven years on a rape, but they cleared me. Sure. What does he tell a woman in which he might be interested? It isnt the accusers that pay the price for their criminal deception, it is the accused, exonerated or not. The reason that these travesties continue is obvious. It can be summed up in one word. Impunity.

The reality is that there are no real consequences for destroying the life of a man if you ruin him with a fraudulent charge. There are indeed laws on the books against it, but they are not enforced. It is a crime without a criminal, mainly because the perpetrators are women, or men acting in their behalf, and we all know they dont lie about such things. Crystal Gayle Mangum, the street walker who ruined the lives of those three young men wasnt prosecuted. She was referred to counseling, and eventually graduated college herself, with a degree in police psychology. I wish I made that one up. But the fact is that the world not only tolerates this stuff, it embraces it. Or as Catherine Comins, a former assistant dean at Vasser College said:

I wish I made that one up, too. Mike Nifong, the rogue prosecutor who broke every canon of legal ethics and more than a few laws, to further himself by prosecuting young men he knew to be innocent, was fired, disbarred, and spent one day in jail.

" They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I

would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions."

Read more: Cover Stories Behavior: When Is It RAPE? - TIME http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,91 71 ,1 571 65,00 .html#ixzz2kwkRtW99

Male Bloggers: Failing Miserably to Understand the Issues

-Angry Harry

I often wander around the internet and frequently spend hours of my time reading various blogs on a wide array of subjects. And I am becoming quite overwhelmed - and pleasantly surprised - at the talent that there is out there. Sure, there is a huge amount of rubbish, but among it all there appears to be no end to the variety of subjects about which people have become very expert; far more expert than you will typically find in the mainstream media which, for many of us, seem to have nothing of real interest to say or do these days - except, perhaps, when it comes to disseminating the latest 'news' items. And when it comes to political issues, most of the pundits on the internet are men - about 80% according to a survey that I once saw; something that accords with my own experience. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that while Women's Issues - and Feminism - seem to dominate so very heavily in the western world (exerting a truly malevolent force when it comes to the well-being of men) that so very few of these male 'political experts' are prepared to tackle them head on - at least when it comes to their own blogs and their various pronouncements. Why? Is it that all these men are too scared to take on the feminists? Is it that they are completely blind to the positively enormous number of negative impacts being inflicted upon their own societies and their cultures - and on them - by the well-organised perpetual deluge of man-hatred emanating from the feminists, the abuse industry and their governments?

Or is it just a lack of concern? Well, I do not know the answer to this question. But I know this. Unless more male political activists and pundits start to wake up and actually do something to counter those groups and organisations that seem hell bent on demonising and disadvantaging men, matters are going to get much worse for them. After all, these pernicious groups are continually being funded with millions of dollars - billions across the western world - and they are not going to go away. Furthermore, of course, there will always be another step against 'men' that they wish to take, simply in order to continue justifying their jobs, their pensions and their huge empires. For example, the abuse industry will continually attempt to expand its definitions of 'abuse' forever into the future, regardless of how successful it has been at eliminating certain 'earlier' forms of 'abuse'. Indeed, here in the UK, even writing angry letters to your ex-partner is now seen as a form of 'intimate violence' by the government. And while these groups - that, in essence, continually nourish themselves by continually stirring up hatred towards men - remain funded and supported, they are not going to go away. And if most of you male bloggers and political aficionados out there continue to bury your heads in the sand when it comes to 'gender issues' that are negatively affecting you and your loved ones mightily, the onslaught against you will simply continue to get much worse.

Furthermore, of course, you will fail to draw the attention and support of a much wider audience for your views - i.e. from 'men'. After all, men make up half the population and, as indicated above, it is men, far more so than women, who seem to be concerned about political issues. So, why not write about men's concerns in connection with your interests? Most of those women who are concerned with politics are forever considering how they, as women, are being affected by whatever topic is under discussion, but most men who are concerned with politics seem completely oblivious to how they, themselves, are being affected. And, indeed, this lack of interest actually suggests to me that these men are not quite as astute and as expert on their subjects as, no doubt, they would often purport themselves to be. Take those men who call themselves 'libertarians', for example. These men are usually very much concerned to push the government out of people's lives as much as possible. And yet western governments have largely increased their powers over citizens during these past two decades on the backs of women's issues and feminism. And so when, for example, I visit the sites of self-professed 'libertarian' bloggers who fail continually to address this point, I begin to wonder whether they have any real insights at all. And the same goes for those men who seem to regard themselves as conservatives. They tend to complain about such things as high levels of taxes, big government, poor education, family breakdown, the economic situation, war, and what have you; but there is precious little discussion about how all these things are affecting 'men'. But without looking at how these things are actually affecting half the population - men - there is surely not much hope of them understanding anything. Those on the left, of course, tend to like huge amounts of

government control. But they, too, never seem to look at how their politics impact on 'men'. And so, once again, there is surely not much hope of them understanding anything that they would claim to understand. Furthermore, it seems to me that most of these male political pundits are actually failing to see what is really going on 'out there'. For example, they seem to remain unaware that the interest group called 'Men' is actually a far bigger group than all the other political groups put together. True, some kind of Men's Movement has not yet organised itself into a significant political force, but there are vastly more men out there than there are libertarians, or conservatives, or leftists, or whatever. And their voice is gradually getting louder. And the ongoing failure to tap into this huge reservoir often by failing to recognise its very existence - suggests a remarkable lack of perceptiveness on behalf of those who would claim that they would like to change things for the better, and who would also often proclaim quite loudly that they have good ideas about how to achieve this. Indeed, if they are failing to take into account the impact that their ideas and notions have on men then, surely, they are as useless as would be ecologists who failed to consider the importance of plants to the welfare of animals. Furthermore, thanks to the internet, this male 'consciousness' is set to grow and grow. And it is going to end up being far bigger and far more persuasive than any other force. How could it not do this? - unless the internet is heavily censored or closed down in the future. So my advice to all you male bloggers and pundits out there is to use this huge gathering force to your advantage and to understand it. And for those who don't then, quite frankly, it seems to me that your comprehension of the current state of play must be remarkably deficient - so much so, that your words of wisdom are probably not worth reading. Furthermore, feminism is, in practice, a truly disgusting ideology that is not much different from the early days of

Nazism. And many of those who practice feminism usually have exactly the same kind of mindset - when it comes to Men - as did those Nazis once have toward Jews. They have the same basic mentality. Feminism is also costing the west hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and it is impacting very negatively indeed on vast areas associated with our well-being. It is all there, in front of your noses - and so very easy to see. So, please, get your act together and start fighting against it on your blogs and in your essays, instead of ignoring it or running away from it. In other words, wake up; and help to kick this revolting ideology and its more wicked proponents into the back waters of history - where they belong. Finally, I have no doubt at all that feminism is eventually going to be exposed to the public for what it really is, and I feel certain that many of those officials who have treated men appallingly on the back of it will one day be held to account - personally - even if this takes 20 years. After all, tens of thousands of men every year have had their lives very seriously damaged indeed by government officials acting on the basis of highly corrupt and prejudiced feminist-inspired policies. And there is no reason why these men should not seek redress.

Furthermore, I will not be surprised at all to see academics who have supported feminism being vilified and ostracised in much the same way that were those who supported Nazism. As such, might I suggest that we get this 'war' over and won as quickly as possible; and thereby remove from our countries this thoroughly obnoxious ideology that poisons all of us. Might I also suggest that the two most effective ways for bloggers and writers to achieve this end is to keep pointing out to their readers that, firstly, feminism is not about equality, it is mostly about empowering and funding government and government workers and, secondly, that it thrives mostly by willfully and purposefully damaging the relationships between men, women and children. In other words, it is an extremely insidious and thoroughly nasty ideology. And if you are a male political pundit then, perhaps, you could kindly make the effort to help the public to wake up to this rather unhappy fact.

Is Feminism a Hate Movement?

-Fidelbogen

To remove man-hating from feminism would be to extract the DNA nucleus from a living cell, the fuel rod from a reactor, the teeth from a rottweiler. I would assert that manhating is feminism's moral center of gravity, and that without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection toward males, feminism could not logically continue to existit would flounder without purpose, and disintegrate. If you give the matter a little thought (and I have given it a LOT), you will see that no other theory so elegantly accounts for the observable facts of the case. Let's start with some basics. Would anybody dispute that feminism is a socio-political movement on behalf of women? Would anybody dispute that feminism proffers a particular analysis of man-woman relations? Would anybody dispute that feminist analysis holds women to be globally disadvantaged, by some objective and quantifiable standard of measurement, in comparison with men? Finally, would anybody dispute that feminist analysis concludes an element of male authorship in the comparative disadvantagement of women? Yes, feminism is a women's advocacy movement which identifies men as the wellspring of certain difficulties said to afflict women. This would both summarize and make reply to the verbose paragraph above. And given that men are said to be the wellspring of women's difficulties, are we to believe that no opinion about men as men ever infiltrates feminist thinking on any level? Does any self-admitted feminist, having once identified "men" as the source of women's troubles, go serenely about her business harboring no strictly personal opinion about "men"? I'd call it a considerable stretch, to believe any such thing. Admittedly, I fashion my argument upon probabilities. But they are compelling probabilities. I seriously doubt that any better can be offered.

I'll have no truck with the "I blame patriarchy" cop-out. This is simply a way of postponing the issue by obfuscating it, since the phrase is so fuzzy it is useless for normal purposes - although useful indeed for underhanded purposes! But patriarchy is plainly understood as a uniquely male institution; men created it and men keep it rolling, or so the story goes. So it is mighty difficult to understand how a person could "blame" patriarchy without "blaming" men in the very same swoop. Let us enquire further into probabilities. Feminism identifies "men" as the source of women's difficulties. So ask yourself, what class of women might be drawn to such a social movement in disproportionate numbers? Would such a movement attract women who get along well with men and enjoy their company? All right, possibly a few. Just possibly. But would such women compose the bulk of the membership? Where do you suppose the probability lies in such a case? Would such a movement attract women who do not personally see "men" as a source of difficulty in their lives? Is this probable? Is this plausible? Is this credible? Does this FIT? Hate is a very strong word, and it signifies a very strong thing. It is hard to imagine just how powerful hate can be. Yes, it is all on a spectrum. It is all on a continuum. "Hate" can be bad, and it can always get badder! Even to the point where the hater implodes into a black hole, and pops clean out of the moral universe, and sucks as much as possible along for the ride. All right, maybe the word hate is not the wine for all occasions. I like the word disaffection. It is more inclusive than hate because it embraces all shades of disliking without privileging the extreme. Now, a social movement such as feminism needn't hope to exclude the element of disaffection. I have explained the reason for this already, but now we must proceed to the next stage of examination.

If the disaffection spectrum begins with mild disenchantment and progresses by shades clear up to unmitigated loathing, and if feminism incorporates at least SOME of this spectrum, then we should pause to wonder exactly how much of the spectrum is thus incorporated, and precisely how far it reaches in the direction of uncompounded malevolence. How high on the hate scale does feminism's emotional aura actually extend? Where does it stop? Again, consider the likelihoods. If the feminist disaffection spectrum reached no higher than a mild and possibly sporadic disenchantmentan occasional mood, as it werethen feminism would very plainly lack the sustaining force to be a viable women's advocacy movement. There is simply no way it could gather the necessary motivation and momentum. There would be neither snow for a snowball, nor any appreciable hill to roll it down: no accretion of mass, no accumulation of velocity. Simply put, feminism would be a non-starter and a non-movement. A thing like feminism requires a mighty fund of passion both to launch itself and to keep itself running. Tepid feeling will not sufficeit needs to be robust and vehement, and it needs to gain validation through a political analysis that will both justify the original feeling, and contribute to the growth of that feeling by the use of a self-fulfilling feedback loop. The world has always contained a certain number of people - sociopathic or what-have-you - who for various reasons don't like the opposite sex. When a thing like feminism appears, proffering a political analysis of sexual relations casting men in the role of miscreants, it is easy to foretell the response man-hating women will make to this. Clearly there will be some exceptions, but I feel confident most such women will be on it like bees on a honeycomb. Or flies on shit, if you prefer. There's nothing quite like finding an analysis to uphold your attitude. And the documentary record indeed bears out that early secondwave feminists in the radical 1960s were a vehement, passionate lot. They were not wishy-washy. They were not tepid. They were not mildly disenchanted with men. They were by no stretch of the imagination living on the low end of the disaffection spectrum. More significantly, they were not merely attracted to something which somebody else had created. No, they were present at the very inception; they themselves were the creators and early architects of the movement. Without them, or people like

them, the "movement" would never have started moving in the first place! Nor would the movement be moving still today, if people like them were not down in the engine room stoking the boiler, or up in the pilot house turning the wheel and watching the binnacle. They are the dynamo, and if we should replace them with a crew that was just a shade less disaffected, the new dynamo would be a shade less dynamic, as would the entire movement. It would be just a shade less inclined to bulldoze over obstacles, a shade more inclined to call it a day earlier in the day, and a shade more inclined to lower the bar of compromise overall. Dial this down shade by shade and watch the movement grow more and more anemic. Eventually, "feminism" would be wavering in its convictions, sleeping late, and frittering away its dwindling energy on matters increasingly peripheral and unfocussed. In other words, feminism would become a non-entity and a non-movement. So, we have shown that feminism offers an ideological interpretation of female disadvantages in life. We have alluded to the feminist belief that female disadvantage originates from a male-driven power conspiracy, and asserted that such a belief is not feasible to uphold absent a pejorative evaluation of men both individually and as a group. From this we have concluded that some varying degree of personal disaffection toward men cannot be absent from the minds of most feminists, and therefore cannot be absent from the movement as a whole. Finally, we have made the case that feminism's viability as an advocacy movement is directly indexed to the degree of disaffection toward men found among the movement's membership, with greater viability correlated to greater disaffection. Or as stated early in this article: man-hating is feminism's moral center of gravity; without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection with males, feminism could not logically continue to exist. Milder forms of feminism do indeed exist. And so do milder feminists. But they are not the vanguard. They are not the cutting edge. They are not the powerhouse. However, they work diligently to secure advantages for women like scavengers in the aftermath of the main assault, once the enemy has been routed. They are the petty clerks, the bureaucrats, the carpetbaggers, who move into the occupied territory and secure the administration

of it. It is part of their job to seem unthreatening, which is easy when somebody else does the dirty work. Their distinguishing feature is that of taking for granted what has been ideologically instilled into the general culture, and taking their ease against the moral support cushion this affords them. Left entirely to themselves, they would have neither the ambition to initiate a political movement, nor the drive to keep it operating in a political capacity. Yet they have a moral investiture in feminism's world-view, which proposes male guilt as an explanatory model, and by this investiture they plant themselves within feminism's web of misandric operations.

It is easy to see that if man-hating disappeared from the world, feminism would neither serve any purpose nor have any means to continue operating. But feminism is still operating, and if you are male you are not amiss to suspect that feminism means to harm you. So under the circumstances, you don't owe feminism any favors. Nor do you owe women any favors under the moral banner of feminism! Yes, I call feminism a hate movement. Whosoever desires, may undertake to convince me that feminism is a love movement.

Catalog of Anti Male Shaming Tactics

-ExposingFeminism

Shaming tactics. This phrase is familiar to many Mens Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too. Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a mans insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, mens issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy. Charge of Irascibility (Code Red) Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples: Youre bitter! You need to get over your anger at women. You are so negative! Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow) Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples: You need to get over your fear. Step up and take a chance like a man! Youre afraid of a strong woman! Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a costbenefit analysis. Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) The Crybaby Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing Chicken Little). Examples: Stop whining! Get over it! Suck it up like a man! You guys dont have it as nearly as bad as us women! Youre just afraid of losing your male privileges. Your fragile male ego Wow! You guys need to get a grip! Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It

may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (yes or no), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accusers welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) The Sour Grapes Charge Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example: You are just bitter because you cant get laid. Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, What if the grapes really are sour? At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called circumstantial ad hominem. Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) The Brown Shirts Charge Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples: Youre one of those right-wing wackos. Youre an extremist You sound like the KKK. more anti-feminist zaniness Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are out of the mainstream is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of False Compromise). Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender) Discussion: The targets sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples: Are you gay? I need a real man, not a sissy. Youre such a wimp. Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

Charge of Puerility (Code Green) The Peter Pan Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples: Grow up! You are so immature! Do you live with your mother? Im not interested in boys. Im interested in real men. Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children. Response: It should be remembered that ones sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) The Elevated Threat Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples: You guys are scary. You make me feel afraid. Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a mans legitimate freedom of expression.

Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray) Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples: Im not like that! Stop generalizing! Thats a sexist stereotype! Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.

Charge of Instability (Code White) The White Padded Room Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples: Youre unstable. You have issues. You need therapy. Weirdo! Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the targets mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter. Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver) Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits. Examples:

Charge of Misog yny (Code Black) Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples: You misogynist creep! Why do you hate women? Do you love your mother? You are insensitive to the plight of women. You are mean-spirited. You view women as doormats. You want to roll back the rights of women!! You are going to make me cry. Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are not a zero-sum game). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the targets viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of argumentum ad misericordiam (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or argumentum in terrorem (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

You are so materialistic. You are so greedy. Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, So you are saying I shouldnt spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway? Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) The All-ThatGlitters Charge Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples: If you didnt go after bimbos, then How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother? Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, highmaintanence women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) T he Ugly Tan Charge Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples: I bet you are fat and ugly. You cant get laid! Creep! Loser! Have you thought about the problem being you? Response: This is another example of circumstantial ad hominem. The targets romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments. Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon) Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the targets negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the targets anger or fear, but on the targets supposed attitude of resignation. Examples: Stop being so negative. You are so cynical. If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat. Cmon! Men are doers, not quitters. Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.

Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) The Pink Whip Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples: No woman will marry you with that attitude. Creeps like you will never get laid! Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad baculum (the appeal to force). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the Pink Whip is to realize that a mans happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).

January 2010

Game is the Red Pill

-Hawaiian Libertarian

Now that it appears the debate between the PUA (Pick Up Artist)/ MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) / MRA (Mens Rights Activist) blogosphere about Game and it's relevance and morality has cooled down a bit, I would like to reiterate the one point I believe is most relevant for why all men should take an effort to understand Game without trying to marginalize it or write it off as completely erroneous, simply because you object to the morality espoused by the PUA...or that you think Game is a silly, manipulative script that men follow simply to get laid. To use the Matrix allegory, Game is the Red Pill. ...something happens which makes us question those very rituals we've blindly followed and we are confronted with a choice - shall we take the blue pill and choose to ignore any inconsistencies with our own paradigm which works pretty well, or shall we take the red pill and explore these inconsistencies knowing that it could lead us into a world we aren't familiar with... one that questions the very foundations of our current perspective. In this context, I think it's perfectly fitting to describe the social engineering by cultural indoctrination and conditioning that has been effected for the last century regarding gender roles and attitudes towards institutions like the Patriarchal nuclear family; the confusion engendered by the "battle of the sexes" and the legal system of sexual/social politics; is all really best described as a mass delusion...an epidemic of blue pill-addiction. Symptoms of blue pill delusions are ubiquitous, and it manifests itself all over the place. Only the few red pill takers...those that understand the reality of gender relations...are even aware of just how widespread the mass delusion of distorted gender roles is inculcated into mainstream consciousness. And this is where "Game" comes in. Game is the red pill

because it is based on men analyzing what behaviors are attractive to women, and what behaviors are not. It is the basis for just about all social dynamics amongst any human interaction...why men compete with other men (for access to women)..why women compete for the attention and affection of men they perceive as desirable to other women. Game is the Red Pill because it deals with understanding the principles of observable truths that are field tested...and these truths are in direct contradiction to the blue pill delusions of preconceived notions regarding gender roles in our BraveNewWorldOrder. Once we learn of that new paradigm, we can no longer hold the older belief as our truth. Not everyone can deal with this kind of thinking. Many people are perfectly content believing something to be as they've always known it to be, and reject this newer attempt at truth because it's too painful to accept - they've been living their entire life based on this lie and only now they come to discover that the world is not what they thought it was. Unlike the caricature portrayed by it's detractors, Game is NOT a simple ruse...a routine or a schtick to manipulate or trick women into having sex with men. No, it's about truly understanding social dynamics and the role that social hierarchy plays in any human interaction. Once you have this understanding, you begin to see "THE MATRIX" or false reality of delusions regarding gender relations. I thought of this as I read the comment section of Dr. Helen's blog post that I cited in my last post on Relationship Dynamics. So many Men weighed in with their comments, unknowingly revealing the depths of their blue pill instilled delusions that contributed to their failures in their relationships.

Here are a few quotes that demonstrate this blue pill effect: And whenever your woman asks which of two paint colors you prefer, you have to say you don't care. The alternative is surely picking the wrong color and paying dearly for it. This is blue pill induced paranoia. Fear of "paying dearly" for upsetting a woman. Anyone that even has a rudimentary understanding of Game knows exactly what to do should a woman ask a man to pick a color... My ex-wife used to love to put me into impossible verbal situations such as, "do you think that (super model) is prettier then me?" Wrong answer #1: Yes "You don't think I'm pretty!" Wrong answer #2: No "Liar!" So I found myself avoiding talking to her at all. Taking the blue pill renders many men utterly clueless to the "shit test." And failing these tests are relationship destroyers! Here a few more comments showing the blue pill-addled mindset: I do think, however, that women manipulate more. They cry, they feign anger or hurt, they tell you stupid things like "a man doing the dishes is sexy" or "I'll be happy if you ___" (and if you refuse you don't want her to be happy). Of course, women lie to. Unless, of course, you really believe she's had a headache for 6 solid months or is somehow turned on by a man pushing a vacuum. -I'm a good guy. I don't cheat or go places I shouldn't or do things I shouldn't or drink too much or any of that stuff. I have nothing to hide from my wife, but I have learned the hard way that if I tell my wife the truth about certain things -- especially my feelings if they're at all negative -- then I'd better be prepared for two or three

weeks of significant pain. Helen is right. I want to be a truthful person with my wife, but it just isn't worth the hassle -- especially since she's made it so clear that she really doesn't want to hear the truth. --No offense, but sometimes women are just plain scary. Are you beginning to see the common thread here? How the blue pill mindset has left so many men so clueless about how to deal with their wives and/or girlfriends? All of these preceding examples are Men who are afraid of their wive's emotional state. For the majority of husbands, they married a woman who they could communicate with and formed an allegiance. Her attitude became far less tolerant and hostile after. (There are many reasons for this that I won't go into here.) To rethink his attitude may invite a firestorm into his home. To rethink his allegiance will cost him dearly--he'll lose his children, and quite possibly pay huge bucks for his wife to move someone else in. Advice would be great if the laws were not so biased in favor of women. Men have much to lose and little to gain by standing their ground. Women have much to gain and little to lose by villainizing their husbands and divorcing him. I get this impression that there exists a commonly held notion amongst MRA that ever since feminists got no-fault divorce legislated, all women have taken to it with great gusto, simply because they can...that the laws give women gold digging powers, and they take advantage of it simply because it appeals to women's greed, and they will happily destroy the lives of their husbands and children to sate that lust for greed. I beg to differ. There's much more to it than that. Because if a married man stands up for himself in today's climate, he could very well find himself put out of his own house, paying over a substantial chunk of his paycheck to his ex-wife, and seeing the kids when (and if ) she decides that.

This is what I call the Emasculation Paradox. Many men today seem to think that the legal system is set up to give all the women the power in marriage...so they'd better cede it to her to avoid upsetting her so that she doesn't take you into divorce court hell. But the paradox is that a man who understands the reality, also understands that STANDING UP FOR HIMSELF is the ONLY WAY his wife CAN respect, admire, lust and love him. You really shouldn't worry about upsetting her. She's a woman. She gets upset as surely as the sun rises in the East. What you have to worry about, is turning into someone she doesn't respect...and patronizing her because you are afraid of her emotional state is the fastest path to losing that respect. When contemplating why we now have over 70% of women who initiate no fault divorces, there's much more to it than simply because all women are greedy, slutty, or adulterous simply because that is the nature of modern, Western women. Yes, there are most certainly a segment of the female gender that is in fact materialistic gold digging manipulators. But I think it's quite a stretch to simply say that the 70+% of women that initiate their divorces do so because of a greedy, materialistic nature. No, you HAVE to account for the social engineering of our BraveNeWorldOrder on BOTH genders into account when trying to understand just why so many women "change" for the worse by getting bitchy, nagging, fat and absolutely contemptuous of their husbands after they get married.. and why men that used to be bold, assertive and confident when they were dating, fall into the relationship dynamic where they are the pussywhipped, cowed and beaten wimps absolutely crushed under a domineering harridan of a wife. In short, it's nothing more than a blue pill overdose. Taking the red pill will open your eyes to the reality of the female sex drive and how it's basis on the principle of hypergamy dictates her behavior. It provides a solid understanding of exactly why women on an instinctual level, require men to be the dominant leaders in the relationship. Whenever a man fails to fulfill that role, the relationship begins it's death spiral towards oblivion. Attraction is not an intellectual vocation. This is why "marriage counseling" usually doesn't work. No matter how many logical reasons there are for a woman to be happy in her marriage...if she has that visceral contempt for

the man that turned into a "Beta" in the marriage bed and impregnated her with his inferior seed, she cannot control how she FEELS about that. Because by him "becoming" beta, she only feels disgusting contempt for him in her gut. This epidemic of blue pill delusion that doesn't recognize this basic understanding of female attraction is why I believe so many women turn into the proverbial psycho exwife. It's women's basic biological nature to seek dominant genes for her offspring. Yet too many men beta-ize when they get married, submit to their wives as their authority figure, and even if she THINKS it's perfectly fine to be the dominant one...that she is just exercising "equality," her basic instinct is to have utter contempt for a man that she can rule. This is precisely why so many men seem dumbfounded that the sweet loving girlfriend they married turned into an uncaring psychopath without a shred of mercy or decency in dragging him through the divorce court system and all of it's vagaries and indignities it inflicts ...THIS occurs because for the most part, because both of them failed to follow their natural gender roles, and the very nature of her sexual instinct -- hypergamy -- makes her regard him as a sub-human creature of utter contempt. It is the very premise for the "game" routine that Roissy and other PUA call Marry Shag Kill You have to understand why women have this curdled reaction to betas deep in their bones. If a man spills his seed in the wrong woman, no biggie. He can still bang other women and fulfill his genetic programming. If a woman gets her eggs polluted by the feeble seed of a beta, shes stuck for nine months, and probably longer. This is why there are so many cases of these women feeling justified and entitled into getting the most they can from a divorce settlement...even if she's the spouse that ended up breaking her marital vows. Beta Contempt. By the time you are being taken to the cleaners, she is merely carrying through with the legally accepted means of playing the very real version of marry/shag/kill...with you being the Beta Sap she "kills." I've come to realize this when I've thought long and hard

about almost all of the failed marriages and relationships that I know of throughout my life. I can think of no exceptions in the cases where the female ended the relationship. It always happened after the man no longer fulfilled the leadership role her biological imperative requires. The cultural indoctrination of our BraveNewWorldOrder -the blue pill culture -- encourages these relationship malfunctions in every conceivable way. It's memes and shibboleths are ceaselessly pushed by our mass media driven popular culture to try and ensnare as many men and women to fall into this devious trap as possible. It is a population control agenda at it's most subversive. To put it succinctly: The blue pill encourages masculine behavior in women and feminine behavior in men.

It encourages women to strive to hold all of the power in a relationship dynamic, and encourages men to cede that power to the women. By promoting the ubiquitous culture of misandry, and making everyone strive for the unattainable goal of "equality," they push men and women to act out in ways that are contrary to our natural gender roles, thereby effecting an epidemic of "beta-ization." Feminist lobbying for No-fault divorce was the mechanism for the BraveNewWorldOrder to attack the nuclear family; to re-make society by first destroying it's foundation...but it wouldn't have been nearly as effective if it were done without the social engineering that promotes contrary gender role behavior... empowered women and emasculated men.

Men, Math and Marriage

-Paul Elam

Ive been just sitting here for 30 minutes now. My hands have been poised over my laptop, but theyre frozen. Actually they have a slight tremble, like all the keys are painted with cyanide and my fingers know it. I have decided to do a piece offering some marital advice to men. And I know men pretty well. I might as well be doing a porn review for the readers of Ms. Magazine. But I am feeling dangerous and my fingers are starting to work, so here goes. My first piece of advice when it comes to marriage is simple. Dont. And I do mean never. And, yes, that means you. I dont cotton much to psychobabble, so I wont make a hypocrite of myself by putting you though it. Thankfully, it is not necessary. For it isnt relationship dynamics that will get you. Its math. And the numbers are scary. First, and most of you know this, more than half of all marriages end in divorce, not counting the ones that end in murder, suicide and psychiatric facilities. But that doesnt mean that only half of marriages are failures. There is a lot of failed marriages that dont end up as divorces. These are people who stay married and make a hobby of hating each other like Palestinians and Israelis. And the math on marriage isnt near as disturbing as the numbers you will be faced with when its over. The equation goes roughly something like this: 1 angry wife + 1 lawyer + 1 family court = 1 impoverished man living in a studio apartment and driving a 1981 Buick Skylark. Numbers are sometimes ugly, but they dont lie. But wait, you say, I can change that equation with a pre-nup!

Yes, you can. Here are the factor weighed results. 1 angry wife + 1 lawyer + 1 family court + 1 prenuptial agreement = 1 impoverished man living in a studio apartment and driving a 1982 Buick Skylark. Pre-nups take more time to draw up than the courts take tossing them aside. The fact of the matter is that in modern culture men are better off downing ten shots of tequila and stumbling blindfolded through a mine field. The odds are better. Think about it for a moment. Marriage is quite literally an investment of not only your heart, but all of your work, income and future income, especially when children are involved. Now, if an investment broker told you he had a deal in which you could invest, with mostly intangible returns, and there was more than a 50% chance that you would be wiped out and spend most of the rest of your life paying the margin call or going to jail, how much would you invest? Well? Oh, come on now, you might be saying. Its not fair to reduce the institution of marriage into a financial equation. Well, yes it is. Believe me, if the woman you marry doesnt heavily consider your income prior to saying yes, she is the infinitesimal exception. And for those of you who still think it is natural and right for a man to be the breadwinner and the head of the family, please know that would be the same head that gets lobbed off in the family court where more than half of you will end up. And even if you dont think, for who knows what reasons, that marriage is about money, you better believe that divorce is. Reducing holy matrimony to assets and liabilities is precisely

what family courts are designed to do. And they do it with brutal efficiency. If you walk in to one of those places as a man in western culture, you will find that out in the most sobering ways imaginable. Your experience there will leave you with a mental block. You wont even be able to say the words family court again, for they will find you, shivering in the corner, mumbling incoherently about that place. A lot of married men already know this. Those are the guys in the other half of the marriage statistics. You know, the group that is successful? Plenty of them have consulted lawyers because they wanted to escape insufferably nasty, horrifically high maintenance wives, but the more legal realities they heard, the more those banshees they were married to began to resemble June Cleaver. As soon as they coined the phrase Take him to the cleaners, the follow up, cheaper to keep her, wasnt far behind. Just dont do it. Living with a woman may be a better option, but you need to be careful with that one, too. Depending on the laws where you live, you could end up married without knowing it. So gather your facts. Yes guys, that means go see a lawyer, one that understands mens legal issues, before you even shack up. Do it the moment she asks if she can leave some clothes in your closet. Better yet, do it now, while you dont have a girlfriend and can still think from the neck up. Consider the legal consult the investment of a lifetime, because it is. And having children? Sure. Just be prepared to have every connection to those children severed when its over, except, of course, for the financial connection. That will be maintained at gunpoint. So choose that Skylark carefully. Youll be driving it for a long time. I know that some of you are thinking, Oh, that will never happen to me. All I can say is that more than half of you are deluding yourselves, and the rest of you have no reliable way to know just how lucky you will be. For those who maintain that adolescent sense of invulnerability, such admonitions will fall on deaf ears. Never underestimate the power of denial. I also know that some of you, especially some women that are reading this, are saying Hey, wait! Not all women are like that! They are not all the same! And you are right.

But all family courts are the same. Screwed in L.A. Shafted in New York. Swindled in London. They are all the same. Just dont do it. But, in the rare case you are not going to listen to me and make your own decisions, and you insist on taking that plunge, I have some suggestions on finding a suitable bride that might help with damage control down the road. First, never finance a relationship. Only date women that pay their own way from the start. Admittedly that reduces your chances of dating, much less marriage, but there is a sound reason for it. It leaves you with a better, if less common, class of woman. For if a woman feels that she is entitled to ride your wallet though life when she is infatuated with you, when you can do no wrong and are the most amazing man she ever met, just imagine how she will feel about your wallet when she hates the very sight of you and the sound of your voice makes her want to claw her own eyes out. Watch her behavior and learn from it. How does she act when you disappoint her? What is her reaction to hearing the word no, or when you choose your way instead of her way? If she takes it in stride and moves on, then you might have a keeper, inflection on the word might. However, if she responds to the fact that you went golfing when she didnt want you to by cutting you off in the bedroom for a few days, or by telling you how selfish and immature you are for having any interests that dont revolve around her, what do you imagine she will do when she fully believes that you are the antiChrist and are responsible for every ill in her miserable life? And that, gentlemen, is precisely the woman you will face in a divorce. She wont be rational or reasonable or even principled. She will be, quite literally, your mortal enemy. And she will have the full force of the state on her side. Make that a 1971 Pinto. And so there you have it, guys. A brief primer on the potential house of horrors we call marriage. All you need to do to have a fighting chance, though, is find a woman who makes her own money and considers it natural to pay her own way; a woman who understands that no one is the center of the universe and that meeting in the middle is the only sane path to a partnership. In other words, just dont do it.

Where's My Socket Set?

-Christopher Vogel

I walked through the maternity ward carrying my slightly stinky new daughter. We were headed for the change/wash room for new mothers. I knew they had nappies and wipes there. The room also contained another Dad with his new girl. We exchanged the 'look'. The 'look' is something Dads carrying babies give each other regularly. It says: This is pretty cool! It feels right. There are also emotional undertones suggesting that we both recognise that we've done and will continue to do the unacknowleged work that fathers do, and that should push-come-to-shove, we've got each others back. It's a very pregnant look. He looked like an ex-surfer. Slim, not too tall, faded blonde hair, unshaven, with a relaxed air about him. He looked cool. Anyway, I'm changing my girl and he's washing his, when he says something; First one? Third. Me too.

Intimacy thus established we started talking about our experiences being Dads; the sleepless nights, the biting of little feet, the over protectiveness towards the first one, that sort of thing. Then he said one thing I hadn't heard expressed before. He said: Just once, I'd like a socket set. I knew instantly what he meant. When a child is born the mother gets flowers and chocolates and cards and compliaments by the score. As a Father I've had two you-must-be-so-prouds and innumerable slights and put downs. He's so cute, good thing he doesn't take after you. You can't let her do all the work any more lazy bones He has your eyes, but he can have plastic surgery later on. (to my wife) You just lie back and let him do all the work for a change. - Who do you think has been doing all the work for the last three months you daft cow! They don't mean to be cruel, it's just a part of the culture It's the assumption that it's okay to not only ignore you but to actually treat you badly during a time that should be

joyous. If you complain they say you shouldn't be so touchy. And to an extent they are right. It's just one comment, but it's the hundreds of just-one-comments that can eventually crush the strongest spirit. It's also just one person, but it's the millions of just-onepersons that make up our society and colour our world and ultimately make policy and laws. The new parents pack at the hospital had nothing for the father. The generic new customer gift pack at the chemist contained nothing for men, or even usable by men. They don't mean to be cruel, it's just a part of the culture now and will continue to be until complaints are made. They don't have to be angry complaints, but they must make the point.

It could be worse, he could look like you I've been so lazy, I'll have to cut down on my daytime soaps and shoe shopping So, nothing in here for the male parent then? This is the womans gift pack, can I have the mens one? Hey, where's my socket set?

Marriage is Fraud
-Federz

Q: Do you believe women have the right to divorce? A: Ah I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, Women were owned as chattel! I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights. You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom. Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? Its because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know. But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that dont become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women? Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.

Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival. When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage: Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability. Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour. Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract. The male sells his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability. The female sells her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour. In order to sell something, you first must own it yourself, and upon selling it, you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights. In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it. So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women

were once owned as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a womans sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to own her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them. (Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property). This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wifes sexuality was no longer hers to give away. This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone stole the sexuality which was his property. This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property? So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were owned as chattel. A wifes sexuality (NOT her person), was very much owned by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husbands own children. But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths. The part of the women were owned as chattel song leaves out the second verse, which is and men were owned as beasts of burden. Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox! bellows the wife. You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you! For eons, mothers have told their daughters, Why buy the cow when the milk is free? You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The mans surplus labour. And benefit from a mans surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!

She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves. She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women. Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a mans labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable. So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general. Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive. Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this. Have a look around the room you are in. Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man. Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood). Thus, when you hear that marriage is the foundational building block of society, you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty. Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way

society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history. So, back to the original question: Do you believe women have the right to divorce? My answer is a resounding NO! Why, you might ask? Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldnt be allowed to marry in the first place! It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce. You see, in the 1860s, the wonderful womens rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature but is the bond that creates civilization. Before the 1860s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had paid for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not own her person, but in marriage he did own her reproductive ability and the products thereof. The transferring of these property rights back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward. Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the

labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could. But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to own what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to own what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children. Now, all through up until the 1970s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract. If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breached your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it. If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breach of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesnt it? Therefore, there were many things which constituted fault. Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted fault. If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for abandonment, and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract and you would be liable for any damages caused by your fault. That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and dont deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed. But, in the 1970s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in peoples complex personal relationships, and therefore No Fault Divorce was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isnt it? They have no troubles at all

finding fault in cases of domestic violence.) So what have we got left here? WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE! What was originally based on a woman selling a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as payment, has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a mans surplus labour as payment for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD! If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car. The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because it is in the best interests of the car is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract. Yup. But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract. The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the vendor still has the right to make you into this: Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox! bellows the ex-wife. You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing! MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED! Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living in herds. Have nothing to do with them. Do not oppress them with marriage.

Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home. Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know? Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too. Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking now move on and think more wholesome thoughts. Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women cant stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them. And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually selling to you. Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support the herd of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone elses property. You dont owe the herd anything. They dont even want you to be part of the herd. You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a good boy. There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it cant be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone elses benefit then. Give them as few tax dollars as possible. Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living in a herd. Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy? . Why even bother with a cow that doesnt give milk? Let alone pay for one. DONT MARRY!!! It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.

Why Couples Counselling Rarely Works With Abusive Women

-Dr. Tara Palmatier

I receive a lot of emails and comments from men who are involved with abusive women who want to know if couples counseling will help. Many of these men have shared stories in which they recount how therapy was a waste of time, money and energy because it only emboldened and validated their wives/girlfriends crazy and hurtful behaviors. Why is this so? The Perversion of Psychology If used properly, Psychologys ultimate benefit is personal responsibility and freedom. At its best, it can help a person: Become more aware of how he or she is affected by and affects others. Make clear, conscious choices. Strengthen their ability to say no to unhealthy and/or abusive situations, people and relationships and open up the possibility of new, healthy opportunities. Set an example for others to become fully developed, conscious individuals. Ideally, therapy is used to help an individual explore his or her past in order to understand their pain in the present. It is then the individuals responsibility to use that awareness to make different choices, change self-limiting behaviors and free themselves from the past and unconscious forces that control them. Unfortunately, many practitioners have allowed Psychology to become a big cop out and blame game. As a result, we now have a few generations of professional victims who take little to no responsibility for their own happiness and who blame everyone but themselves for their difficulties and misfortunes. Its not my fault because my parents did x, y, and z to me, so you have to excuse and put up with my bad behavior. I cant help it. If you werent so angry, selfish, etc., I wouldnt have to. . . insert controlling and abusive behavior here. [*Many women who are abusive have one of the Cluster B personality disorders, which

include histrionic, narcissistic, borderline and antisocial personality disorders.] Abusive women usually fall into three categories when it comes to therapy: 1) The professional shopper. This woman is usually the one who suggests therapy because she wants to portray you as the one with the problem. She wants a professional to say, Yes, Mrs. Crazypants. Youre right. Your husband is an obnoxious jerk. Youre right about everything. If you dont criticize him and tell him what to do and how to do it every minute of the day, it will bring on the apocalypse, so by all means keep hammering away at him. Youre absolutely right to do so and hes a defensive, overly sensitive crybaby for being upset about it. How ever do you tolerate him? An abusive narcissistic and/or borderline woman rarely attends therapy for her own issues because it would mean admitting she has issues. Therefore, she has a different agenda for counseling than you do. Alternatively, she may admit she has some issues, but stipulate that you need to work on your issues first because youre the cause of her issues. By the time you fulfill her laundry list of grievances and its her turn to do some work; she ends treatment. [Please note: A good therapist doesn't let one spouse/partner hijack couples therapy like this.] The professional shopper will often spend years dragging her husband/boyfriend from one couples therapist to the next. If she does individual work it usually amounts to weekly hand holding with a lame therapist who acts as cheerleader, confidante and expresses empathic statements about how much she puts up with and what an angry, insensitive, unfeeling, selfish jerk you are without challenging her or making her the focus of her own therapy. Basically, shes buying herself a best friend with your money. Do you really want to pay for this? 2) Hell no, I wont go! This woman refuses to go to therapy

and believes it has no value. While it may be frustrating for her partner whos desperate for relief, shes actually demonstrating a rare moment of personal insight. Shes right. Therapy probably wont help her. Alternately, she may have had therapy in the past and received a diagnosis she doesnt want you to discover. She may fear her controlling, abusive behaviors will be exposed for what they areabnormal pathology. She knows a good therapist will see through her and expose the truth. 3) Go to therapy or the relationship is over. A husband/boyfriend issues this ultimatum out of desperation and the hope of finding relief . An abusive, controlling wife/girlfriend who issues this ultimatum is looking to strengthen her control. Heres the problem: First, if you have to issue an ultimatum in order to get your wife/girlfriend to work on the relationship and treat you with basic kindness, it doesnt bode well for your relationship. Second, like everything else with an abusive woman, its about control and she certainly isnt going to let you usurp her control even under the threat of divorce/break-up. She may agree to go and then play games and stall in regards to choosing a therapist and scheduling a date and time or sh lead you on a merry chase, going from one shrink to the next until she can find one she likes (i.e., one she can control). Once you finally find a therapist who meets with her approval, shell spend the entire session criticizing you. If the therapist challenges her in any way, shell refuse to go to another session and accuse them of siding with you, of having an affair with you or something equally preposterous. If you were the one who issued the ultimatum, shell also accuse you of being the abusive control freak. There are many ways for this to blow up in your face, even though, ironically, youre trying to save the relationship. Why Couples Therapy Rarely Works An abusive woman, particularly a narcissist or a borderline, typically cant tolerate effective therapy because it puts boundaries in place and holds her accountable. In this case, therapy often degenerates into yet another vehicle to complain about and blame others, namely you. It becomes a device to a) get you to do whatever it is she wants you to do (e.g., stay in the marriage or quit asking her to get a job); b) get you to shut up and do as youre told; and/or c) co-opt the therapist into validating her distortions, forcing you to prove yourself and placing the entire onus of the relationship on you.

Meanwhile, she continues to play the Queen of Hearts, declaring, Off with his head! when you inevitably displease her. The following are some key reasons why therapy rarely works with this kind of woman: 1) Ego syntonic vs. ego dystonic. Personality disorders, particularly the Cluster B personality disorders (Narcissistic, Borderline, Histrionic, Antisocial) cause the most pain and suffering to others rather than themselves. Abusive narcissistic and/or borderline women often experience negative consequences for their bad behaviors, however, they dont see themselves as the ones with the problem. They believe theyre okay (syntonic) and blame everyone else for their problems and unhappiness. They will not connect the dots back to themselves, until their behavior becomes dystonic, i.e., they see their own behavior as the source of discomfort, pain, etc. 2) You cant help someone who wont admit theres a problem. This kind of woman will readily admit that you have problems, but that doesnt count. Therapy not only doesnt work with an individual who takes no responsibility for her actions, it also becomes another mechanism by which this woman controls and emotionally bludgeons you. Just like your wife/girlfriend twists the things you say and do, shell also twist what a therapist saysespecially if the therapist holds her accountable. This woman shops for therapists she can use to blame and shame her husband/boyfriend into submission. The moment a therapist tries to hold her accountable, theyre denounced as a quack and she moves onto the next expert for hire or denounces therapy altogether and refuses to see another therapist. Everything is about control. Controlling your reality, controlling the therapists perception of her and youi.e., shes great; youre a boorish ogre. If she senses shes losing control of the therapist and the session and the focus shifts to her behaviors, shell probably flee the scene and begin a smear campaign to devalue the therapist and/or the entire field of Psychology. She behaves this way in order to avoid having her flaws and/or pathology exposed and to avoid being held accountable. 3) Predators dont get better, but they do become better at being predators. Predators dont get better and they often become better predators with the help of an unwitting therapist. Bad therapy helps an abusive narcissistic or borderline woman to manipulate her partner. It helps her maintain the pattern of blame and zero

accountability. It strengthens her role of the professional victim, which hides the true aggressor lying just beneath the surface. An ineffectual and colluding therapist can also be used as an ally. In other words, she uses the therapist as an authority figure to beat you down. For example, Dr Ann Abler said that you need to forgive me. Translation: Let her get away with and forgive her abusive behavior. Dr Ann Abler says I should do what my heart tells me to do. Translation: I can act as badly as I want and you cant say anything about it. Dr Ann Abler said you need to be more sensitive to my feelings. Translation: Tolerate her criticisms, put-downs, rages and emotional/sexual frigidity. You get the idea. Sometimes, the therapist doesnt actually tell her any of these things. This kind of woman is masterful at twisting everything to support her distorted beliefs and demands. Abusive predators use Psychology to engage in namecalling. They learn just enough psycho-jargon about their own pathology, but instead of recognizing the abusive behaviors, distortions and emotional issues in themselves, they project it onto everyone else. Everyone else is crazy. Everyone else is a bully. Everyone else is a narcissist or a borderline. Some of them even buy books on these topics and begin diagnosing their partners, friends, co-workers, and family. This kind of woman also uses therapy (usually with a shrink shes manipulated into believing her tales of adversity in the face of lesser beings such as yourself who cant appreciate how wonderful she is and who stifles her creativity, talent, intellect, blah, blah, blah) to cloak herself in a false shield of individuation. Ive done my work, you havent. I know, you dont. I solved my issues. Dr Ann Abler says youre an angry person and says its normal not to want have sex with such an angry person. Meanwhile, the opposite of everything she claims is true. 4) FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE AND ADMINISTER APPROPRIATE TREATMENT. Many therapists fail to detect the real problem when this kind of woman enters couples or individual therapy. Worse yet, msny therapists willfully dont diagnose their condition and encourage the husband/boyfriend to hang in there and be more patient. Narcissists, borderlines, histrionis, sociopaths and your garden variety victim/bullies usually dont improve on their own nor do they improve when you instruct the target of the abuse to jump through hoops and walk on eggshells.

These conditions only improve if theyre accurately diagnosed and the individual with the disorder undergoes a highly structured form of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Working on communication skills, exercising patience and scheduling a weekly date night simply doesnt cut it. Its like putting a band-aid on an open chest wound. 5) Couples therapy doesnt work if theres ongoing abuse in the relationship. Couples therapy isnt viable if youre in an ongoing abusive relationship. Since abusive women use therapy to continue to blame and attack, all it does is set you up to be re-victimized. If you insist on couples treatment, its probably better to start off with individual therapists who consult one anotherthats if the abusive spouse will attend treatment and consent to sharing information. Since most abusive types fear a loss of control and being exposed, this is highly unlikely How Therapy Can Help You If youre involved with an emotionally abusive woman, you can benefit from treatment that: Helps you decide if you want to end the relationship and, if so, how to best extricate yourself and mourn the loss. Helps you work through your fears and worst-case scenarios about ending the relationship. Helps you decide if you want to continue the relationship and, if so, learn how to manage and cope with her abusive behaviors. Helps you understand what secondary gain youre deriving from this relationship. Helps you understand why youre attracted to this woman and determine if you have a pattern of being attracted to abusive women. Helps you work through these issues in order to make healthy relationship choices in the future.

Divorced From Reality

-Stephen Baskerville

The decline of the family has now reached critical and truly dangerous proportions. Family breakdown touches virtually every family and every American. It is not only the major source of social instability in the Western world today but also seriously threatens civic freedom and constitutional government. G. K. Chesterton once observed that the family serves as the principal check on government power, and he suggested that someday the family and the state would confront one another. That day has arrived. Chesterton was writing about divorce, and despite extensive public attention to almost every other threat to the family, divorce remains the most direct and serious. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes that divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than todays challenge by gays. Most Americans would be deeply shocked if they knew what goes on today under the name of divorce. Indeed, many are devastated to discover that they can be forced into divorce by procedures entirely beyond their control. Divorce licenses unprecedented government intrusion into family life, including the power to sunder families, seize children, loot family wealth, and incarcerate parents without trial. Comprised of family courts and vast, federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield what amount to police powers, the divorce machinery has become the most predatory and repressive sector of government ever created in the United States and is todays greatest threat to constitutional freedom. Unilateral Divorce Some four decades ago, while few were paying attention, the Western world embarked on the boldest social experiment in its history. With no public discussion of the possible consequences, laws were enacted in virtually every jurisdiction that effectively ended marriage as a legal contract. Today it is not possible to form a binding

agreement to create a family. The government can now, at the request of one spouse, simply dissolve a marriage over the objection of the other. Maggie Gallagher aptly titled her 1996 book The Abolition of Marriage. This startling fact has been ignored by politicians, journalists, academics, and even family advocates. Opposing gay marriage or gays in the military is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue, wrote Gallagher. The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda. No American politician of national stature has ever challenged involuntary divorce. Democrats did not want to anger their large constituency among women who saw easy divorce as a hard-won freedom and prerogative, observes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture. Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce, nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership. In his famous denunciation of single parenthood, Vice President Dan Quayle was careful to make clear, I am not talking about a situation where there is a divorce. The exception proves the rule. When Pope John Paul II criticized divorce in 2002, he was roundly attacked from the right as well as the left. The full implications of the no-fault revolution have never been publicly debated. The divorce laws . . . were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion, writes Melanie Phillips in The Sex-Change Society. Public attitudes were gradually dragged along behind laws that were generally understood at the time to mean something very different from what they subsequently came to represent. Todays disputes over marriage in fact have their origin in this one. Demands to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples are inconceivable apart from the redefinition of marriage already effected by heterosexuals

through divorce. Though gays cite the very desire to marry as evidence that their lifestyle is not inherently promiscuous, activist Andrew Sullivan acknowledges that that desire has arisen only because of the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage, he points out. All homosexuals are saying . . . is that, under the current definition, theres no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is . . . a denial of basic civil equality (emphasis added). Gays do not want traditional monogamous marriage, only the version debased by divorce. Contrary to common assumptions, divorce today seldom involves two people mutually deciding to part ways. According to Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin in Divided Families, 80 percent of divorces are unilateral, that is, over the objection of one spouse. Patricia Morgan of Londons Civitas think tank reports that in over half of divorces, there was no recollection of major conflict before the separation. Under no-fault, or what some call unilateral, divorcea legal regime that expunged all considerations of justice from the proceduredivorce becomes a sudden power grab by one spouse, assisted by an army of judicial hangerson who reward belligerence and profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, custody evaluators, social workers, and more. If marriage is not wholly a private affair, as todays marriage advocates insist, involuntary divorce by its nature requires constant government supervision over family life. Far more than marriage, divorce mobilizes and expands government power. Marriage creates a private household, which may or may not necessitate signing some legal documents. Divorce dissolves a private household, usually against the wishes of one spouse. It inevitably involves state functionariesincluding police and jailsto enforce the divorce and the post-marriage order. Almost invariably, the involuntarily divorced spouse will want and expect to continue enjoying the protections and prerogatives of private life: the right to live in the common home, to possess the common property, ormost vexing of allto parent the common children. These claims must be terminated, using the penal system if necessary.

Onerous Implications Few stopped to consider the implications of laws that shifted the breakup of private households from a voluntary to an involuntary process. Unilateral divorce inescapably involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life. By far the most serious consequences involve children, who have become the principal weapons of the divorce machinery. Invariably the first action of a divorce court, once a divorce is filed, is to separate the children from one of their parents, usually the father. Until this happens, no one in the machinery acquires any power or earnings. The first principle and first action of divorce court therefore: Remove the father. This happens even if the father is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and is simply sitting in his own home minding his own business. The state seizes control of his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) falls on the father to demonstrate why they should be returned. Though obfuscated with legal jargon (losing custody), what this means is that a legally unimpeachable parent can suddenly be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. Following from this, he can be arrested for failure or inability to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means (and which may amount to most of his salary). He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired. The New York Times has reported on how easily the divorce court leads to a jail cell. Take the case of Marvin Singer, who was jailed without trial for not paying an attorney he never hired $100,000only half of what the court claimed he owes. In Virginia, one father was ordered to pay two years worth of his salary to a lawyer he also did not hire for a divorce he did not request. Once arrested, the father is summarily jailed. There is no formal charge, no jury, and no trial. Family court judges contempt for both fathers and

constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell: Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that youre violating, he told his colleagues at a judges training seminar in 1994. Throw him out on the street. . . . We dont have to worry about the rights. Generated Hysteria Why do we hear almost nothing about this? Aside from media that sympathize with the divorce revolution, the multi-billion-dollar divorce industry also commands a huge government-funded propaganda machine that has distorted our view of what is happening. The growth of the divorce machinery during the 1970s and 1980s did not follow but preceded (in other words, it generated) a series of hysterias against parentsespecially fathersso hideous and inflammatory that no one, left or right, dared question them or defend those accused: child abuse and molestation, wife-beating, and nonpayment of child support. Each of these hysterias has been propagated largely by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, whose federal funding is generously shared with state and local law-enforcement officials. The parent on the receiving end of such accusationseven in the absence of any formal charge, evidence, or convictionnot only loses his children summarily and often permanently; he also finds himself abandoned by friends and family members, parishioners and pastors, coworkers and employers (and he may well lose his job)all terrified to be associated with an accused pedophile, batterer, or deadbeat dad. It is not clear that these nefarious figures are other than bogeymen created by divorce interests, well aware that not only the public generally but conservatives and family advocates in particular are a soft touch when it comes to anything concerning irresponsible behavior or sexual perversion. Christians are especially vulnerable to credulity about such accusations, because they are disposed to see moral breakdown behind social ills. Moral breakdown certainly does lie behind the divorce epidemic (of which more shortly), but it is far deeper than anything addressed by cheap witch-hunts against government-designated malefactors. It is also largely credulity and fear that leads Congress by overwhelming majorities to appropriate billions for anti-

family programs in response to these hysterias. The massive federal funds devoted to domestic violence, child abuse, and child-support enforcement are little more than what Phyllis Schlafly calls feminist pork, taxpayer subsidies on family dissolution that also trample due process protections. Family law may technically be the purview of states, but it is driven by federal policies and funded by a Congress fearful of accusations that it is not doing enough against pedophiles, batterers, and deadbeats. In fact, each of these figures is largely a hoax, a creation of feminist ideology disseminated at taxpayers expense and unchallenged by journalists, academics, civil libertarians, and family advocates who are either unaware of the reality or cowed into silence. Indeed, so diabolical are these hysterias that some family advocates simply accept them as additional evidence of the family crisis. But while sensational examples can be found of anything, there is simply no evidence that the family and fatherhood crisis is caused primarily or even significantly by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Irrefutable evidence indicates that it is driven almost entirely by divorce courts forcibly separating parents from their children and using these false accusations as a rationalization. Divorce Gamesmanship During the 1980s and 1990s, waves of child abuse hysteria swept America and other countries. Sensational cases in Washington state, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ontario, Saskatchewan, the north of England, and more recently France resulted in torn-apart families, blatantly unjust prison sentences, and ruined lives, while the media and civil libertarians looked the other way. Today it is not clear that we have learned anything from these miscarriages of justice. If anything, the hysteria has been institutionalized in the divorce courts, where false allegations have become routine. What is ironic about these witch-hunts is the fact that it is easily demonstrable that the child abuse epidemicwhich is very realis almost entirely the creation of feminism and the welfare bureaucracies themselves. It is well established by scholars that an intact family is the safest place for women and children and that very little abuse takes place in married families. Child abuse overwhelmingly occurs in single-parent homes, homes from which the father has

been removed. Domestic violence, too, is far more likely during or after the breakup of a marriage than among married couples. Yet patently false accusations of both child abuse and domestic violence are rampant in divorce courts, almost always for purposes of breaking up families, securing child custody, and eliminating fathers. With child abuse and spouse abuse you dont have to prove anything, the leader of a legal seminar tells divorcing mothers, according to the Chicago Tribune. You just have to accuse. Among scholars and legal practitioners it is common knowledge that patently trumped-up accusations are routinely used, and virtually never punished, in divorce and custody proceedings. Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Womens Bar Association, writes that allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage in custody cases. The Illinois Bar Journal describes how abuse accusations readily become part of the gamesmanship of divorce. The UMKC Law Review reports on a survey of judges and attorneys revealing that disregard for due process and allegations of domestic violence are used as a litigation strategy. In the Yale Law Review, Jeannie Suk calls domestic violence accusations a system of stateimposed de facto divorce and documents how courts use unsupported accusations to justify evicting Americans from their homes and children. The multi-billion dollar abuse industry has become an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice writes David Heleniak in the Rutgers Law Review. Domestic violence has become a backwater of tautological pseudotheory, write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in the scholarly journal Aggression and Violent Behavior. No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice. Feminists confess as much in their vociferous opposition to divorce reform. A special issue of the feminist magazine Mother Jones in 2005 ostensibly devoted to domestic violence focuses largely on securing child custody. Both child abuse and domestic violence have no precise definitions. Legally they are not adjudicated as violent assault, and accused parents do not enjoy the constitutional protections of criminal defendants. Allegations are confirmed not by jury trials but by judges or social workers. Domestic violence is any conflict within an intimate relationship and need not be actually violent or

even physical. Official definitions include extreme jealousy and possessiveness, name calling and constant criticizing, and ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victims needs. For such crimes fathers lose their children and can be jailed. Protective orders separating parents from their children are readily issued during divorce proceedings, usually without any evidence of wrongdoing. Restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply, and the facts have become irrelevant, writes Epstein. In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had. Cycle of Abuse Trumped-up accusations are thus used to create precisely the single-parent homes in which actual abuse is most likely to occur. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Children of single parents had a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87% greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents. Britains Family Education Trust reports that children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent home than in an intact family. The principal impediment to child abuse is thus precisely the figure whom the welfare and divorce bureaucracies are intent on removing: the father. The presence of the father . . . placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse, concludes a 2000 study published in Adolescent and Family Health. The protective effect from the fathers presence in most households was sufficiently strong to offset the risk incurred by the few paternal perpetrators. In fact, the risk of paternal perpetrators is miniscule, since a tiny proportion of sexual abuse (which is far less common than physical abuse) is committed by natural fathers, though government statistics lump them in with boyfriends and stepfathers to make it appear that incest is widespread. Despite the innuendos of child abuse advocates, it is not married fathers but single mothers who are most likely to injure or kill their children. Contrary to public perception, write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that childs mother, not a male in the household. Mothers accounted for 55 percent of all child murders according to a Justice Department report. HHS itself found that women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of

child maltreatment: almost two-thirds were females. Given that male perpetrators are not usually fathers but boyfriends or stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers. Yet government logic is marvelously self-justifying and selfperpetuating, since by eliminating the father, officials can present themselves as the solution to the problem they have created. The more child abuse there iswhether by single mothers, boyfriends, or even (as is often the case) by social workers and bureaucrats themselvesthe more the proffered solution is to further expand the child abuse bureaucracy. Waxing indignant about a string of child deaths at the hands of social workers in the District of Columbia, federal judges and the Washington Post found solace in the D.C. governments solution: to hire more social workers (and lawyers too, for some unspecified reason). Olivia Golden, the Child and Family Services latest director . . . will use her increased budget to recruit more social workers and double the number of lawyers. Children die at the hands of social workers, so we must hire more social workers. Likewise, it is difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings. Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that may come to the children. On the contrary, if they do not remove the fathers, they may be punished by the bar associations and social work bureaucracies whose funding depends on a constant supply of abused children. A commonplace of political science is that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, often by creating the very problem they exist to address. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion is inescapable that we have created a massive army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse. Trafficking in Children The child abuse industry also demonstrates how one threat to the family creates another. Just as the divorce revolution eventually led to the demand for same-sex marriage, the child abuse deception has led to demands for parenting by same-sex couples. Most discussion of homosexual parenting has centered on questions of childrens welfare versus the rights of

homosexuals. Few have questioned the politics whereby prospective homosexual parents obtain the children they wish to parent. Granting same-sex couples the right to raise children means, by definition, giving at least one of the partners the right to raise someone elses children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them or did something to warrant losing them. Current laws governing divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse render this question open. The explosion in foster care based on the assumed but unexamined need to find permanent homes for allegedly abused children has provided perhaps the strongest argument in favor of samesex marriage and homosexual parenting. Yet the politics of child abuse and divorce indicate that this assumption is not necessarily valid. The government-generated child abuse epidemic and the mushrooming foster care business that it feeds have allowed government agencies to operate what amounts to trafficking in children. A San Diego grand jury reports a widely held perception within the community and even within some areas of the Department [of Social Services] that the Department is in the baby brokering business. Introducing same-sex marriage and adoption into this political dynamic could dramatically increase the demand for children to adopt, thus intensifying pressure on social service agencies and biological parents to supply such children. While sperm donors and surrogate mothers supply some children for homosexual parents, most have been taken from their natural parents because of divorce, unwed parenting, child abuse accusations, or connected reasons. Massachusetts Senator Therese Murray, claiming that 40 percent of the states adoptions have gone to gay and lesbian couples, rationalizes the practice by invoking children who have been neglected, abandoned, abused by their own families. But it is far from evident that these children are in fact victims of their own parents. What seems inescapable is that homosexual parenting has arisen as the direct and perhaps inevitable consequence of government officials getting into the businesswhich began largely with divorceof distributing other peoples children.

Child-Support Racket The deadbeat dad is another figure largely manufactured by the divorce machinery. He is far less likely to have deliberately abandoned offspring he callously sired than to be an involuntarily divorced father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, forced to finance the filching of his own children. Child support is plagued by the same contradictions as child custody. Like custody, it is awarded ostensibly without reference to fault, and yet nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. Contrary to popular belief, child support today has nothing to do with fathers abandoning their children, reneging on their marital vows, or even agreeing to divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those divorced against their will who lose their children through no legal fault or agreement of their own. It is an entitlement for all single mothers, in other words, regardless of their behavior. Originally justified as a method of recovering welfare costs, child support has been transformed into a massive federal subsidy on middle-class divorce. No-fault divorce allowed a mother to divorce her husband for any reason or no reason and to take the children with her. Child support took the process a step further by allowing the divorcing mother to use the now-fatherless children to claim her husbands incomealso regardless of any fault on her part (or lack of fault on his) in abrogating the marriage agreement. By glancing at a child-support schedule, a mother can determine exactly how large a tax-free windfall she can force her husband to pay her simply by divorcing, money she may spend however she wishes with no accounting requirement. It is collected at gunpoint if necessary, and nonpayment means incarceration without trial. Like the welfare it was supposed to replace, child support finances family dissolution by paying mothers to divorce. Economist Robert Willis calculates that child-support levels vastly exceeding the cost of raising children create an incentive for divorce by the custodial mother. His analysis indicates that only one-fifth to one-third of child-support payments are actually used for the children; the rest is profit for the custodial parent. Kimberly Folse and Hugo Varela-Alvarez write in the Journal of Socio-Economics that child support serves as an economic incentive for middleclass women to seek divorce.

Mothers are not the only ones who can profit by creating fatherless children. Governments also generate revenue from child support. State governments receive federal funds for every child-support dollar collectedmoney they can add to their general funds and use for any purpose they choose. This gives states a financial incentive to create as many single-parent households as possible by encouraging middle-class divorce. While very little child supportor government revenueis generated from the impecunious young unmarried fathers for whom the program was ostensibly created, involuntarily divorced middle-class fathers have deeper pockets to loot. This is why state governments set child support at onerous levels. Not only does it immediately maximize their own revenues; by encouraging middle-class women to divorce, governments increase the number of fathers sending dollars through their systems, thus generating more revenue. Federal taxpayers (who were supposed to save money) subsidize this family destruction scheme with about $3 billion annually. Child support guidelines currently in use typically generate awards that are much higher than would be the case if based on economically sound cost concepts, writes Mark Rogers, an economist who served on the Georgia Commission on Child Support. Rogers charges that guidelines result in excessive burdens based on a flawed economic foundation. The Urban Institute reports that arrearages accrue because orders are set too high relative to ability to pay. Federal officials have admitted that the more than $90 billion in arrearages they claimed as of 2004 were based on awards that were beyond the parents ability to pay. All this marks a new stage in the evolution of the welfare state: from distributing largesse to raising revenue and, from there, to law enforcement. The result is a selffinancing machine, generating profits and expanding the size and scope of governmentall by generating singleparent homes and fatherless children. Government has created a perpetual growth machine for destroying families, seizing children from legally blameless parents, and incarcerating parents without trial. Responsibility of Churches While many factors have contributed to this truly diabolical, bureaucratic onslaught against the family, we might begin by looking within. The churches failure or refusal to intervene in the marriages they consecrated and to exert moral pressure on misbehaving spouses (perhaps out of fear of appearing judgmental) left a vacuum that

has been filled by the state. Clergy, parishioners, and extended families have been replaced by lawyers, judges, forensic psychotherapists, social workers, and plainclothes police. Family integrity will be restored only when families are depoliticized and protected from government invasion. This will demand morally vigorous congregations that are willing to take marriage out of the hands of the state by intervening in the marriages they are called upon to witness and consecrate and by resisting the power of the state to move in. This is the logic behind the group Marriage Savers, and it can restore the churches authority even among those who previously viewed a churchs role in their marriage as largely ceremonial. No greater challenge confronts the churchesnor any greater opportunity to reverse the mass exodusthan to defend their own marriage ordinance against this attack from the government. Churches readily and rightly

mobilize politically against moral evils like abortion and same-sex marriage, in which they are not required to participate. Even more are they primary stakeholders in involuntary divorce, which allows the state to desecrate and nullify their own ministry. As an Anglican, I am acutely aware of how far modernity was ushered in not only through divorce, but through divorce processes that served the all-encompassing claims of the emerging state leviathan. Politically, this might be seen as the original sin of modern man. We all need to atone. Stephen Baskerville is Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and the author of Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007). Divorced from Reality first appeared January/February, 2009 issue of Touchstone. in the

Is He 'The Loser' or is He 'Dad"?

-Teri Stoddard

I was at a 4-year-old's birthday party when I overheard a young mother. "We call him the loser', she said, "but not around Bobby". I cringed. I knew that Bobby was probably aware that the significant adults in his life disrespected this man, and that the man was probably his father. When I hear things like that I worry about children growing up today. One million children in America are involved in a new divorce annually, as of 1997, according to divorcemagazine.com, and The Children's Fund reports that one in three American children is born to unmarried parents (2004 Key Facts About American Children). E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, authors of For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered, found that "twenty years after the divorce less than one-third of boys and onequarter of girls reporting having close relationships with their nonresident fathers." And the National Fatherhood Initiative reports "About 40 percent of children in fatherabsent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year." What kind of role models are we offering our children? With divorced and unmarried fathers currently having the undeserved reputation of "deadbeats", how can little boys grow up proud to be male? At one time that young mother could have been me. I have made many disparaging comments about my ex-husbands, and I felt completely justified in doing so. All three of the men had let me down in one way or another, and it made sense to place blame when I spoke about my divorces. They weren't my fault; after all, they were always my exhusbands' fault. That's what I liked to say at least. That's what I needed to believe. I have experienced a phenomenon within my own family that I have now learned is common, tragic, and very often avoidable. I'm talking about the phenomenon of the fatherless child. Three of my children are in that 40 percent, the kids who never see their dads. They had fathers who it seemed, simply walked out of their lives. The thing to note is that of the four men, it was the three who I divorced, the three who had to deal with the family court system and the state child support enforcement who went missing, not the

man who fathered a child with me when we were both unmarried, who wrote a parenting plan with me without involving the court system. I've successfully co-parented with that man for 18 years. So what happened to the men I married and divorced? Why were they the ones who walked? It wasn't like they were never in their children's lives. These were the men who attended childbirth classes with me, who walked the floor, changed diapers, and played with our babies. We were thrilled to have children together and co-parented successfully while we were married. What exactly had happened during the divorce? Everything changed. The relationships between my children and their fathers disintegrated. At the time, all I knew was that I had divorced men who had deserved it, as far as I was concerned, and they were proving exactly how bad they were by abandoning their children. My only choice, as I saw it then, was to be the best single mom I could be; to fill in the gaps, to play both parental roles, to make sure as best I could that my kids felt loved and wanted. I chose a career that allowed me to work from home. I supported my family and provided my children the benefits of a stay-at-home mother. But while I was enjoying close relationships with my children I also knew they were missing something. I resented my ex-husbands for rejecting them, and for any disadvantages the experienced by not having two parents in their lives. Those kids deserved another cheerleader on their team. So if the name of one of my ex-husbands came up in conversation I did not hesitate to use a term like "the loser." I have since learned what it is like for a father to go through the family court system and how it can negatively impact the relationship with his child. I've also learned that any parent is vulnerable to injustice and any parent could lose contact with their child after going through the current family court system. What I learned is shocking.

A newly separated or unmarried father might think that he is doing everything by the book; he might visit or care for his child regularly, or as often as the mother will allow, he might think he should wait until the court hearing to start paying child support since no amount has been set, especially if the mother of his child has applied for welfare, because paying her directly isn't allowed. He might go into court expecting to come out with a fair joint physical custody order, especially if he has been providing much of his child's daily care. He might expect that any child support order that may be made against him would start that day. Many good, fit, responsible, loving, dedicated fathers, and some mothers, are completely overwhelmed by what happens next. As Jeffery Shipman, 44, a New York father to 21-month-old Deonna, told me, "It is, simply put, like being raped. You're raped financially, emotionally, and in terms of your health deteriorating - physically as well. You walk out of the courtroom perplexed and bewildered; shaking your head in disbelief while thinking "This can't be happening!" But it is. It is real life. It is cruel. I recall walking out of family court one year ago a broken, broken man."

"Many child support professionals have come to believe that charging interest, particularly at high rates, is counterproductive and does not serve either the child or the government. Charging interest can make the payment of child support arrears seem overwhelming" to some lowincome, non-custodial parents in California "and, possibly, drive them to the underground economy and away from their children." The myth of abusive fathers Another thing happens to fathers, and to some mothers, which I would have never expected to find in America, a country I thought stood for justice. With absolutely no notice, no due process of law, judges can, and do, use ex parte orders to remove custody of their children from parents. In From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts-and What Can Be Done about It, sociologist Amy Neustein and family court expert Michael Lesher conclude that "No state should permit a change of custody from one parent or guardian to the other on the basis of an ex parte hearing - that is a hearing of which one parent or guardian does not receive notice. At the present time there are states, including California, that permit such changes without notification to the other parent." Bryan Godfrey, a 32-year-old California father to a 5-yearold daughter and 12-year-old stepson had the crushing experience of dealing with two ex parte orders. The first one, which came shortly after his wife filed for divorce, granted his wife sole custody and exclusive use of their home, and the second one, five months later, terminated all of his parental rights until further notice. He said, "I was accused of sexual abuse that was determined to be unfounded by the Police, but the judge still terminated my visitation via an ex parte until further evaluation of a psychologist. It has been 17 months since I have seen my daughter." I've had many fathers say they were falsely accused of domestic violence or child abuse during their custody cases. Bryan passed a lie detector test, yet he still can't see his daughter. When I asked him how he feels about this he said, "I am completely outraged and frustrated that my parental rights have been terminated without so much as single hearing. I was never charged with anything. I was found guilty without a trial." The opponents to joint physical custody like to point to studies that show an epidemic of false accusations of sexual

The myth of deadbeat dads I came across a 2003 study from the Urban Institute on uncollected child support in California. In Examining Child Support Arrears in California - the Collectibility Study, I learned that common practices, like not making sure the father was served a summons for his court date, setting default orders if he didn't show up, charging interest, and backdating child support orders were contributing to the fatherless child epidemic. I learned that these, combined with the practice of judges "assuming" income was leaving some low-income fathers with child support orders "4 times higher than it should be," and in some cases, "twice as high as the debtor's net monthly income." According to the Urban Institute analysis, "Three-quarters of California's arrears result from policies and practices that set and keep child support orders at levels that exceed noncustodial parents' ability to pay child support." Many fathers walk out of the courtroom in shock, owing thousands of dollars in arrears due to backdating and interest, putting them immediately at risk of imprisonment and losing their professional and drivers licenses. Some of these fathers become so overwhelmed they go into hiding, losing all contact with their children. The UI study goes on,

abuse during custody cases does not exist. I've never claimed it does. But the truth of the matter is you don't need an epidemic to see that is does happen, and that it needs to be stopped. Since I purchased the book From Madness to Mutiny Amy Neustein's adult daughter, Sherry Orbach wrote an article for The Jewish Press. On May 27, 2005 she wrote, "For eighteen years (I am now 24); I was silent as my mother spun lie upon lie about my father and me. The truth, however, is that my father never sexually abused me, and that reporters and alleged victims' advocates who supported my mother chose to retell her lies without adequately checking the facts." Bryan continued, "My daughter is suffering and I am powerless to help her. If I do anything aggressive I will be perceived as a domestic violence committing man and confirm her false allegations. If I sit back and wait for the wheels of justice' I'm perceived not to care about my daughter. It makes me feel extremely sad, depressed and angry at all the professionals that claim to be looking out for the best interest of the child' when clearly they could care less." Fathers often tell me once they are caught up in the web of family court, false accusations, supervised visitations and alienation, they can't get out, no matter how innocent they are, how much proof they have, nor how great a parent they are. Because of the "best interest of the child" standard, judges can do pretty much anything they want, including keeping good, fit, loving parents from their children. Jeffrey echoed a sentiment I hear often in the Fathers Movement, "My patriotism, faith in the justice system, respect for attorneys, judges and the like - all gone. My belief in the basic fundamentals of my country based on our Constitution which was fought for - evaporated." Bias in the courts From everything I've seen over the last three years, I believe a father starts out with an overwhelming disadvantage in family court, just because he's male. Unmarried fathers, fathers to one-third of all the babies born in our country, are almost always denied physical custody of their children. Bill Sharp, 51, a never-married Illinois father to 14-year-old Tasha and 15-year-old Willy lost his joint physical custody after his former partner refused to cooperate with the courts. Bill told me, "I used to wake up in the morning, look at myself in the bathroom mirror and say, What prodigious thing will he do today, this Bill Sharp?' It was a quote from some artist; I had read it in 1986, liked it and started using it as my own morning motivation from that point on. That changed on July 1,

2002. That's the morning I looked into the bathroom mirror and said, They took my kids,' and then broke down." Dr. Richard C. Weiss, 57, lives in Alabama with his wife and their 4-year-old son. He spent almost $100,000, and fought for over 10 years to try to have joint physical custody of his daughters from a previous marriage and to keep them from being moved away. He is now the noncustodial parent to two teenage daughters in Arkansas, whom he hasn't heard from in 11 months. He said, "This is a nightmare ever present - a silence like death but worse. Many of us really loving, caring and responsible fathers have literally been thrown out of the lives of our own children by the family courts and vindictive ex spouses. That, despite gross civil rights injustices, we remain a persecuted class and worse, children are treated like chattel by dysfunctional custodial mothers and the courts with little regard to their needs for having both parents or the dire consequences of removing them from one fit parent, (most divorced parents are fit)." The reality of estrangement Right before I overheard that comment about the loser' in the family, I had been chatting with the birthday child's grandmother. She was talking about her family and one story grabbed my attention. A male relative had gone through a painful divorce. Not only had his ex-wife gotten sole custody of their daughter, she moved her far away, and then proceeded to turn the child against him. "Parental alienation syndrome." I said, "That's what some people call it." As she described the heartbreak this man was experiencing all I could do was nod my head in understanding and think about the dozens of men I have met over the last 3 years who share his pain. Some experts say that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) isn't real. After encouraging the many fathers I know who have fought for years to try to keep their children from being estranged, and after trying to console the many who have lost the fight, no one can convince me that the estrangement of noncustodial parents and children doesn't exist, no matter what you call it. This heartache doesn't just happen to fathers, it happens to noncustodial mothers too. Rebecca Mackey, a remarried 27-year-old noncustodial mother to one said it happened to her. She said, "Even when one parent loses custody, they are still punished by the brainwashing and psychological games that go on in the custodial household. They ultimately lose their child...body and mind."

Fathers as caregivers Opponents of joint physical custody say that men don't do the child rearing before the separation, so they shouldn't have equal custody afterwards. But according to The Motherhood Study (Institute for American Values, 2005), "[M]any married mothers strongly stated they would not wish for more involvement on the part of their children's father because he already is as involved in their care as anyone can be. In one mother's words, her husband 'does all the things I do with them.' Another mother described her husband as 'very involved, although he does very different things than I do.' 'We both love the kids and we both work to teach them what they need to know.' These and other mothers expressed a deep appreciation for what their spouses bring to their lives and to the lives of their children, and several mothers noted how much more involved these fathers are in the children's daily lives than the generations of fathers before them." Bill says, "There have been four instances where I have put my career on hold to spend time with my kids. I had hoped to be able to do that when they reached high school, do consulting or teaching so that I could take a summer off with the kids and travel, (Europe, Central America, Asia). That can't happen now because I have to keep earning money at my current rate to be able to pay the child support that has been assessed. The system values me more for the money I earn than for what I teach my kids when I'm with them." One thing the opponents of joint custody say is that mothers have a special skill; a special ability to love and care for children, that they're much more attached to children then fathers. Well, according The Motherhood Study, most mothers do think that, "Mothers see their contribution to the care of their children not only as extremely important, but also so unique that no one else can replace it. Nearly 93% of our respondents agreed with that statement, with nearly 83% saying they strongly' agree." I wonder if they're aware that 87 per cent of fathers surveyed in 1994 said they agreed or strongly agreed that watching children grow up is life's greatest joy,' according to Fatherhood: Research, interventions and policies by Peters, Peterson. They must not have met fathers like Jeffrey, who described his time with Deonna to me like this, "Even though my little darling is getting quite heavy now, I still carry her 1.2 miles around the neighborhood each time I'm parenting her. This 'bonding time' is so special to me and I refuse to

use a stroller as I wish to hold her up close to my face so we can walk along and converse' and 'look at all the pretties', (trees, flowers, other walkers, airplanes, etc.) I think she likes it because daddy can still hold her up high for extended periods of time - something she doesn't get too much these days at 21.5 months of age." Then he added, "I recall walking this very same trek around where I live every night when I was prevented from being with my baby, balling my head off and praying for divine intervention." And if they doubt that fathers can love children as much as mothers do, they have obviously never met Bill Numerick, a 26-year-old father who is in love with a son he's never even met. His ex-girlfriend married another man before she gave birth to their son just over two years ago, and due to the current laws in Michigan her husband was automatically named as the father. Bill has been fighting to be a father to his son ever since. Bill is rightfully proud to be part of shaping a new bill, (Senate bill 0436), that will prevent this from happening to any other father in Michigan. He told me, "One thing I dread to imagine is Caleb thinking that I don't love him and that I just walked away without a second thought. To me that is one of the most frightening things I can imagine. As close as I am to my father I couldn't fathom the emptiness I would feel had we been kept apart while I was growing up." You can get updates on Bill and Caleb on Bill's web site www.theloveofmylife.org. Shared parenting as a solution In 1987 Dr. Joan Kelly wrote, "The primary negative aspect of divorce reported by children in numerous studies was loss of contact with a parent." In Surviving the Breakup, Kelly and Judith Wallerstein wrote, "The emotional stability of children of divorced parents is directly related to the quality of their continuing relationships with both of their parents. We have repeatedly described the dissatisfaction of so many youngsters who felt they were not seeing their fathers often enough, If custody and visiting issues are to be within the realm of the 'best interest of the child', then such widespread discontent must be taken very seriously." California resident Kelly Bray, 48, is dad to two little boys. He and his wife have been separated for five years and are finalizing their divorce with the help of a paralegal. He told me, "My wife and I have been doing shared parenting from day one... We never prevent the other from participating in anything to do with the kids. The kids have a stable environment; they know where they will be every day. They have the love of two parents, and intimate time with both.

It is more like 70/70 than 50/50 to the kids, and that is what counts. Do you have to like your ex-spouse? No, we cannot stand each other, but the kids never know... The trick is to love your kids, more than you hate your spouse. That can't be that hard, just look at them... just look at them... They are waiting." The general public overwhelmingly supports shared parenting. As reported on Fathers & Families, (www.fathersandfamilies.org), in November 2004, 37 districts in Massachusetts had a non-binding ballot question asking if voters supported it. With 600,000 votes cast, 86 percent said, "Yes." In Michigan recently the Detroit News carried out an on-line survey asking the following question, "For divorcing parents, should Michigan courts make equally shared custodial responsibility of children the standard?" Again, eighty-six percent voted "Yes". Fighting for Family Rights On April 9, 2005, Hillary Clinton said, "I have been working for children and families for more then 30 years. ...We can do better and we will do better. And while we do so we will get back to the idea of promoting personal responsibility where it counts, especially towards our children. Of course, the most precious responsibility is for one's own children, but I think we also have a responsibility for all of our children." I believe she's aware of the epidemic of fatherless children. I wonder if she's aware that a kind and dedicated father, John Murtari, 48, has sent her numerous letters asking her to endorse Congressional hearings and eventually the creation of a Family Rights Act, "to recognize and protect the right of our children to have two parents equally involved in their lives and the right of parents to raise and nurture their own children requiring parents be found guilty in a criminal court, with jury protection, of being a demonstrated serious threat to their children - before government can interfere in family life." I wonder if she knows that John, who owns A Kids Right, (www.akidsright.org), has been arrested numerous times, and that he has spent time in jail for his non-violent

peaceful protesting below her Syracuse office since April 9, 2001 just to have a meeting with her. If Mrs. Clinton means what she says, she will meet John and invite him up to her office, not have him prosecuted. There are people all over the nation with solutions to this epidemic, and all she needs to do is listen to them. One of those people is Jamil Jabr. Jamil has been involved in organizing Fathers-4-Justice in the United States. He has been supporting the gender-neutral civil rights movement in America that is fighting for equality in child custody by building the group as a recognized non-profit, charitable organization. When I asked him to explain the fathers movement he said, "In essence, this is a fight for equal rights for parents, because when that happens it is irrefutable that having fair access to both parents is what's best for children. This is THE civil rights movement of our time." Jamil, who lives in Minnesota, has been divorced for 2 years and has one child added, "We need to disempower the corrupt, incompetent system that has created a winner takes all high stakes game, which turns children into pawns and meal tickets. In the process, it takes money from families that they will never see again as it is turned over to the components of the divorce industry, like lawyers." I was surprised to find myself discussing fathers' issues at a child's birthday party. This was the last place I expected the subject to come up. "Oh Teri, I want to talk to you about two of my friends", another guest said. "Two of my friends can't see their children", she said, "The moms have moved their kids away and my friends are really upset about it". She proceeded to tell me about her two male friends, one with a 4-year-old and the other with a 7-year-old. In both cases the parents had never married, the fathers had been actively involved, and the children were moved away against their wishes. Her mother had moved the 7year-old almost 500 miles away 4 years earlier. The father's contact was limited to, "Every time he sees me and I let him use my cell phone. Every weekend." The mother of the 4year-old moved him away when he was 18-months-old and changed all of her contact information. The father doesn't know where they are. "He's devastated," she said.

Female Freedom and the Death of Marriage

-Fidelbogen

In my work as a counter-feminist blogger, I hear from all sorts of peopleat times wanting to inform me of something interesting, and at other times making some manner of interesting request. As an example of the latter, I once got an e-mail from one of the editors at a popular website . This person wanted me to "chime in" about something that was under discussion on the site, and by way of response I ended up writing a very long and meaty article. I don't know if it's what they were looking for, but they got it anyway. I posted this article on my blog on 23 June, 2008. And I should offer some account of this website for the sake of context. The website is called The Frisky, and it is targeted toward an urban demographic which, to coin a term, I will call "metro-female". It displays, as part of its header logo, the slogan "a daily romp on the sexy side." And after gallivanting from page to page and frisking the site for political contraband I found, upon my oath, that The Frisky with its kittenesque, third-wave pop sensibilityscintillates like unto naughty champagne indeed! So much to establish the character of the website. But here is part of the e-mail that I got: Very well, so I tackled the assignment. The job (I think) was merely to compose a light, fun essay upon the neologism "freemale". But as a rule, I am neither light nor fun, and I think the outcome will attest to that. Yes, we MRAs are wild woodland animals and, in our feral way, a mite frisky on our own account! The following is from the fabulous Simcha Whitehall's essay: "Cougar, spinster, playgirl, bachelorette. So many slang terms all mean the same thing: a single gal who lives on her own and on her own terms, like Kylie Minogue (chart topping dance hits and spandex booty shorts not required). But a new word has been coined in the U.K. and Australia: freemale. A freemale is a woman who stays single and only uses her vajane as an in-door for sex, not as an outdoor for babies. The colloquialism, which has just

washed up on our shores, is a mix of freedom and female, two words which should go hand in hand already. But what the new lingo freemale is actually is doing is. . . . etc, etc. . ." "Vajane". That is a Borat-ism, yes? Naughty, naughty! ;) But seriouslyit would seem there is a new urban subculture among the female citizenry. We of the MRA have long known of MGTOW, and the marriage strike. So was it only a matter of time before a "Newtonian" symmetry of occurrence came into play? Was it bound to happen eventually? I am inclined to say yes, because I am a strong believer in mirror effects across the male-female interface line. Men and women may be fundamentally different in a lot of ways, but they are also fundamentally the same in a lot of ways. Even, I would venture to say, in most ways. So why should there NOT be a seamless fabric of transmitted effects across the human ecology? If there is a flu epidemic among men, why should it NOT occur among women also? Likewise, if men in growing numbers are shunning marriage, why should women NOT be acting similarly? I believe we can expect a uniform transmission of effects wherever men and women are alike, for alikeness offers an unbroken pathway on which influences may propagate unimpeded. I say I believe this, for the weight of plausibility lies far more to that side of the belief scale. And do men and women have the institution of marriage in common? Are they alike in this respect? Is the fabric seamless? Yes, I feel certain of it. Hence, if there be a breakdown in the marriage mechanism, this would predictably occur in a bilateral form, across the board. So again, we have a new urban subculture among women, and this tribe proposes to call itself the freemales. Toward the end of the article I will briefly discuss the pros and cons of "freemale" as lexicon, but in the meantime other priorities will detain me. I am interested in the freemale thing not as terminology, but as a development that might portend something upon the smoldering, bomb-cratered battle plain of the gender war.

There is, as I have suggested, a unity of transmitted effect along with an underlying symmetry of etiology in the current anti-marriage trend among men and women. And I will state my own position briefly: it is the feminist wedge campaign, driving men and women apart and making them into separate political interest groups, which fosters the spreading aversion to matrimony. This is not hard to puzzle out; a moment of thought reveals the plausibility of it. Thus far, two points of similarity are evident. One is the breakdown of marriage, which impinges on both men and women. The other is the wedge-driving effect of feminist innovation, which likewise impinges on both men and women, giving rise to the aforesaid breakdown. Yet beyond those two points, the applicability of "both" rapidly tapers off. It may be true that men and women are "both" shunning marriage, but they are doing so for unrelated reasons! And that sets a seam in the fabric. Let me put it simply: feminist innovation has operated differentially upon men and women, generating a formidable conflict of interest between theman unlikenessand forcing them to think in mutually conflicting terms about matrimony altogether. They no longer have a mutual stake in the business of marriage, and the idea that they DO have such a stake lingers only as a sentimental echo of vanished times. And the blood-sucking parasites known as jewelry merchants make a fat little killing from that sentimentality. . . . You know what those merchants need?? Jesus Christ to bust in and violently overturn their display cases! But yes, men and women now view marriage in radically different terms. Consequently, they view non-marriage in radically different terms as wellone sees that is logical! So let's dive into this and unpack it. Earlier, I mentioned the marriage strike. And I will now assertnay, promulgate!as a point of political dogma, that only men can be marriage strikers. The marriage strike is purely a MALE project, and must in no way be conflated with any female culture of marriageavoidance. To do so, would bestow upon women a gravitas, and a crown of thorns, to which they are not entitled. Women have a lot to gain from marriage, and men have lot to lose far more than women do. Thanks to feminism, a woman can treat the matrimonial parchment like a tabula rasa, and write the script as she deems fitting. And she can tear it up whenever she wants to, and "make out like a bandit" in her divorce settlement, and drag the children along just like all the other loot she manages to haul away.

And thanks to feminism, marriage is for men a peonage contractat the very best, it is life under a Sword of Damocles; at the very worst, it is a death trap. A man who marries signs his life away to a potential betrayer, one who can lie about him with the law to back her up, one who can reduce him to beggary and destitution, to living in his car, even to a jail cell. Such is the value of male life under the feminist regime. What I have just described is what the law permits to happen, and what police, social services, legal professionals and court systems connive and wink at. No, women cannot be marriage strikers or warrantably call themselves such, for they have nothing to strike about. But although women cannot be marriage strikers, they are certainly free to be forsakers of matrimony. That much, at least, offers a road fairly to be trodden by one and all. Now, there are precisely two ways that a woman can forsake matrimony: either by declining to get married, or after the fact by declining to stay married. Let us examine both cases. A woman who never marries in the first place, forfeits those benefits of marriage which feminist innovation has made uniquely available to women as a group. And her reason for following this course can only be that she perceives a greater benefit in remaining single. On the other hand, a woman who marries and later divorces puts herself in the way of collecting those feminist-bestowed benefitsat the expense, let it be noted, of her erstwhile husband. She may or may not play the shark in such a case, but either way, her motivation to forsake matrimony can never be likened to that of a male marriage striker. For even if she is rightfully escaping a bad marriage, it is only her particular marriage that is unprofitable to herand not the institution of marriage as such. Once again: the institution of marriage is, on balance, a sweet deal for women and a venture fraught with peril for men. The feminists years ago set a goal to destroy traditional marriageand they have resoundingly succeeded. "Holy matrimony" is now in the condition of a wrecked ship on a shoal waiting for the next storm to pull it apart and sweep it away. But meanwhile, marriage (thanks to feminist innovation) is a golden opportunity for women to plunder men. And that is why the rise of the "freemale" is a point of interestbecause here we have a group of women who, clearly, would as soon forgo that opportunity. And we are bound to wonder why. But let me explain. First, consider the
GENERAL alienation (between the sexes overall, in the world at large) spawned by feminism's wedge campaign. Second,

consider the PARTICULAR conflict of interest that men and women experience in the marital realmthat women are able to profit disproportionately from marriage whereas men find the cards stacked heavily against them. This means that women have a strong mercenary incentive to get married even against the alienating impulse of the wedge effect! It is paradoxical: they may be rowing their boat against the stream, but (at least in theory) they know it is worth the effort for the "benefit package" that awaits them. A freemale therefore, is a female for whom the wedge-generated aversion to matrimony outweighs, for whatever reason, ANY possible benefit of matrimonyup to or including the benefit of divorce piracy. This group of female citizens (unlike the marriage strikers) has no political quarrel with the institution of marriage, but only a personal disinclination to the married state of existence. ( We all know about the growing numbers of "professional women" with their hypergamous woe-is-me concerning the lack of "good" men who wish to marry THEM. How this figures into the present discussion would be a whole other discussion in itselfalthough I could briefly speculate that what we are seeing in the case of the "freemale" is a group of women who have decided to "make lemonade from lemons". I mention this in passing so as to make clear that the thought had not escaped me.) The freemale wants to be free. Free to be herself, free to follow her dreams, free to flow with the efflorescence of her free spirit, free to live (as she might phrase it) a more fulfilling and empowered life. Marriage would stand in the way of all these freedoms, since it would require the sacrifice of money, energy and life-space to the complex demands of a potentially offspringproducing partnership. And given the toxic impact of feminist innovation upon the culture as a whole, such partnership is a less viable prospect than it was "in grandpa's day". Feminism has "set enmity" between men and women, who are more and more inclined to eyeball each other suspiciously and to make uncharitable imputations about each other's motivesall of which sets in motion a vicious downward spiral of action and reaction. Furthermore, the muddying of cultural waters, the growth of trivial freedom, trivial distraction, "diversity" and other centrifugal tendencies, has caused people to grow apart from each other, so that prospective marriage partners are less likely than ever to be "on the same page." Among other consequences, the marriageability quotient has declined for both sexes, and people are naturally less disposed to marry when they behold the lamentably common outcome of so many partnerships involving partners who lack the necessary value structure to undertake marriage in the first placein a cultural ecosystem which no longer supports those values.

Such is the wedge effect. And in contemplating it, we are driven to conclude that to avoid marriage is, by almost any measure given the objective state of the world, a rational policy. And the fact that such a policy would tend to make matters worse, in no way undercuts its rationality. Such are the paradoxes of our objective historical situation. So, the "freemale" has made a rational life choice: to not get married. And she has made a second choiceembedded in the first by default to forgo the lucrative possibilities of the marriage racket. And is the second choice motivated by ethical considerations? No, on balance I would deem that unlikely. Understand, it is not unethical to get married, but only to behave unethically within marriageand if one were so inclined, it were a simple matter to marry and then NOT cash in on the marriage racket. The "freemale", by declining to marry, indeed forfeits the potential benefits of the marriage racket by placing herself beyond all possibility of obtaining thesewhich reflects creditably upon her as suggesting that she "hasn't got it in her" to seek such things. But all the same, it seems clear that her core motivation to avoid marriage is rather a personal distaste or disinclination toward the married state as such. Yet I would hasten to add, that in view of what the world has become, such a distaste is quite understandable. One finds cause for celebration, it may be, in the existence of a class of women which has divested all interest in the pivotal segment of feminism's anti-male apparatus. No "freemale" will ever inflict 911 Sudden Divorce Syndrome on any hapless husband! How could she? She hasn't got a husband! And no "freemale" will ever commit paternity fraud. How could she? She has sworn never to be an "out door"! All of this is significant when you consider that here we have a demographic which may ultimately number in the low millions.

And it seems clear that the freemale culture takes fierce pride in the virtues of self-reliancebe this economic, emotional, or what-you-will. And assuredly, I can see where frisky and self-reliant would naturally combine, given that friskiness implies resiliency. A freemale pays her own way and paves her own waythat much is central to their credo. In this respect, they endorse what you might call "feminism", although it is not by any stretch the feminism of counter-feminism's dark analysis. Rather, it is a pristine and bucolic old-school notion of what feminism was "supposed to be", lingering like that little creature called "hope", in the bottom of Pandora's box, after all the plagues and sorrows had escaped into the world. It is a very quaint notion of feminism. . . But quaint or otherwise, this new female tribe forthrightly proposes to make its way in the world without, apparently,

treading upon the backs of men. And insofar they ought, in principle, to be commended. Now, we MRAs are obsessively political creatures, always calculating the angles. So we ought to assay the political usefulness of the "freemale" tribe to the non-feminist sector. But that is not a topic I'll trouble myself to explore here, other than to remark that this "tribe" is quite unlikely to be monolithic, and that if we seek to know their usefulness, that one salient fact would hold the key. But hey, what about the word "freemale"? Just the word itself, I mean. The discussion, which I was invited to partake in, centers chiefly upon that point. How does the term freemale work, purely as self identification for an emerging demographic cohort? Simcha Whitehall's essay furnishes a list of other names which have been proposed for this segment of the female population: cougar, spinster, playgirl, bachelorette. All of these terms have something wrong with them. Cougar is permanently tainted. It translates as "lecherous old broad". Trust me, you'll want to stay away from this one. Shun it like the plague, for plague it is! Spinster is a buggy ride down memory lane to bygone centuries. It signifies "old maid at the spinning wheel." This word has antiquarian interest and, I suppose, more inherent dignity than those other terms on the list. Which isn't saying much. Bachelorette is a cheesy knock-off version of bachelor. It is awful! It makes me shudder! It should make you shudder, too! Playgirl is even worse than bachelorette. Do you REALLY want to be a female Hugh Hefner? This word is ten times cornier than the male version, it reeks of perpetual adolescence, and people will make 'rabbit ears' behind your head. Get it? Rabbit ears?? And that brings us to our special guest of the evening: FREEMALE. This portmanteau is said to combine freedom and female. However, when you look closely you will see that the word in fact combines free and male. And although I could allow that this coinage puns cleverly upon the sound of female, I

must in fairness add that the pun crashes before it gets off the runway. It never gets airborne. Trouble is, the gap between free and male is loaded with a compression spring, and the two particles insist on springing apart to form the phrase FREE MALE. I'm afraid there is just no help for thisthe conceptual dissonance won't allow it any other way! Now, to my way of thinking, the use of "free male" to describe a woman presents a notable obstacle, and that is, that women are not customarily male. Hence, this would not appear to be the best terminological choice in the present case. The free part I can understand, but the male part escapes me. I cannot truly decipher the sense of it. The phrase free male might better be applied, for example, to marriage-strikers, or to members of the MGTOW brotherhoodwho are in fact male, and aspire to "male freedom" even though they aren't a bit frisky. But upon reflection, I wouldn't apply the phrase to them either, even if it does sound more politically suitable. The problem is that the compression spring here becomes a tensile spring and snaps the two particles back together into freemalewhich immediately evokes female. Again, the conceptual dissonance won't allow it any other way. If there is a lesson to be drawn from all this, I suppose it would be that men, who currently have political gravitas on lockdown, are licensed to identify themselves in ringing, richly resonating political monikkers such as MRA, MGTOW, Ghost Nation, marriage-strike, or even (forgive me!) counter-feminist! But the time of political gravitas for women has gone a bit astern. And that is why it might seem difficult for unmarried women with no children to devise a suitably stylish "handle" for themselves. However, I could recommend "single", or "unmarried", as elegant, straightforward solutions. And I would alternately suggest that this group of women, with their growing numbers and increased social acceptability, needn't be self-conscious to the point of wearing any "badge" whatsoever. They can settle quietly into the landscape and quietly prosper according to the customary way of doing things. And the word "freemale"? For reasons I have given, and others I haven't, I don't recommend it. It will most likely have a brief shelf-life and need to be "pulled". 'Tis rubbish; toss it in the tip! Ahhh. . . . brutally honest! That's me. But then I'm a damnation MRA preacher, half horse and half alligator! And that is how people like us roll, ennit? ;)

Not All Women Are Like That

-Zed

There are several reasons why people still insist on wasting their time trying to persist in a strategy which is completely worn out from over use: 1) The ALMOST universal response by women, manginas, white knights, and feminist apologists that NAWALT, is as a form of complete opposition to the message a way to prevent it from being heard. It puts them in the same kind of category as Holocaust deniers implying that it either does not exist or is not any sort of problem. In legal concepts, this makes them accessories after the fact which makes them legally considered to have some guilt or culpability in the issue. Thus, anyone who tries to prevent discussion of the destructive and excessive behavior of women by using the NAWALT excuse will be regarded as being equally guilty to those women who ALT. People who condone or excuse an inexcusable behavior are considered culpable in its continuation. 2) As a result of many years of dealing with flat out denial and stonewalling whenever one tries to point out the excessive and destructive behavior of women as Nancy Levant does in terms that seem more palatable to some people it does begin to appear as though the vast majority of people, seemingly all, either engage in it or condone it. 3) There are two distinct groups of men beginning to emerge in these discussions those men who still give a shit about women, and those who dont. Men get moved from the first group to the second as a direct result of their experiences with trying to make people aware of the problems and encountering that stone wall of denial. While men are trying to talk to women about the problems

it is because they still care and are trying to resolve them. In many ways it is exactly the same situation as I have seen described in many marriages when the woman stops complaining the man interprets this as a sign that everything is OK, when in reality it means that the woman has given up on the marriage and emotionally withdrawn from it. 4) Men do not have the same strange herd mentality that women do. When I started hearing things like All men are rapists and thats all they are, or [Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR, my response was Nonsense! Very few people are really stupid enough to believe that. and just shrugged it off. Men are well aware that there are some really nasty, scummy, men out there, and make the mistaken assumption that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that and can tell the difference. This has been one of the huge mistakes men have made. 5) Because we lack this herd mentality, and in fact have sabotaged ourselves by perpetual argument with each other over minutiae, few of us feel the need to jump up and defend men or MRAs when someone attacks them. This becomes particularly true when a man makes the decision to GHOW and treat relationships and the legal system as a hostile environment which it is simply his challenge to survive. 6) MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), or disengagement, is the ultimate weapon in the Gender War. The problem is that feminists have used the legal system to make it illegal for men to have any sort of relationships with women. From redefinition of rape, to meritricious relationships,

to imputed income, feminsts have worked tirelessly to come up with some sort of financial or criminal penalty for every possible method of involvement with a woman. The question of whether those penalities will end up getting applied hinges completely on whether or not a particular woman is like that. 7) What is missing from the whole dialogue is the way in which a great many average women have actively thrown away any characteristics which might make them attractive to men as relationship partners. The perfect analogy is to say that not all the mushrooms which pop up in a yard after a rain are necessarily poisonous. Focussing entirely on arguing about the probability of whether it is poisonous or not misses the point of whether any particular mushroom is worth eating even if it isnt poisonous. It might be simply unpleasant tasting, or bitter, or neither but induce nausea, even though it wont kill you. As the reward for eating the mushroom approaches zero, the probability that it will kill you becomes increasingly irrelevant. 8 ) And here is where the rubber meets the road. The entire mating paradigm depends on male pursuit and initiation men chase, women choose. When men stop pursuing and initiating, women are left high and dry. And, here is where we come to reason for the hysterical reactions and attacks when a man makes it known that he is simply quitting if men quit, women are stranded.

NAWALT is most often used as the first step in a 3 part argument 1) But, NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT! 2) There are TONS of good women still out there. 3) YOU just HAVE TO go find them. And, the answer to this from MGTOW is Um, no, actually we dont have to. There is no law which requires us to seek out mates, although the biological imperative and social pressure have some of the same effect. But, there is no way that men can be forced to continue to bear the bulk of the risks which go along with intiating and forming relationships with women while the penalties are still escalating and we are facing a cultural wall of denial that those penalties exist. This, along with the absolute refusal of the culture to recognize the out-of-control behavior of women and start to hold them responsible or accountable, make relationships into situations with such high probabilities of loss and low probabilities of reward that they are simply no longer worth it. And there is no way we can be attacked into continuing to do it.

March 2010

Dear Ioana
-Heretic

Firstly, I want to apologize on behalf of Western women for indulging in man-hating, supposedlyfeminist ideologies. Secondly, I am a Western woman, and I am a feminist, also, I'm eighteen years of age. Before you decide to glide over the rest of this post, I'd like to make a case for myself. Heretic, I absolutely agree that men and women ought to pursue symbiotic relationships that foster mutual development and continued learning. I don't believe women are legally oppressed. However, I do find that men tend to base the value of a woman primarily upon her appearance. I suppose under the veil of internet anonymity, you could peg my beliefs as having arisen from bitterness caused by my possibly being unattractive. You have nothing but my word that this is not the case. Assuming, for the sake of my argument, that I'm being genuine, I don't feel it's just that even an attractive woman of reasonable intelligence and merit ought to be regarded by men who're far less intelligent than her as naught but a piece of meat. I'm not saying you've done so, but it happens to me often. There is no denying that there are many men whose sole interest in choosing a mate is appearance. In fact, I commend you for boycotting feminists; at least you'd take the time to listen to what a woman has to say before deciding whether or not to date/marry her. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if the average man were watching TV, and he came across an unattractive man who was saying something intriguing, the TV-watcher would disregard the man and consider his ideas. If it were an unattractive woman saying the same thing, I believe the TVwatcher would take into consideration only the way the woman looked.

Perhaps I'm being long-winded. What I essentially mean to say is that I don't believe feminists today are still pining for more legal leverage. In fact, I believe child support, among other things, is an abomination of modern justice. I do believe, however, that women are still faced with much more pressure than men to tend to their appearances before they're considered good mates, and often before they're even hired. I'd like to hear your take on this. Dear Ioanna, Thank you for your post. You sound like an intelligent and thoughtful person. It is a breath of fresh air to receive a message of this kind from a feminist, instead of the usual childish rant. I commend you for your honesty in particular. I apologise for the fact that it has taken me so long to answer you, and my answer has turned out to be rather long. I hope you will take the time to read it. There is no denying that there are many men whose sole interest in choosing a mate is appearance. A little evolutionary theory would clarify things for you here. Briefly, we are chimpanzees, and we live in hierarchical social groups. Our selfish genes are telling us to maximise their chance of survival by reproducing as much, or in the best way, possible. The aim is to leave the greatest number of surviving offspring after your death. High-status individuals tend to leave more surviving offspring than lowstatus ones, although in modern Western societies, the Welfare State tends to distort this fact. Men and women are different, and have different attitudes to sex. This is not just due to social conditioning, it is due to the fact that we do not have the same roles in reproduction.

We do not differ only in terms of hardware, or what we have between our legs. This hardware also comes with software to make it work effectively; we have different evolved psychological motivations and behaviours which complement our sex. These psychological drives evolved, along with our bodies, tens of thousands of years ago, and have not changed since. The wheels of human evolution turn slowly. We still have the brains of stone-age people. In order to understand relations between the sexes well, we need to look at the subject using this evolutionary perspective. Given the best conditions, a woman can only get pregnant once at a time, and produce about one baby a year. This is a potentially life-threatening experience, and even without complications, the baby remains dependent for many years, requiring constant support. Consequently the decision to have sex is, for a woman, a very serious one. For men, on the other hand, it is very different. In the period of a year, he could potentially father hundreds of babies. His capacity for reproduction is limited only by the availability of women. For men, a good strategy is just to impregnate as many females as possible. For women, having a hundred men is no better than having one; arguably it is worse. It is in a womans interest to mate with the highest-status male she can find, and to stay with him exclusively, and expect that he will provide support for his own children. He will probably be willing to do this if he is sure that the children are his; one of the greatest evolutionary failures for a man is to be a victim of paternity fraud, and to unwittingly provide economic support for another mans children. If the mother is unfaithful, this is a possibility, and the man is more likely to refuse to give support, as he cannot be sure the children are his. If she is loyal to him, or he believes that she is, then he can be sure that the children are his, and has no reason to refuse support. Although promiscuity works as a strategy for men, most men do not have the opportunity to impregnate large numbers of nubile females; those few who do tend to be extremely high status men, like rock stars, movie stars or football stars, and in the past, kings and politicians. The rest of us men will succeed best by remaining loyal to

one wife. That way, we can expect a regular supply of sex, and to leave at least some surviving offspring. By refusing to commit to one woman, most ordinary men would probably remain celibate and childless. Thus, both men and women have a vested interest in monogamy, but we are also not above committing adultery on occasion, women as well as men. Men benefit from adultery in an obvious way. If he impregnates a passing female, there is a chance that she will bear his child, and what is more, he will not have to provide any economic support for that child; in evolutionary terms, it is a quick win. For women, the situation is a little more complicated. They want to give birth to healthy children, and they want to have those children cared for by a high status husband. These two requirements may be in conflict. It often takes men a very long time to accumulate wealth and status, by which time they are relatively old. Older parents of both sexes are more likely to produce children with birth defects. It is in a womans interest to get good quality sperm. Sperm quality diminishes with age, as copying errors accumulate. Good quality sperm means younger men; high status provider means older men. As a choice of husband and father, the middle-aged tycoon is a good choice socially and economically, but a poor choice genetically. His young gardener, on the other hand, is a virile, handsome youth with good quality sperm, but he is penniless. A good strategy for a woman is to marry the middle-aged Lord and then shag the gardener. Get good quality sperm, and then persuade a high-status husband to pick up the bill. Adultery thus carries benefits for both sexes, but is somewhat risky. To return to your original question. Youth and appearance actually are much more important for women than they are for men. Men really do judge women by their appearance more than women judge men by theirs. The reason for this is that beauty equals fertility. A womans fertility is short-lived; it starts to diminish at age 27. By the time she is 45, it is almost entirely gone. The fertility of men, and that of other apes, including females, tails off gradually throughout later life. With human females, there is a menopause; a sudden, sharp cessation of fertility. A beautiful young woman is one who shows all the outward signs of fertility. If you are a man looking for a mate, a

fertile one is the best kind to choose. It is a waste of energy having sex with a woman who cannot get pregnant. People used to die young. Women used to die in childbirth a lot. A woman who is at the beginning of her child-bearing years is the most desirable. She has not yet had any children, and will probably live long enough to see her children reach independence. If she loses one child, she still has time for another attempt. Older mothers are more likely to produce children with birth-defects. It is in everyones interest to have children young. Remember, these are very old instincts produced by evolution. So, men have two mating strategies which they can apply both at the same time; Look for wife and Look for casual sex. Men who judge you purely by your appearance are using the latter strategy. If he wanted a wife, he would judge you by other criteria as well. When a guy propositions you in the street, you are offended because you are looking for the highest-status long-term mate you can find, and you believe that you can command a higher price than he can offer, and that in any case, he is not looking for anything more than casual sex. Look at it this way: even if the casual propositioning of passing females only paid off one time in a hundred thousand, that is enough, over the course of evolutionary time, to make it worthwhile. Dont be too hard on him; he doesnt know you. He fancies himself as a dashing young buck, and for all he knows, you might be married to an elderly tycoon, and be on the lookout for some better quality sperm. He might get lucky one day. Just say no. It is his responsibility to take no for an answer. Just let it go at that. What are you complaining about anyway? There is only one thing worse than men finding you attractive; and that is men not finding you attractive. You wouldnt mind if Brad Pitt propositioned you for casual sex. You only object to this guy doing it because you consider him to be low-status, and yourself to be better than him. Isnt that so? You expressed the view that women are under greater social pressure than men to look good, or are judged by their appearance to a greater extent than men. I think what you say is largely true, but is far from being the whole story. I have already discussed reasons why women are judged by

their appearance to a greater extent than men. But this does not mean that men are not judged at all. We are judged by other criteria. We are judged by our physicality, not just in terms of good looks, but also in terms of athleticism, soldierly qualities, whether we are scary, and can physically and socially dominate other males, whether we can satisfy a woman sexually, whether we will produce handsome sons. We are judged on our education and intelligence. We are still judged on our clothes like women, but also by our cars and other possessions. We are judged by how funny or talented we are as entertainers. We are judged very harshly on our moral character; soldierly qualities of self-discipline, motivation, mental strength, resilience and emotional stability. We are judged very harshly on our sexual continence. We are used to being characterised as violent sexual predators, even as we do our best to live lives of work and family, and strive to have positive relationships with women. We are judged in terms of what other males think of us, and by our capacity for work. Most of all we are judged by how much money we have. Women are not judged by any of these criteria. Overall, men are judged much more harshly than women. A woman who does not have a job is exercising a positive lifestyle choice. A man who does not have a job is a pathetic loser. Secondly, this pressure on women that you refer to does not only, or even mainly, come from men. It comes from other women. It is the shop-girl who will smirk knowingly when you ask her for a bigger size, it is the female fashionpolice in your peer group who will publicly humiliate you because you are carrying the wrong kind of handbag, the jealous co-worker who will give you an unpleasant task to do because she is jealous of your shoes. Most of the pressure to be thin also comes from other women. Women will starve themselves into emaciation in order to compete with other women, and because they are scared of other women calling them fat, and humiliating them. Men tend to be fairly straightforward, uncomplicated creatures. If we look at a woman, we probably just decide that she is more or less sexually attractive. The finer points of fashion do not register. In the talent competition of life, men are generally the

performers, and women the judges and critics. Thats pretty much how it is, and there are good evolutionary reasons for that. You say: However, I do find that men tend to base the value of a woman primarily upon her appearance. Well, some do, just as some women base the value of a man purely on his bank balance. But those are not the sort of men you would want to get involved with, Im guessing. Yes, there are shallow and dishonest people in the world, it will always be so. Learning to deal with that is an essential life-skill. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if the average man were watching TV, and he came across an unattractive man who was saying something intriguing, the TV-watcher would disregard the man and consider his ideas. If it were an unattractive woman saying the same thing, I believe the TV-watcher would take into consideration only the way the woman looked. Well, I think I must disagree. I dont know what kind of men you hang around with, but it seems as though you are judging the entire male population by them, whoever they are. I for one appreciate good ideas, and I do not judge the idea by whether or not I find the speaker sexually attractive. Couldnt men make the same complaint? A woman is going to be more appreciative of a story, idea or joke if it comes from a handsome, high-status man whom she finds attractive, than if it came from a poor, unattractive one. women are still faced with much more pressure than men to tend to their appearances before they're considered good mates, and often before they're even hired

Your thinking clearly is influenced by feminist thinking, because you evidently never consider mens perspective, you believe that everything is worse for women, that this is some kind of evil conspiracy, and that you are underappreciated. Feminism has done a spectacularly poor job. It presents itself as the leading authority on all matters concerning sex and relations between the sexes, and yet the quality of its analysis is utterly piss-poor. It sees new ideas as a threat. It is bad enough that it demands a monopoly on discourse, but it also maintains its monopoly by coercion. This is an outrageous imposition on to any democratic culture, which absolutely cannot be accepted. The feminist movement is a crypto-fascist dinosaur which has dominated all Leftist thinking for decades, and is demonstrably leading to catastrophic social outcomes. It is based on nothing but a lie of truly Hitlerian proportions, that women have been systematically discriminated against for millennia. This is, at worst, a travesty, a perversion of the truth, and at best, a very poor theory. Personally, I would like to hear some better ideas from the women, attractive or not. Best regards, Heretic

Feminism and the Prison Industrial Complex

-Welmer

I was recently looking over US prison statistics, which demonstrate that the United States imprisons more people by far in terms of both percent of population and overall number than any other country in the world. In fact, the United States may have the highest peacetime incarceration rate in recorded history we are certainly somewhere near the USSR at the height of the GULAG system (not counting post-war POWs). While looking at graphs detailing the steep rise in incarceration that began around 1980, it occurred to me that the implementation of feminism and womens liberation coincided almost perfectly with the rise in the incarceration rate. As single motherhood and innovations in family law spread, the number of men in prison grew at a fantastic rate. In the 1990s, Clintons 1994 crime bill further increased the growth of the prison industrial complex just as the Violence Against Women Act ( VAWA) took hold. It often takes great effort and force to prop up an unnatural social system. The reason the implementation of Communism was accompanied by mass incarceration was that the Communist system wasnt the best fit for the societies it enslaved. Likewise, although sexual liberation and the destruction of families may come naturally to many possibly most women on an individual basis, it doesnt really work in modern human societies, and probably hasnt been adaptive since the end of the middle paleolithic. The decimation of American families began to gain steam during the 1960s, when the illegitimacy rate of black Americans rose rapidly, foreshadowing the current explosion of white illegitimacy. This was accompanied by a record crime rate in the 1970s. As social chaos began to take hold and women marched in the streets for easy divorce and abortion, conservatives attention was largely focused on the poor behavior of the young male cohort. As conservatives are wont to do, they blamed men exclusively for the problem, possibly because of their cherished fantasy that all women who have children out of wedlock or who get divorced are innocent victims of rapacious men. In reality, the boys who were out in

the street misbehaving were, as often as not, victims of their mothers choices. In addition to the criminality brought about by illegitimacy and broken families, the economic issue of welfare came to be a major point of political contention. As single mothers went on welfare en masse, pressure built up to make fathers pay again, often for the poor choices of women. Tougher laws were passed to rein in the social chaos in inner cities and attempt to coerce young men into behaving like Ward Cleaver even as their role as provider husband or father had been subverted by revolutionary family law and feminist policies in school and the workplace. Of course, it was impossible for many of these young men to beat the odds stacked against them, so the punitive option was brought to bear, and prisons across the country received them with open arms. An interesting thing about the meteoric rise in incarceration is that it continued apace for over an entire generation. Starting around 1980, it continued to grow throughout the last Bush administration. If you are a young man today, your chance of being thrown in the slammer has grown tremendously from the day you were born. Even as your real wages have declined, your educational opportunities eroded by higher costs and female domination of higher education, and the likelihood you will have a stable, lasting marriage and family has largely evaporated, you now have a greater opportunity than ever to live the life of a convict. Feminist policy created a self-reinforcing loop of male disenfranchisement, male crime, public outrage and calls for punishment, incarceration, and then more disenfranchisement as children grow up with daddy in jail or otherwise on the wrong side of the law. There is nothing more responsible for the destruction of the American family than feminism, and there is nothing that breeds crime like broken families.

Why Game and Choice For Men Elicits So Much Hate

-Obsidian

With a major snag being hit with the House passage of the Healthcare Bill that involves public monies being used to pay for abortions, and in the light of my recent debate on Game with the lovely Susan Walsh of HookingUpSmart.com, I thought now would be the perfect time to address exactly why these two powerful correctors of the sexual marketplace-Game and Choice For Men-has drawn the ire of both, Women AND Men. Lets put our Occams Razor-assisted thinking caps on, shall we, gentlemen? OK The reason why Game is reviled, and why Roe For Men elicits the ire of Women and Men alike, is very simple: Because it gives maximum options to a maximum number of Men. Thats why. Keen students of Game understand well that its underpinnings come from the insights gleaned from Evolutionary Psychology & Biology, the study of human behavior and the adaptations that had to take place many tens of thousands of years ago on the African savanna to meet the demands of the environment. Human beings evolved and moved away from said environment, but by then the programming had taken hold; it takes many thousands of years to reboot the system. So, what we have today in our time, is essentially this-we have all these toys and gadgets and big ideas, but we arent that far removed from our savanna past. Game is the proof. Now As we all know, the key mating strategy of the Female is to

get the attention of the Alpha Male-the leader of the pack. He is the one best equipped to provide resources to her children; he is the one best able to defend her and her kids from any threats. For thousands of years, this was a fairly easy thing to do for the Female; the Menfolk were quickly sorted out, either by rivalry within the tribe, or warfare with other tribes, or by being killed off during hunting trips, etc. All the Females had to do was pick the winners of these and other situations. Now, barring Rape-which was quite a common mating strategy for Males for thousands of years in its own right-the deal was, the Alphas got the best Females. If you werent an Alpha, your chances of passing on your genes into the future were dim-you either had to hope you could sneak one in while the Alpha was away, or, get the leftover Females nobody really wanted, or, bust a Female upside the head and take her by force. Failing that, you were facing an Epic Evolutionary Fail. Women are wired to screen out all but the Best Men for the purposes of mating and *longterm commitment*. Remember this one, folks, its very, very important. All lesser guys need not apply. Down through the Ages, Women have evolved to come up with ways and means to separate one group of Men, from the other. This highly attuned radar if you will, on the part of Women, is in large part fooled by Game, because it gives the average guy the tools needed to ape the behavior of Alpha Males. This in turn gives him more chances to matein other words in our time, get laid-and this in turn causes mucho stress for the Ladies, because Game makes it so they cannot as easily determine whos who. For a Woman, this is hugely important-as Ive pointed out before and it bears repeating, a Woman risks a heck of a lot to have sex. Much, much more than Men do. Aside from things like Rape and STDs, one of the biggest risks is in her giving it up to the wrong guy, and having to deal with the fallout from that.

And, as Ive also noted before, and it also bears repeating, Good Guys-essentially Alpha Males-are hard to find. This means that, by necessity, all the guys cannot get laid: From a females point of view, its very important that the number of guys getting lucky is restricted. If every Tom, Dick and Harry could get laid at will, with the more topshelf honeys, it would wreak havoc on tens of thousands of years of delicate programming for the Femaleimportant programming that helps her sort out the Males into two distinct groups: Alphas, and everybody else. Game in essence, seriously messes with that programming. Which is why Women have so many problems with it. So, that explains the Female side of the equation-but what about the Male side? That too, is also simple. When one has a fundamental grasp of Human Nature and of Game, which is really Social Sexual Dynamics, then one understands why one can see much Hateration from certain quarters of the Menfolk on this issue. For Men, competition to mate, and with the choicest Females, is FIERCE. In Nature, Males display, and Females choose-this means that not only does a Male have to have the best display but that its in his interest to restrict the number of competitors he has to contend with-the more guys in the round, the lesser his chances of winning. Again, Game gives more guys more chances to win-and quite a few guys, operating from the Reptilian Id, DONT LIKE THAT. This is why youll hear these guys dress up their evolutionary hateration in flowery terms like trickery, deception and the like, not to mention a goodly bit of White Knightery-when you really break it down, the issue is, that more guys will have options if they have Game. Simple as that. Before I move on to Roe For Men, let me say this Remember my recent debate with Susan Walsh? She made quite a big deal about the neg, a powerful method that one soon learns when first receiving Game training. And shes not alone-just about every single, female critic of Game will crow loud and long about this one teeny wittle aspect of the science. And do you want to know WHY so many Women complain so loudly and long about the Neg? BECAUSE IT WORKS, THATS WHY. And worse, there is no defense against it. Why? Because it is

deeply embedded in a Womans psyche to submit to a Dominant Male, and negging is what Dominant Males do. In fact, the astute among my readers might have picked up on something in the aforementioned exchange. Hmm So-teaching average guys about the whys and wherefores of Negging again, essentially screws up the inherent Alpha Radar Women have-can you see why theyre so upset now? Another example, and then well examine Choice For Men Recently, I wrote about the issue of paying for dates. Although I didnt get a heck of a lot of responses enlist, I did get a goodly number from WOMEN offlist, complaining about what I said. Now, keep in mind-I didnt say I wasnt gonna pay for ANY dates; I simply said that it wasnt a good idea for a guy to go all in on a first date with a Women he really doesnt know and hasnt had sex with in any event. Even given the comments in response to what I wrote, by other guys, The Fifth Horsemen amon them, what I wrote was quite fair, balanced and reasonable. Still, the Ladies were feeling some kind of way. Do you know why? Go back and review what I said: its because, the mere mention of saying what I said means that Im not needy for sex, and the vast majority of Men arewhich means, in effect, theyre signaling that theyre NOT ALPHA. So when a guy blows a C-Note on a gal he hasnt been in bed with yet, hes saying Im so horny!-and that tells the gal that he aint The One. Epic. Evolutionary. Fail. She WILL however, take his money, in the form of lunches, dinners, nights out on the town, flowers, baubles, you name it-and hey, why not? As the Wise Man once said, a Fool and his Money are soon departed. I betcha all those Women who wrote to me offlist, had NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER either doing what I just wrote above, and/or know, and fully endorse, other Women doing it. Yet, they have a problem with little ole me. Why? Because hipping guys to the realities of paying for dates too soon basically screws with the radar again, AND WOMEN DONT LIKE THAT. Only Alphas are supposed to have sexual options. See what Im saying here? OK, so lets now move on to the Roe For Men issue People, its real simple: in America, we have this thing called Equal Protection Clause-which means, that you cant make

laws that benefit only one group, and not everyone else, or worse, target one group with a set of laws. Its either all or nothing, and it works very well across the board, no matter what the issue is. When it comes to Reproductive Rights, as it currently stands, we have an inherently un-Constitutional situation happening, because only Women can have the right to choose whether they want to be a parent or not. Men dont have that right. Again, once one understands Game, which is deeply rooted in Evolutionary Science, it is easy to see why Roe For Men is so vehemently fought against, by Women and Men both. For Women, the issue is very easy-despite all the many advances Women have made, they still desire and demand that they get maximum resources from a Male-ideally the actual dad, but in a pinch any guy with good prospects will do (watch the Maury Show)-and failing that, the State. For Men, again, basically freeing up Men to fully explore their sexual options without any encumbrance of being a parent involuntarily, would mean more competitors in the marketplace; as it currently stands, forcing guys to pay child support acts as a check on their sexual activity. It removes potential players from the field.

Going back to Women, remember what I said earlier: their mission isnt only to mate with the Alpha, but to get his long-term commitment in the form of resources. If Roe For Men would be allowed to pass, that latter part of the deal collapses. But it would uphold the basic premise of the Equal Protection Clause, yes? If Women can decide, w/o regard to her sex life, when and if she becomes a parent, why cant Men? Its really simple. And just note all the rhetorical jiu jitsu the pro choice crowd engages in when confronted with these facts. I mean, come on. So, to recap: Game & Roe For Men greatly threaten the sexual marketplace, by giving the average guy much more options than he would have had previously. This is a great concern to Women and Men alike, albeit for differing reasons. For the former, it messes with their finely attuned radar thats set for weeding out Alpha Males from everyone else; in the latter case, it promises more direct competition for the better females.

False Rape Accusation Awareness: Steps Toward Understanding and Avoiding

-E. Steven Berkimer

The following does not constitute legal advice, and is not intended for that purpose. Only a licensed and qualified attorney who is able to interview the accused and to conduct other appropriate investigation can properly serve his interests. False Rape Accusations. Duke lacrosse immediately springs to mind when you read those words. Hofstra, for a more recent case. On a daily basis, someone is being falsely accused. On my site, www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com, we refer to them as FRAs (its much easier than typing it out every time). For the purposes of this piece, the vast majority of FRAs are understood to be filed by women. How do you avoid having an FRA leveled at you? What do you do once an accusation has been leveled? And how do we, as a society, prevent the FRA from happening? Lets take a look at that last one first. How do we prevent FRAs from happening? Unless we see a radical shift in our legal system (speaking of the U.S.), we will never be able to completely stop false accusations from happening. That said, the first step in preventing false accusations would be to make the seriousness of the crime equal to the level of the accusation. Rape is a felony, and rightly so. However, falsely accusing someone of rape, at most, will be met with a charge of filing a false police report, which is usually a misdemeanor. I know that in the U.K., there are other charges that can be leveled, and under the E.U. Human Rights Charter, there are other avenues that can be legally used. The U.S. however, doesnt afford those options. The biggest hurdle? Changing the attitude of the judicial system, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges. Proper practice by law enforcement should be to investigate first, then arrest if there is sufficient proof to warrant that.

However, in the current climate, it is arrest first, and then investigate. So innocent citizens can and do spend time in jail, with no proof aside from the accusation of even a mentally unbalanced woman, before an investigation even starts. So, what do you do if you are on the receiving end of an FRA? Get the best criminal attorney in the area to represent you, preferably one who has tried before a jury numerous similar cases. Spare no expense because it is the most important investment you will ever make. Make sure you have an attorney present, and make sure you follow his or her advice, when you speak with police or anyone else about the matter of which youve been accused and related matters. If you receive a suspicious phone call from anyone trying to get you to discuss the incident or related incidents, it might be a pretext call a call recorded by police in order to get you to incriminate yourself. Be polite but firm. Refuse to answer questions or engage the caller in a conversation. Hang up as soon as possible and call your criminal defense attorney. Anything you say might be used as evidence in a criminal trial against you, depending on the jurisdiction. The biggest difficulty lies in avoiding an FRA in the first place. When it isnt even necessary for any type of sexual activity to take place to be falsely accused, it is almost impossible. The best recommendation although drastic is to keep some form of electronic record of all sexual interactions. However, in most states, it is illegal to record video without all parties knowledge. Most states allow for audio taping of calls, but always be aware of your states laws. Also know the major factors that can lead to an FRA:

1. Alcohol/drugs If shes been drinking, even if it is just one drink, and she regrets what happens, she can claim rape, and because of that one drink, may be considered legally incapable of consent. Its another area where women evade taking responsibility for their actions. 2. Infidelity If you know she is involved in any way with someone (dating/married), consider that a warning sign. A more general way to describe this situation is when someone important to her would disapprove of her relationship with you she might try to cover up consensual sex with a rape lie. 3. Group Sex Hofstra is the most recent case of this. However, that case was an example of #2. She lied to her boyfriend about the gangbang she willingly participated in. 4. Job If you are a Cop, Firefighter, Teacher, Cab Driver or Paramedic, you are more likely to have an FRA leveled against you. 5. Age Differential Older man/younger woman and Older woman/ younger man. In neither scenario will anyone even question an FRA. The second one however, lends credence to the idea that adult women are akin to children, and STILL arent held to the standards that adult men are. 6. Break ups Those who know what kind of special hell Family/Divorce Courts are like are well aware that false accusations of abuse, rape and molestation are used with regularity, and as a weapon, specifically if custody is involved.

While the rape industry likes to loudly proclaim that FRAs are a myth, women dont lie about rape, and that false accusations are only around 2% (Studies by Kanin, McDowell, Times of India, Daphne II commissioned by the EU, and DOJ statistics all put the amount much higher), two things are certain. FRAs are a problem that is overlooked by the vast majority of people in our society, and their victims are almost 100% male. Due to the vast inroads that feminism has made into the current judicial system, FRAs are a weapon used against men, and they are usually used to cover up the bad behaviors/decisions of some women. Under our current legal system, the woman can change her mind the next day, the next week, or the next year, about what she previously consented to, and cry rape. And you WILL be arrested, so long as she is a convincing enough actress.

Hate Bounces: How Man Hating and Man-Bashing Harms Women

-Zed

Misogynists are not born, they are made. Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens. The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that persons faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that. Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called Womens Liberation which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it. And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert Id like to talk to you about. I learned very quickly that feminism wasnt about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power

among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little. The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising power seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didnt need any g damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee. Shock is a totally inadequate word to describe my response. I was at a loss to understand any of her reaction. She couldnt have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of mentally defective, hate filled, and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company. A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist consciousness raising group as consisting of perfectly satisfying man hating sessions. Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so perfectly satisfying. I dont remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me. It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were.

Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president spoke of my hatred of men in the same matter-of-fact tone that she might say my nose. It was just an integral part of her. Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a loving relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love? So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of commitment became one and the same as trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me. I was indeed one of those men who wouldnt make a commitment. The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how satisfying man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women. That is the personal side. And, I wont bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not whether a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but how bad and how soon it would happen. On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively just for being a man. I remember the first time I saw the slogan A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a womans life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my

face, it was going to be a shit storm. Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said no, that is wrong, there is another point of view Id get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women in their place, was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks. There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 3000+, but in time it did become true. I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterdays garbage. In short I viewed them as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s. Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldnt figure out why she couldnt get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didnt realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity. I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called misogynist. I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence. And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said I dont know why you are making such a big deal about it, I caved in and really did begin to hate women. Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing

I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says Beware of VERY bad dog. Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone. Misogynists are not born, they are made. I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into love for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women. I simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere. When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethnic bashing joke What does a ______ say instead of fuck you? Answer Trust Me. I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. Thats fine. Shes a fish without a bicycle I have no place in her world, nor her in mine. Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men. Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who cant stand them, or anything about them.

Im sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, Im sick and tired of their victim games, Im sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men dont ask for directions. How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like Your uncle was a fine man, not, arent men headstrong and stupid? Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like get over it, or why dont you take the gender out of it? In return I ask, Why the hell dont you women get over it, and take the gender out of it? Every day, a few more men go through the transformation and become like me. We dont get our guns and shoot a few women; we dont beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, theres no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends.

The Plague of Modern Masculinity

-Paul Elam

Scores of our young men today are stranded at an impasse on the road to realizing manhood. They are bogged down in the confusion of a generation lost to treacherous forces they never saw, for reasons they were never able to comprehend. They are struggling and starving; unable to feed their souls in a world that finds them increasingly unnecessary and burdensome. They have come of age in a time of coerced impotence, their nascent masculinity gutted and stripped long before having the opportunity to shape their character and their destiny. In that they are suffering from the loss of things never held, from things missing but never known. They are, quite literally, a lost generation of the walking wounded, wandering blindly from a battlefield on which they never knew they stood. In that light, the path they are on is not really the road to manhood, but simply a retreat from the effacing malice woven into the very fabric of their developmental lives. And it takes them not to safe ground, but directly into a dismal culture of shallowness and self indulgence; a realm of options without obligations; of self gratification without self awareness or self discipline. It is the death march of the western male, destined for a withering end ensured by intellectual, psychological and moral atrophy. This aimless, narcissistic existence is a forced escape from lives shrouded in shame; from manhood being reduced to an evolutionary joke in the eyes of a culture that holds it in contempt, even as the elders deny it is happening. With the wholesale whitewashing by society and abandonment by the fathers more or less complete, the newly (de)engineered young man is all but defenseless against this downward spiral into terminal insignificance. Its happening all around us. One only need look at current events to see that the world of men is quite literally circling he drain; disappearing from the stable foundations of education and employment. They are targeted with

disinformation about crime and domestic violence, and about deviant sexual proclivities with women and children. These are no longer just the ruminations of twisted ideologues. The demagoguery now emanates directly from the government, backed by men with gavels, and men with guns. The judicial apparatus has been reshaped, not to pursue justice, but to incarcerate men at every opportunity, even to enable and encourage false accusations to accomplish that goal. This isnt just about male bashing any more. It is about male subjugation. And it is not being executed by feminists or women, but by men. We might proffer that the solution is a redirection to days past, when we imagine that men made masters of sacred codes; when they possessed strength and purpose and would stand against this growing tragedy and defeat it. We would be wrong. We can only find that Thomas C. Wolfe was right. You cant go home again. And whats more, you really dont want to. It was, in a sense, home that got us here. And that is a truth we must face, no matter how natural or compelling the tendency to point to any other outside force and satisfy our frustrations with the simplistic convenience of an easily identified enemy. As always, our true enemy is in the mirror. The only thing that will save us is to face up to that and act accordingly. In the fitful and often strange world of the mens movement, we attempt to answer this social malady; to create a haven, if only an intellectual one, for the refugees of this godforsaken gender war. It is a mission often hobbled by our own hands, yet the work goes on, limping toward solutions. We strive, I think, as men who have taken the red pill and seen through the Matrix, to formulate an appropriate response, and in our own way to push some sanity and balance back into the collective consciousness; to force it past the architects of institutional misandry, both male and female. But even as we exert pressure, we dont have a firm grasp on what it is we are fighting.

We have not ascertained, nor have we even really thoroughly tried to, what role traditional manhood plays in the problem. Unfortunately, what we have too often done is practice the obstinate politics of wounded children who insist that they have no role in whatever befalls their lives. We have, at times, angrily and energetically reacted to misandry, but have balked with equal vigor at seriously examining how we fostered and enabled it with masculine codes of conduct. Consequently, all of our efforts rooted in this approach have failed, and miserably so. We have made some progress, and will no doubt eventually mature into a more effective movement, but not before we embrace more than the hostility we feel for perceived enemies. Our most functional response thus far is to check out and go our own way, but I contend that an exit is not a destination, but just a needed removal from the line of fire; a chance to collectively regroup and rethink. Remember that the young men festering at those crossroads have, in their own way, checked out, too. It isnt looking too good on them. And it forces us, sooner or later, to swallow a pill that some will find bitter. And to face a reality that some will find unconscionable. The feminists were right. Masculinity has, as it relates to modern realities, corrupt, oppressive and destructive elements that need to change. And yes, I mean that literally. And no, Im not kidding. In fact, the entire thrust of my argument is that the monstrous social degeneration we are now witnessing, more than anything else, is the result of outmoded and horribly misguided masculinity. Of course, once we dig more than a nanometer deep into the subject we find that objectivity and reason veer us onto an entirely different philosophical trajectory than the pathologically twisted and apoplectic mindset of feminist ideologues. To chart our course, we will do two things that feminists never did. First, we will look at the subject without a politically driven agenda for unjustified revenge, or a mandate to dominate the other half of the population. And two, we will proceed with the sincere goal of benefit for everyone, not just an elite group.

The only sensible place to start is with a more grounded understanding of masculinity itself, something that cant be done in a 3,500 word essay, but can, with even marginally appropriate treatment, arrive at far better conclusions than the last forty years of womens and gender studies. We can rely on the combined contributions of history, mythology, politics and, most importantly, human sociobiology. For in the end we are a species of animals whose very existence depended on the development of reproductive strategies, the primary of which is that the most aggressive and powerful males are selected for mating by the most reproductively viable females. Those strategies arose from an environment of necessity and produced an effective way to produce offspring with the highest probability of survival. As a function of survival, that strategy, and not patriarchal conspiracy, shaped the male hierarchy, as well as what we now call masculinity. Some dry facts- The hierarchy of men: Despite the numerous male archetypal figures of history and legend, there are truly only four basic types of men. Three of the more commonly known are the alphas, betas and omegas. The fourth I will address later. Alpha males are a very, very small fraction of the male population. They are highly dominant men who reside at near the top of all populations, from social groups to national governments. These men are generally characterized by the ability to force the deference of other men, often mistaken for leadership, and to obtain and hold power, which lends them dominance in being selected for mating by the most desirable females. There is no evidence to suggest this is any different now than at any other time in history, and there is no way to underestimate the importance of the mating strategy in the phenomenon of the alpha male. Success often has its price. Alphas also tend to be obsessively controlling, abusive and megalomaniacal. If you point to any despot in world history that slaughtered scores of his own people, for the need to maintain control, or for sheer sadistic pleasure, you are pointing at an alpha male. With alphas, you can throw your imagined codes of honor out the window. Those codes are nothing more than tools used to force betas and omegas into compliance with their agendas. All romanticism aside, the code of the alpha male is to conquer and control, both the objects of his desire and the men he exploits and expends to acquire them. Characterologically speaking, they are a minute, worst

representation of the male of the species. But they also get things done, and with great efficiency if you dont factor weigh the loss of freedom and human life. Incidentally, their characteristics are also the same ones that feminists have erroneously used to define masculinity in one broad stroke, painting all men as domineering and oppressive. Success at this enabled them to take other microscopic minorities of men and attribute their characteristics to men in general as well, e.g. abusers, pedophiles, rapists, etc Historically, the challengers to alphas frequently came from other alphas and often from the ranks of beta males, who form the next tier down in the male power structure. Betas serve as the alphas enforcers, the strong-arms used to maintain control over greater numbers. They also play the role of yes men, affording them their own realm of power and putting them within striking distance (or scavenging proximity) of the alphas position and status, including sexual primacy. Like roadies for a rock band, fortune often filters its way into their hands, and beds. At the bottom, and most heavily populated part of the hierarchy, are the omega males. These are the pawns on a chessboard, often under the direct control of alpha, or by proxy, beta males. This is the common man, and the one most vulnerable to the hazards of common life. A good way to look at this is to take a look at the military chain of command. The general tendency is that the alphas, betas and omegas shed increasing amounts of blood in descending order and claim the spoils of victory in ascending order. Government runs in the same way. In the simplest of terms, alpha lawmakers use beta law enforcement officers to exercise their will on the generally omega population. Or rather government used to work that way, but it really doesnt any more. The political sell out that changed the world. Alpha males in government didnt just collude with feminist ideologues in order to garner a sizable and dependable voting bloc. They had wives to contend with, many of whom were supporting feminism, which effectively reduced everything to the biological imperative. Alpha males are no less, and arguably even more disposed to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure sexual status. Faced with a perceived threat to that, they effectively ceded the alpha position and became beta enforcers for the feminist agenda.

You wont find better examples of that than Barak Obama or Joe Biden, or George Bush for that matter. These alphas became the beta muscle for a feminist Mafioso, maintaining rank and privilege through enforcing ideological imperatives on the defenseless masses beneath them. They became cops hauling men to jail on the simple accusation of their wives. They became judges bludgeoning men with their gavels in corrupt courtrooms; politicians passing ever more misandric legislation; C.E.O.s of pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs like Ritalin to sap the vitality and strength out of our boys, to make them more malleable in female hands once the father had been removed from the home. Isnt this ironic? The supposed pinnacle of strength in the male hierarchy was revealed by feminism to actually be the pinnacle of sexual weakness. This series of events is also a lesson in real power, and where it resides, which in the realm of sexual selection has always been in the hands of the women who did the selecting. But an even greater irony is revealed. Women, who have bemoaned a lack of power for ages, and in fact still do, found out four decades ago that all they had to do to gain almost complete control was step up and demand it be handed over, playing the sex card as they did so. And it was handed over, by the most powerful men in the world, who in the presence of these women became like butlers offering cocktails on a serving tray. I am not fond of that conclusion. In fact, as a man who continually struggles to break old world ties, I am rather embarrassed by it. Nothing learned, nothing gained. Nonetheless, what happened here on the whole was that women, their raw biological power masquerading as feminism, have taken the dominant alpha status in our culture, and the result is quickly becoming an age of oppression and injustice more insidious and intractable than any other. It is in the biological, survival oriented nature of women to enhance their lives through the utilization of male labor and male expendability, without compunction or moral constraint, and that is exactly where our culture has ended up on an Orwellian scale. Defeating this monstrosity requires the insanely formidable task of battling (figuratively) through beta enforcers masquerading as alpha controllers, not to a command post with someone in charge, but through a pervasive ideology

that snakes like countless invisible tentacles through the consciousness of the population at large, and that emanate from the very heart of human evolutionary psychology. And the first strike in that battle should be, must be, at the elements of masculinity that allowed it all to happen. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. They say there is nothing new under the sun. History infers wisdom in those words. We can see with proper discernment that the womens movement was not really a new era for women at all. It is, on close inspection, just women and men practicing their biological strategies in a highly successful manner. So successfully, in fact, that it is rendering large portions of the male population even more expendable. So expendable, in fact, that we are now creating reasons to get rid of them. It was destined to happen once male control of the environment made it safe enough for women to start acquiring power and resources outside the traditional and protected realm of the home. This is why you see feminism with its strongest foothold in industrialized nations founded on the rule of law. And it is why you see that law itself is now being manipulated away from the idea of justice (which was its intent in a mans world) and toward the funneling added protection and resources to women (which has always been the intent in the world shared by both sexes). It is not the pursuit of equality or the love of egalitarian values that has led to feminist governance, but pure blind human biology, practiced in the same way it was on the plains of Africa a million years ago. And the stunning successes of men making all manner of advances since then has now begun to take us out of the picture. Quite simply, men have worked themselves out of a job. As noted earlier, we have already begun to disappear from the ranks of the employed and educated, and the government is adopting policies to accelerate that process. It doesnt take a conspiracy nut to understand that this will eventually become a disappearance from the planet. In practical terms, there are not near as many men needed proportionally as there once was. The ones that remain will be of increasingly lower status and will be subject to ever more draconian control. But of course, there is one factor that will turn the tide

before its over. It is the instinct for survival. It is the only instinct stronger than sex, and it has already shown signs of emerging. We call it the mens movement; MRAs, MGTOW, and the like. We are the evidence that men transcending biology is possible; proof that there actually can be something new under the sun. And we are growing rapidly because more and more men are beginning to see misandry for what it is; a loaded gun pointed directly at their heads, and at the heads of their sons. Unlike feminism, which is simply a normal, functioning part of the female sex role advanced to destructive levels, masculism is the exact polar opposite. This is the first time in human history that men are organizing to overcome their biological mandate and to reverse the flow of survival power back to the world of men. And while our ranks contain many who are misinformed, and who in fact unwittingly play into the wrong agendas with support of chivalry and traditionalism, those notions are becoming increasingly unpopular and more commonly attacked on philosophical grounds. The mens movement is starting to get it. And this is precisely the battle we need to fight! Not with women and not with feminists of either sex, but with the aspects of masculinity that are leading to our destruction because they are now outmoded, archaic and self defeating. What remains of chivalry is better described as toxic waste in the water supply. And just as we depart from the old definitions of masculinity, we must do the same with chivalry. It may have once also been a code of honor used by alphas to control other men, but in the modern world we all know it has but one meaning- female privilege. And so now we can call chivalry by more modern, more appropriate names, e.g. VAWA, primary aggressor laws, Title IX, rape shield laws, Title IV-D, family court, prosecution on false accusation, media bias against men, or, if you prefer the short and simple version, misandry. The fourth type of man- the zeta male. As previously noted, the mens movement is a unique and literally unprecedented phenomena. It will bring with it some other firsts. One of them is the socio-sexual warrior, and I refer to him for the purpose of this discourse as the zeta male. The tag remains faithful to the Greek alphabet classification of the other three types of men, but there is

more purpose to the label. I took it from the star Zeta Persei. I liked the navigational metaphor of the star as it is applicable in the context of the lost generation. But I was also intrigued to learn that Persei is a variation of Perseus, the first of the Greek mythological heroes. Perseus had a remarkable talent for slaying archaic monsters, Medusa the Gorgon among them, who as a mortal woman possessed great beauty, and was self enamored and struck with the power of her sexual allure until she was turned into a hideous monster by Athena, who later used her severed head as a weapon on her shield. In 1940, an article by Sigmund Freud was posthumously published, entitled Medusas Head (Das Medusenhaupt) in which he postulated that Medusa represented castration in a childs mind related to discovered and denied maternal sexuality. Even more interesting is that in modern times, feminists ( Women: A Journal of Liberation, 1978) adopted and reinterpreted the image of Medusa as representative of womens rage, and it served as a binding symbol of feminist solidarity. So Perseus, namesake of Zeta Persei, was the slayer of oedipal shame (control) and the murderously powerful raging feminist archetype.

The zeta male. This classification of a male is new because this is a male that until recent times was never needed, and indeed was never there. He is emergent and unpolished and struggling to find his legs, but is doing so thanks to the fertile, safe ground, provided by, of all things, other emerging zetas on the internet. He has no allegiance to tradition or nostalgia for the past, and in fact is charged with plotting a new course. He cannot be shamed into control or intimidated into silence or seduced into capitulation. He doesnt fit in the classic hierarchy, and would gladly bring it down in the name of his cause. When someone says he needs to act like a real man, he smiles and says, No, thank you. He doesnt seek power, but justice. And he has one overarching feature largely absent in the world around him. He cares about those lost young men who were ambushed coming out of the womb. And he will strive to make himself an example, living proof that there are other roads to take than the ones that lead to self hatred and self destruction.

April 2010

Conservative Misandry
-Hestia

The evils of misandry and feminism are oftentimes believed to come packaged in one particular way, the leftist branch feminism that immediately pops into mind when the topic is mentioned. While this may indeed be the most visible type of anti-male streak running through our culture today, this is not the only form, nor the type of misandry that is most harmful. There is a strain of feminism, one I've dubbed "conservative feminism" that typically comes packaged in sparkles, ribbons, and bows. At first glance, this form may seem innocent, but upon pondering certain ideas and stereotypes floating around out there, one will quickly realize that something sinister is flying around the conservative religious world that proclaims their hatred for feminism. Any belief system or idea that attempts to elevate women above men or proclaim femininity better than masculinity is feminism. In both leftist and conservative feminism this is done, often using the same wrongful ideas about men, just spinning them a bit differently for their intended audiences. As you will see, in conservative feminism we find hatred of men in many ways: Men As Wallets In every part of society, men are now treated as walking breathing wallets. It is their job to hand over money to the State through child support (usually without DNA proof of paternity) and alimony when marriages go wrong. Men are still expected to cover the bill for dating and they typically bear the burden of breadwinner even in two income households. In the conservative world, the burden of work takes an even more troubling turn as women are taught they have a

right to stay home with their children and if their husband cannot afford to provide the standard of living that makes this necessary, then he is out of God's will, a sinner, or backslidden. When the talk turns to Titus 2 or other other verses used to support this women's right, there is not an admonishment to wives to be frugal, to be industrious and start a home business, a garden for cooking and canning, or so forth, just a strict requirement for men without a rule of cooperation on the part of women. Staying at home is simply her right, with no responsibility to aid the burden of breadwinning. Men are not allowed to express their anxiety, anguish, or upset about this rule and expectation, but are made to suffer in silence, carrying their burden alone. In fact, men's fear is so poorly tolerated that should a man express genuine concern over not being able to have more children, for fear of feeding them in tumultuous economic times, his worry will be brushed aside and said to be the sin of "not trusting the Lord". The poor man is simply to worry himself to a heart attack, work more hours and miss out on the lives of his children, or risk having his worst fear - that of being a financial failure - come true. Men As Expendable Our culture sees men as disposable. We have yet to establish an Office of Men's Health (though one is possibly in the works), do not provide the same amount of funding for diseases that primarily effect men as we do for women, and we collectively expect men to perform the most unpleasant and dangerous of jobs, from coal mining and logging to law enforcement and serving in the military, without so much as an ounce of appreciation for putting

their lives on the line for the enjoyment/protection of us all. Conservative feminism takes this a step farther by expecting men to take on the responsibilities of modern day chivalry. Some ministries have publicly expressed contempt for men at Virginia Tech who did not take bullets for their women classmates when the tragic shooting occurred on the campus. Others preach that it must be husbands who do the dirty and gross jobs around the house, that is must be husbands who check for the bumps in the night, and that should there be an emergency of some sort, it better be the husband who is operating the fire extinguisher or hammering the boards before the hurricane arrives. There is no talk of women humbling themselves and learning to help alongside their husbands, if this is what their husbands would like, or being prepared to be their own heroes should a situation warrant this. On the contrary, in many instances, anything labeled as "mans work" will be considered a feminist activity and thus inappropriate for a wife to do, even if she must (as in the case of the wife of a deployed soldier like myself ), or if her husband encourages her to help him with such tasks. There is not even admonishments to be appreciative of men for taking on chivalrous duties, but rather an expectation of such special treatment is taught. Fathers As Optional We all know in what low regard fathers are held in today, and sadly this reality does not end at the church door. The contempt had for fathers may not be as open as it is in mainstream society, but it's well and alive despite being a bit more hidden. We often hear talk about how much small children need their mother at home, how they cannot grow and thrive without them. We'll see motherhood elevated to the highest levels, being considered the most important and difficult job in the world. While this isn't a bad thing, the lack of high praise for fatherhood, or even mere mention of a father's importance, is striking. Yes children of all ages need their mothers, but

they need their fathers just as much, from the bittiest baby to the teenager entering adulthood. When conservatives bemoan women being in the military, the typical reason named is because the children miss and need their mothers. The reality of fathers deploying and leaving behind children is absent, not thought of at all. This is the same when the Titus 2 mandate is discussed. The importance of having mothers spending quantity time with their children is raised to the highest level, yet the reality of fathers perhaps working two jobs or more than a 40 hour work week, and thus hardly seeing their children at all, does not warrant a mention. If fatherhood was being held in the high position it needs to be, this stunning disregard for daddies wouldn't be uttered without objections and dissent. Men As Perverts "All heterosexual sex is rape" the leftist feminists proclaim, and while the conservative feminists may take the gross crime of rape off the table, a respect for healthy male sexuality they do not bring. In the conservative world, there are numerous harmful stereotypes floating about when it comes to sex. For starters, all men are not seen to be potential rapists but potential adulterers. There exist books and advice is shared that encourages wives to use sex as a means of manipulation. Women are being advised they need to be intimate with their husbands not because they love them and desire to be close to them, not for the bonding experience, not to celebrate this special gift God has given to married couples but rather to prevent their husbands from straying. What could be a beautiful expression is lowered to the level of deceit and manipulation just like that. Perhaps not quite as sinister but still problematic is the contempt had for the male sex drive. A man's sexual desire is at best merely tolerated and at worst, looked at as a perverted dysfunction - he is not "normal" like a woman. Cruel jokes are often made by women, both in mixed company and not, about a man's sex drive, remarks about how husbands always want it, laughter about denying one's husband, and many other words to pathologize healthy male virility.

Men As Immoral Uncivilized Brutes The Victorian "angel in the house" is still alive and well in today's world and nowhere does this appear to be more true than in the churches today. Never pausing for a brief moment to consider that the cherished idea of chivalry and men as soldiers allows women to live in a civilized world with special perks, the declaration of women as the more civilized & moral sex is shouted from many a pulpit today. (And nevermind that it is women who have initiated 70% of divorces and killed millions upon millions of precious babies, neither of which are moral or civilized by any definition...) Typical male traits, such as courageousness, justice, fairness, and take charge initiation are denigrated so that female nurturing, passivity, openminded love, and modesty can instead be elevated as the correct way to be moral. The reality of an important balance existing between these two types of morality, making both worthy of celebration is never mentioned and becomes all the more downplayed as churches feminize further, pushing men from their pews. Men At Fault Men are blamed for much in today's day and age, both in and out of the church, but the most disturbing fault I have ever heard placed on men is that of their wife's willful rebellion and self chosen sins. There are people preaching the heresy that if only men led their wives better, these women would never sin, commit adultery, or do anything of this sort. If men were taking charge correctly, their wives would submit to them and never do wrong. In some denominations and churches, this is taken a step further, not merely placing the burden of a wife's sin on a husband here on earth, but for all eternity as well. Lessons are being taught that state a man will be held accountable to God for the decisions his wife made, including those that went against his wishes and directions. Actions of which the husband had no part. This is outrageous and heretical. Men As Unfeeling Robots This final idea about men should be perfectly obvious with

all the terrible ideas that are allowed to circle around about men and masculinity, for if we cared about men's feelings, these lies would not be allowed to spread. In our culture, we have a very narrow view on male emotional expression and are quick to judge a boy or man who does not fit into this stereotype. "Man up" and "boys don't cry" starts on the tot lot playground. We expect men to be able to hear the most cruel of words and not take them to heart. Men are expected to put themselves on the line for others with no appreciation and no way to seek emotional support to ease the many burdens placed upon their shoulders. All men are expected to handle trying times without help or support and some men--especially law enforcement, firemen, soldiers, and others we'd see as "tough guys"-- are expected to hold in all the terrible sights they have seen, man up and keeping going on. Men from all walks of life are told to toughen up all the way to a suicide, heart attack, or breakdown. And even then, we'll collectively feel for his family more than we will for him. "Oh his poor wife and children, I wonder how they are handling this tragedy." We also expect men to express their anger at real slights in a feminine way, so we women feel most comfortable. Women seek to tell men how to feel. They seek to own the experiences of men. They attempt to tell men how masculinity should be lived and what they experience. Men are not allowed to own their emotions, life experiences, or masculinity, for this makes women uncomfortable. Our culture attempts to silence them, to appease those who are scared of men being men on their own terms. Woman As Children Just as is the case with leftist feminism, the conservative strain does not seek to help us mature into capable adult women who can be true helpmeets to our husband and mothers to our children. Instead, it seeks to keep us as children forever. Male headship is often twisted to mean that women do not need to take responsibility for anything in their family for this falls in the husband's duties. A husband must provide the paycheck, the discipline for children, and all the

hardwork around the house while the wife stays home with the children and doesn't truly work at home. Wives are not encouraged to ask their husbands what they need to best help them, to form a healthy type of cooperation in which a marriage and children can thrive, to help bear the load with the men with whom they are supposed to share and build a life with. The talk is most often exclusively on privilege rather than responsibility, leaving husbands with a lopsided bargain which adds far more the his plate of responsibility than to his wife's. If we are to claim to be opposed to misandry and feminism, we must be opposed to these evils in all forms, including

the one with which we might be most comfortable, or even blind to. If we seek to "take back womanhood" we must be ready to rise to the challenge of being capable helpmeets, be ready with moral strength & courage, and humble enough to strip away privileges which may not be biblically supported or ideas which truly bless your husband. We must also appreciate why many men are weary of marriage, or outright opposed to this commitment, for there are very good reasons for their feelings and choices, even inside the church.

Young Veterans Out Of Luck

-Welmer

Young men returning from war are finding themselves without many prospects in the current job market. The youngest veterans those under 24 years old have an unemployment rate of well over 20%. Compounding the problems these young men face, many veterans wives left them while they were on tour, taking advantage of the generous benefits the armed forces provide to soldiers ex-wives. Out of work and owing child support, a number are finding themselves on the street or forced to check into homeless shelters. Older pro-veteran activists have expressed surprise at the number of young, homeless veterans who have children. Sister JoAnne Talarico, of Des Moines Iowa, has been protesting war and helping veterans since the Vietnam War, but even she was shocked by the preponderance of fathers of young children amongst the young, homeless veterans. Given the ruthlessness with which the state prosecutes divorced and single fathers, the sister shouldnt be surprised, but few people are aware of just how bad it is due to media apathy concerning the subject.

Not only are military wives notorious for fooling around on their husbands while they are overseas, they are given clear incentives to divorce, all the while courted by attorneys who hover around bases hoping to get a cut of a divorce settlement. In conjunction with their attorneys, military wives can often put such a financial burden on a young veteran that he has no choice but to sleep on the streets or in his car, even if he is lucky enough to be employed. Persecution and abandonment of young veterans has had dire consequences before. In some countries, it has been enough to tip the balance in favor of revolution. While this appears unlikely in the United States (for the time being), disgruntled veterans have options for expressing their dissatisfaction in manners beyond the capabilities of most others.

Training Boys to be Dogs

-Welmer

Some time ago, an Arizona schoolteacher made the news by forcing the male students in his class to bow and scrape to the females. This guy, who is doing serious damage to these boys by forcing them to act like supplicating beta white knights, thinks the world would be a better place if only men did even more for women. Cord Ivanyi, the misguided or sadistic, I dont know which teacher, has forced his male students to seat girls, open doors for them, take their backpacks, stand when they leave the room, etc. He might as well have them wear dog collars, too. Of course, Ivanyi is not having the girls make sandwiches for the boys, wash their clothes, take notes for them or anything at all to reciprocate. Inevitably, when these boys get into college, girls are going to laugh at them if they continue to behave in this manner, but what might actually be dangerous is that some will take offense, and in an academic environment that could have serious consequences for the young men. Feminists may take offense when men do such simple things as open the door for them, and if a guy attempted to take a feminists pack or item of clothing theres a good chance shed cry harassment. A young man accused of harassment at a university will probably face some stern disciplinary action from the school, as women and their feelings are sacrosanct on campus.

As for conservative vs. feminist women, I think theres a good way to look at their approaches to men. Both in fact demand chivalry, but in different ways. Left feminists want socialist chivalry, in which men in aggregate support women, whereas conservative women favor the individual man (i.e. husband) bearing the burden. In the current situation, we have a mix of both, but there is still a fight over resources, as some of the working married mans money goes to support single mother feminist types, but perhaps not as much as feminists would like. Neither left feminists nor conservative women favor easing mens burdens, but there is a fundamental philosophical difference concerning how best to extract male resources. For men, neither system is favorable, as we will simply be paying more for women through alimony on the one hand and taxes on the other. Note that conservative women are just as likely to divorce as their liberal sisters. For todays young men chivalry is not a choice: it is a mandate. Therefore, we must look at men such as Cord Ivanyi as supporters of an oppressive system. If Mr. Ivanyi wants to be a servile, Quixotic fool, he should do that on his own time. But given the fact that young men will undoubtedly be forced to support women in one way or the other eventually, forcing them to do so at a young age is simply robbing them of the few remaining years of freedom left to them.

Fairness is a Disease
Jordan Woodward

So, a school wants to create a Male Studies program to look into the welfare and psyche of the modern human male. Not a bad idea, eh? The lives of males have changed a lot in the past one hundred years. Suffrage, the womens rights movement, contraception and consumer trends have all created a male completely alien to the Victorian male that brought in the 20th century. Today, there are concerns of the loss of masculinity to an ever increasing feminization of Western culture. Shows like Everybody Likes Raymond, where the husband is always wrong, bumbling and submissive, promote the idea that the Western male is no longer the head of the household, but the laughing stock of it. Of course, this is just one of many theories about the modern male and these theories should be researched and reviewed and published, as is the right of any researcher. Thats if Male Studies get off the ground. When I passed this news along to political acquaintances on the left, the response was a resounding why?. Might as well have white studies too, one said, since men and whites have dominated the world since time immemorial. We cant be studying the male since the male has had his place of privilege for so long! Its the females turn! Thats the atmosphere I got from them. When did education go from finding the truth to promoting fairness and alleviating the guilt of left-wing white males? When Plato thought and wrote, it wasnt to make sure the

trans-gendered anarchist had a voice. It was to find the truth about humanity and its soul. When Voltaire thought and wrote, it was to explain the world and the mind, not find a new niche market for a womens studies book about antiantidisestablishmentarianism in the male dominated Greek world. The idea that we cant study the male, especially the white male, out of some anti-intellectual ideal of fairness spits in the face of every honest educator in the world. Not only that, it spits in the face of real equality between the races and sexes. Babying a broad, monolithic class, in this case women, because another broad, monolithic class, men, has had their day in the sun is beyond idiotic. Its an idea based on racism, sexism and class warfare. Its an idea that goes against the root ideals of this country and of its history of higher education, going all the way back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Its as if the creator of this anti-intellectual ideology couldnt actually come up with an original idea and just flipped the worst views of the worst people of the Civil Rights Era and said, Ta da! Open mindedness! And if you dont like it, youre a racist! SIRIUS/XM radio host Andrew Wilkow has a very apt analogy to explain this view. Imagine two people walking down a street. A white guy with a shirt that says, White Power and a black man that has shirt that says Black Power. For the last half century, weve been told (trained, in some cases) to look at the white mans shirt and deride him for

his ethnic hatred. Yet, when we turn to the black man, we are told (trained) to congratulate him on his progressive ethnic pride in his culture (black culture, another broad, monolithic idea). How is THAT not racism? Hate whites for being proud of their race while encouraging blacks to be proud of theirs? That isnt equality, thats overcompensation. Thats antiintellectualism. Thats anti-American. Period. This obsession with extra-legal fairness in all things, especially education, is a disease. You cannot change history by buying off your guilt. You cannot change minds by denying education sectors for the crime of going against politically correct dogma. It strikes at liberty, intellectual discourse and our nations self-esteem. A nation cannot remain free if its taking from one class and giving to another over events that happened preindependence (or pre-history, for that matter). A nation cannot have honest intellectual debate if charges of racism, sexism and all other words of total insignificance now (thanks, Leftists) are used to put down legitimate criticisms of an anti-intellectual ideology. A nation especially cannot remain powerful and unified when its too busy making sure every nook and cranny of leftist created trans-class, cross-gendered, bottom-up race injustice is being sated by economy destroying programs promoted by people who arent touched by them, but who somehow feel the tinge of racism from a crowd not saying a word. John Adams said, Facts are stubborn things; and whatever

may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. And the facts are, dear leftist friends and contacts, that your objections to Male Studies tells a lot about you and your inability to think critically, let alone dictate what others should think. You cannot stop racism with money, sexism with government or bigotry with indoctrination. The best we can do, the best any free nation can do, is make sure that under the law no one is discriminated against. After that, its up to the individual to find the truth themselves, not by government fiat or ivory tower poopoohing. The past 60 years have shown your idea of fairness has created one of the most anti-intellectual and bigoted mainstream ideologies in America. And that has led to a world where leaders call citizens racists, teabaggers and fascists for simply opposing policy the leaders themselves have tainted with the stain of racism, sexism and anti-religious bigotry. Give yourself a hand. Oh, wait, you already do.

To Man Up(tm) or Stand Down?

- Paul Elam

Among the many emails I get that dont support mens rights - or dont support my take on them - a hefty number of them are from men who take issue with the idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and going their own way. The common theme among those emails is a short lecture on what men are supposed to do; replete with sonnylemme-tell-ya-what-it-means-to-be-a-real-man instructions. Most of them are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud, if grossly posthumous smile. And curiously, many of the concordant emails I get from women totally miss the point. I just read one from a woman who lauded my work against feminism because she lamented the loss of days when a man knew how to treat a lady. Apparently she thought my objection to feminism was because it kept me off a white horse. She assumed I am engaged in a fight to protect my right to sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring misunderstanding, but she did provide an opportune segue for the correct question. What if a man doesnt want to? When all is said and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of a growing voice, not just in the world of Mens Rights Activists, but in the world of men collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are sure to form tempests of debate and ire in the coming years. Should men break with tradition? And in that should they quit expecting themselves to be the

financers and custodial protectors of womens lives? Should they quit paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the role of breadwinner? Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially and biologically indentured in a world where women no longer need such protection? Indeed, we now live in a world where it is men that increasingly need protection- from women, as is clear in family courts, the workplace, universities -think Duke- and frequently their own homes. The answers to these questions - which are, like it or not, relevant now - require some intellectual scrutiny that wont be found in myopic edicts like Be a real man. In fact, Id argue that anyone issuing such proclamations needs to take a more lucid look at the world in which they live. Women dont have roles any more, except as they choose to take them on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the dinner check arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others company, so women dont really so much have roles as they have a choice as to which role benefits them at the moment. Perhaps carte blanche for opportunism is a better way to put it. It is the new, but no longer sparklingly new social doctrine of equality-plus. Women now enjoy a range of options that men could not possibly dream of. They have been granted equal and often preferential

entrance into the realm of financial opportunity and independence while social mandates still leaves the door wide open for them to do what they have historically done, e.g., draw sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from the sweat and labor of men. Its the net result of feminist doctrine and mens complicity in it; a paradigm not of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where they are bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women, often while being bled dry by them. This isnt to cast men as victims of women. All this is enabled, lock, stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their traditional roles, giving women whatever they ask for by rote. By practicing chivalry like a crack habit, and by excoriating other men for not doing same. In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of collective patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least thirty years ago. Real men would not have tolerated all this nonsense for a minute. The catch-22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious. The traditional mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as the foundation of stable families and adjusted children for countless generations. It is indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our society and backbone of our civilization are not just tired and overused metaphors, but spot on descriptions of reality. That, in and of itself, might appear to be a sound reason for men to just shut up, shovel the fuckin' gravel, and sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as though the last 40 years never happened.

But that is the problem. The last 40 years actually did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube, and much more likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and pathetically fruitless task. It is not that traditional roles cant work. They can for a waning few; those willing to find their way to each other though the modern morass of traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a gamble with Las Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that doesnt include a license for risk takers to place a proscription on alternatives for those more survival minded. As long as we deny men choices that women are allowed to take for granted, we will continue to see men marginalized and exploited. As the New York Times just reported this the first time in American history that women outnumber men in the workforce. It is a picture consistent with mens drastically decreasing presence in higher education and punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job losses in the bad economy. And men are to continue to sacrifice for women and protect them? There are still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think Elvis is still alive. When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with a gainfully employed woman with money from their unemployment checks, there will likely be a lot more men, at the very least, saying: Hey, wait a minute. That would be one giant step in the right direction.

AbuseGate: A Generation Deceived

- Trudy Schuett

Science has come full-circle, taking a page from the medieval Church by using fear and persecution to silence skeptics. The oppressed have become the oppressors. Given that most professional scientific bodies and peer-reviewed journals have been active accomplices in this scandal, one wonders how many other so called scientific consensuses have been similarly engineered and waiting for their own ClimateGates before truth is known. Joanne Nova The above quote is important because it addresses the politicization of science and research. Dean Esmay, the owner of Deans World where I blog occasionally as part of a group, has often commented that politics and science dont mix. While I havent been in the field of research myself, its fairly well-known that going after grants and funding has become a difficult process, often fraught with politics and cronyism. Ive followed the issue of Climategate with great interest, especially as it has seemed for years that the issue of global warming, climate change whatever you choose to call it has mirrored what was going on in the field of partner abuse. Both issues have a lot of money, political power, and careers at stake. There is also plenty of name-calling, dirty dealing and outright hatred expressed by the opposing camps for the other. Where Abusegate is concerned, however, there is one more element the life or death of feminism, and its determination to liberate women from the so-called oppression of marriage and family. 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.

What feminism is supposed to be about is the definition provided by Merriam-Webster. 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests This is a current popular definition, however, and has little to do with the goals of feminism, which has its roots not only in Marxist ideals, but also in anti-male hatred and a desire for power and control over society where it is most beneficial to feminists themselves. According to Erin Pizzey: There never was a feminist movement. A bunch of disenchanted women refused to support their left wing men who were fighting capitalism. They changed the goal posts and said capitalism was no longer the battle ground it was now 'Patriarchy' and declared war on all men and the family. In the 1970s, and into the 1980s, feminism was still an emerging movement. Except for the halls of academia, which began to offer womens studies courses, and a few academicians pushing feminist law, and feminist psychology, the general public had little interest in a movement that was so clearly designed to create antipathy between not only the sexes, but between career women and those choosing more-traditional paths for themselves. It was about the same time that the issue of partner abuse began to emerge as an issue on the public radar. In 1971, Erin Pizzey founded the first shelter for abused women in the UK. There were also a few shelters for women developing independently in various places in the US. This did not escape the attention of the zealots of the feminist faith and other opportunistic women. Surely there was profit and power to be gained in promoting this cause.

According to the Herstory of domestic violence: In the 1970s We will not be beaten becomes the mantra of women across the country organizing to end domestic violence. A grassroots organizing effort begins, transforming public consciousness and women's lives. The common belief within the movement is that women face brutality from their husbands and indifference from social institutions. A theory regarding abuse was formulated, relying almost entirely on feminist supposition and the input from selfidentified abused women. There has never been any kind of formal research or investigation of the feminist theory of abuse; it has simply been presented as a fait accompli and seldom, if ever, questioned. A look through the Herstory, (on the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse website, (funded by your tax dollars) reveals a stunning lack of mention of research of any kind behind the feminist concept of domestic violence. Del Martin, a lesbian activist, wrote one of the earliest works on the issue in 1976. She says; At the outset I was told I had to produce extensive and verifiable statistics on the incidence of violence against womenI concluded that incidence and incidents of violence in the home reached into the millions. My editor deleted my estimate on the grounds that I couldnt prove it. Since then, academia has confirmed my virtual estimate and admitted that lacking uniformity in the way data are accumulated makes it impossible to provide actual statistics. Lenore Walker, author of "The Battered Woman"; When I first began my study of the psychological impact of domestic violence on the battered woman, it was the mid 1970s and the feminist movement had a negative reaction to anything that came with a clinical psychology label Ellen Pence, Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project: Many things that we did were new and groundbreaking. We introduced the power and control wheel and its accompanying theoretical framework, which tried to shift away from seeing violence against women as the problem of a few psychologically distorted men and lots of bad marriages, by linking mens violence toward their partners to other forms of domination class, race, gender, and colonization. We built on the work of previous projects that held individual agencies responsible to protect women and proposed a fairly bold

notion of linking agencies together and forming a communitybased advocacy program. This is probably the most astonishing fact of Abusegate: While Climategate has at least some basis in research and scientific theory, there is none whatsoever behind the myriad programs and laws established since the 1970s by the so-called, Battered Womens Movement. Even the term itself was created for its impact by feminists whose goals had very little to do with providing aid for women. As radical activist Susan Schecter said; "I believe it is most urgent for this movement's future to declare that violence against women is a political problem, a question of power and domination, and not an individual, pathological, or deviant one. Continuing to make violence against women public is itself a crucial continuing task. We also must become a movement led by battered women, women of color, and working class women. We must develop a progressive agenda, a long range vision of what kind of society is needed so that violence against women would not exist, and to ally with groups sharing a vision of a just society" This statement appears on the main page of the website for the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, also funded by your tax dollars. Since the early days of the Battered Womens Movement, nearly everything that has come after has been based on feminist principles devised out of thin air. Even today, in the US there is no standard definition of what domestic violence is or is not. Yet thousands of men are incarcerated, families destroyed, and women and children thrown into a permanent condition of life in turmoil because of nothing but the aberrant personal beliefs of a few women a generation ago. While the feminists of the 20th Century are dying off or retiring, their ugly legacy of opportunism remains. Legions of divorce lawyers, shelter advocates, and organizations providing feminist education all benefit from the multi-billion dollar industry that now forms the basis of societys approach to partner abuse. The real tragedy of Abusegate is that victims of genuine partner abuse are still left without hope and support. They have been doubly victimized by a society that has been too willing to accept answers without first considering the problem.

The White Woman's Burden

- Snark

Feminism is an ideology which purports to explain the entirety of the universe with a few simplistic maxims. Feminists have often spoken of their need to detach from male ways of thinking, bourgeois values and the like, so that they may invent, from scratch, their own thought system. I find their arrogance comic and tragic in about equal measure; feminism is constituted of the same conceptual building blocks as the male ideologies predating it by centuries. It is a product, and a result, of male thought. It exists in, and perpetuates, the same framework of ideas which sustain male-driven ideologies. Example: socialism attempts to explain everything which can be seen, by a handful of maxims connected to the unjust domination of one social class by another. Example two: fascism attempts to explain everything which can be seen, by a handful of maxims connected to the unjust domination of one cultural group by another. Riding on the coat-tails of these, using the very same premises, and reaching a result that was utterly inevitable: feminism attempts to explain everything which can be seen, by a handful of maxims connected to the unjust domination of one sex (females) by the other (males). Given that feminism is a total explanation - that is, it attempts to address and answer every phenomenon, not even limiting itself to human interaction - it automatically sets itself up in opposition to absolutely everything in the universe, known and unknown, which is not feminist. Even those things which are not explicitly anti-feminist, but are nevertheless, non-feminist, are explained by feminism as the oppression of one sex (females) by the other (males).

Thus, if feminism is to achieve its stated goals, there cannot be one square inch of non-feminism in the universe. Feminism must swallow up everything, no matter how small, no matter how seemingly insignificant. To grant permission to one square inch of non-feminism in the universe would be to accept oppression, according to their simplistic maxims, and the purpose of the ideology is to root this out and destroy it. Feminism is a gigantic, pulsating mass which expands indefinitely; it is a tumor, the only purpose of which is to spread itself ever wider. Non-feminist spaces are absolutely impermissible, let alone actively anti-feminist spaces. So too are non-feminist practices. There are surely good reasons for opposing certain cultural practices; particularly, those among us who respect the rights of individuals to live as freely as is consonant with the demands of society made necessary by our proximity will attest. But feminism's opposition to other cultures, traditions and practices stems from the fact of those cultures, traditions and practices not being the same as it. That genital mutilation should be confronted is not a matter of feminism, it is a matter of individual liberty and dignity. Although feminists might oppose genital mutilation on the grounds that it is an affront to individual liberty and dignity, they oppose the practice on this second ground, which becomes more clear if we take another example. Think, for instance, of a culture which strictly mandates different social functions for men and for women. Both their spheres involve burdens, and both involve benefits, though of a different sort. Most likely, the majority of men and women would continue to live this way by choice, their happiness dependent on factors other than what we might term their gender roles. This would not by any means be an affront to the individual liberty or dignity of women, yet it would be opposed by

feminism, because it is not the same as it. It is not consistent with feminism - a particular set of assumptions which originated out of male thought in the West, and which were brought to prominence by a relatively small number of wealthy white women. The way that feminism works to destroy non-feminism can be likened to the life cycle of the spider wasp. The spider wasp is one of nature's most brutal creatures. Capturing and paralysing a large spider, the wasp lays a small egg atop it, before sealing the nest. Once the wasp larva hatches, it feeds slowly on the still-living, trapped spider. The mission of Western feminists has been to plant their small, inconspicious eggs within overseas cultures. The goal is that, once the egg hatches, the traditional society will be destroyed from within. This happens underneath the guise of female empowerment: that this is A Good Thing is a common-sense assumption, challenges to which shall be met with the post-modern equivalent of pitchforks and torches. It is a linguistic sleight, operating through the widespread fallacy that women are victims a priori. Supplying goodies to women overseas, while their male counterparts must still earn their keep, is not intended to segregate the sexes. This was not ever the goal of feminism. The goal, broadly speaking, is to drive a wedge between the sexes. It is to create the conditions in which women will want to abuse men and to make them suffer. Women, as a class, have been historically oppressed, their maxim goes; so men, as a class, must pay. It is an ideology of vengeance; empowerment not from, but at the expense of, and over men. The feminist utopia is one in which she can get a man locked inside a dirty cage and gang-raped at her whim, just by picking up a phone. For feminists, this is known as 'justice'. Cultural diversity, by necessity, involves a great deal of nonfeminism and anti-feminism. Feminism is a culturally specific phenomenon, so we should not expect anything else. The opposition to cultural diversity, apart from on feminist terms, reveals that white, Western cultural imperialism is alive and well, now spearheaded by women. But this is resolutely not a change. It is the logical next step in an imperial project stretching back centuries. Feminism,

as thought, does not break from the past. It unwittingly tributes it by carrying its projects on. We have heard much about the white man's burden, a term which is today used, almost always, mockingly. I quite agree that it should be, but it is only half the picture. The title of this piece is a joke: white women have no burdens. Only benefits to be received in exchange for existing. This is the other half of the picture. Rich white women benefited from the exploitation that rich white men were carrying out, without ever having to get their own hands dirty. Whether it was the products of slave labour, the curiosities from the third world, or simply the power of life and death they held over men of other races, the truth is this: white women benefited from imperialism and exploitation, without ever having to take the attached risks. Given that they received benefits without the worry of risks, while imperialist white men received benefits but faced risks, it is quite clear that the greatest net gain belonged to women. As chivalry dictated, women should not have to lift a finger to receive rewards; simply for existing, they were granted prizes and presents on the broken backs of slave labourers, and were protected from facing the consequences of their acts. It is interesting to see how this state of affairs has persisted, even intensified, now under the name of feminism rather than chivalry. Rewarded for existing, protected from consequences, rich white women became nothing more than large children, never comprehending the magnitude and moral awfulness of their acts. When we think of lynching, we perhaps picture angry mobs of racist white men. Again, this was half the picture. The majority of lynchings carried out in America in the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted from false rape accusations made by white women. Lies which had no need to be told, but were anyway, perhaps as some small amusement to herself, resulted in black men being beaten, mutilated, deformed, dismembered, tortured and murdered. Time, and time, and time, and time again. There is some mistaken belief that women are the kinder, or the more tolerant of the two sexes. Yet, as evil and unforgiveable as the actions of racist white men were, their

motivation was the protection of their women, from what they genuinely believed was a credible and serious threat. Tell me, what was the motivation of the women who told these lies? Let us not forget that the Ku Klux Klan had its own Women's Auxiliary. The women who joined often did so to leverage their own political power, connected with women's suffrage. So let us not look back on history and see only men who were racist and women who were heroic. Let us recall feminism's own dirty history of racism and support for the murder of black men. The need to exert control over the behaviour of others is apparently the driving force of rich white women's activism. From the lynching of black men, to the prohibition on alcohol, to the destruction of cultures from within, their goal is to enforce their monocultural values upon the entire universe, with every square inch of non-feminist space crushed and grounded down into submission.

Even historical facts must bend to this mission, and I do suspect that feminists will continue their long silence on the horrendous roles that their own sisters played e.g. in the Ku Klux Klan. If they could, they would simply brush these facts under the rug, as uncomfortable as they are, and more importantly, as inconsistent as they are with the maxim that it is men who oppress women and not the other way around. Ultimately, rich white women cannot succeed. Like a tumor which feasts on living tissue, it relies upon the life support system which it systematically destroys. Feminism, utterly reliant in practice on the products of men's labours, alienates more men with each new regulation it places on their behaviour. The white woman's burden is that she may have to powerlessly watch as people and cultures do as they please, without regard to her complaints.

Marry Him! (Really?): a Clear Example of the Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind
- Obsidian

These days its common to hear of the newest/latest books and the like aimed at Women, to help them find their Mr. Right. Ms. Lori Gottliebs Marry Him: The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough is no exception; in fact, it appears that her missive has started quite a backlash among her fellow travellers. It seems that all of the Usual Suspects of the Femosphere have kneejerked their disapproval at Ms. Gottliebs sisterly betrayal: what, actually *settle* for some lowly Man? Women need Men likeoh, well you get the point. Not only has Ms. Gottliebs book been the talk of the town on the Web, but apparently its been optioned to be made into a feature length film, by none other than Tobey Spider-Man Maguire himself-which, when one thinks of his Peter Parker persona, really makes sense. Thats because only a non-Venomnized Pete could ever, ever even consider such a thing. Not only is the very premise - that a Woman, any Woman, has to put up with a guy because shes simply run out of options - but the Ychromosome yammering over the whole thing once again, leaves out one crucial element: US. But, well get to that in a moment, as well as the gist of Ms. Gottliebs book. But before we do that, lets consider one little thing, shall we? Gottliebs book no doubt will be viewed as dating advice; perhaps even as self-help-and in any event, such books are marketed in droves to Women, *for years*. All kinds of truly dehumanizing language and allusions are made to Men, such as the very title of the book were discussing; were rated and objectified, ranked and given the heave-ho for the slightest imperfection, infraction or just the

misfortune of being *human* - a necessary evil all in the name of the Precious Ladies search for Mr. Right. Moreover, none other than the High Priestess of Relationship & Dating Advice herself - Oprah Winfrey - is known for her pricey workshops and seminars as she is for her long running tv chat show. And of course, she endorses everything for Women from The Rules to Hes Just Not That Into You, to now, of course, Marry Him!. Yet, one of the biggest complaints and charges by those who decry Game - almost, but not always Women, is that it is not only disrespectful to Women and trades in dehumanizing terminology to and about them, but it suckers in unsuspecting guys too, on the grounds that the Game/PUAsphere is chockfull of hucksters-21st century snakeoil salesmen who rake in the dough while their clients and customers get feeble, at best, results. And to be sure, for my part at least, I dont deny that the Gamesphere has its share of hucksters and shady types. But the sheer hubris it takes on the part of many Women to actually fix their mouths to make such charges, in the face of scads of books and the like, such as the one were examining today, really takes the cake. It, along with the other points that need to be raised and presented in the light of day for all to see, counts as just one of many examples of what fellow Game and all-around blogger Ferdinand Bardamu called the Eternal Solipsism of The Female Mind. But wait, theres more! Not only is Gottliebs screed a half-hearted attempt to sound like shes gained some wisdom in her more than a *quarter century of frutiless dating*, but she has the nerve - the unmitigated gall - to suggest that she still has every right to be picky, because, afterall, she has a son to think

about. Thats right. Ms. Gottlieb is a Baby Mama. The question becomes, *how* did she achieve this monumental feat, without so much as a hubbie, boyfriend, or even a Hookup? The answer comes from Gottlieb herself. In her March 2008 article of the same name of her book in "The Atlantic" (which is still available online), she makes it clear that she took a trip to the local fertility clinic with time running out on her biological clock so she could get knocked up the good old fashioned way - with the Turkey Baster - because, well, there just wasnt anybody out there good enough for her to make a baby with otherwise. Let that sink in for a moment. OK, so let me get this straight: she cant find anybody good enough for 25 YEARS, then finally, at the fag end of her fertile years, decides to get the Butterball Treatment. Then, STILL expects to find Mr. Right, and failing that, will grudgingly settle for Mr. Good Enough. Is this Beeyotch out of her ever-loving mind?!? Oh yea - I can just see the swarms of Men now, who cant *wait* to lineup to take to one knee and humbly beg for this Middle-aged Maidens hand in holy matrimony, Test Tube Baby in tow, no less. The sheer arrogance, hubris and out and out megalomania, that this Woman exudes is something the likes of which Ive never set my eyes on before-and believe you me, I done seen a lot of stuff. She honestly thinks that her stuff dont stink - and shes by no means alone. More and more, both here in the States and across the pond in the UK, Women are being seen as increasingly demanding, narcissistic, unrealistic and haughty-with average, at best, cred to back it up. Consider the recent London Daily Mail article that talks about this very problem, the one written by American homegirl Kay Hymowitz, for example. Thats another thing that burns me up about Women like Gottlieb - which, I am very sad to report, are the coin of the realm in our times: they not only want, or expect, but DEMAND the tip-top absolute best Man in the Universe, but give little if anything in return.

They surely arent offering equal value, thats for certain. Ever took a peek at Craigs List, or Match.com, or eHarmony, and looked at these ladies ads? Their lists of the ideal Man are yay long, but notice something: They never, ever, offer what the guy gets in return. Its almost as if these gals are doing such sought after guys a favor just to be in their hallowed presence. Whats in it for me? Not a whole lot. Gimme, gimme, gimme. No, screw that. It aint almost as if - it IS as if. Nor does it surprise me one little bit that Gottliebs supposed cautionary tale talks about how all the guys she passed up in her life have moved on to have families of their own - you know, the one you make with someone you actually know and doesnt require a petrie dish? Men, in case no ones figured it out by now, are just simpler, more pragmatic and are much, much more likely to settle than are Women, and when they decide that the dating game aint for them, they find happiness elsewhere. Which explains why for every Game or PUA website, blog, book or seminar, you can find easily dozens of the femaleversions in any direction you want to go. Happiness for Men is a heck of a lot easier than for Women for the simple reason that we expect a lot less than do Women. And once Women, for all their vaunted brainpower, finally figure this out, they too just might get a freaking clue. The ASSumptions this book and attendant squawking by the Femmetariot makes - very, very dangerous ones - is that the guys will simply go along with whatever the ladies eventually decide to do, assuming thats even humanly possible in the first place. It doesnt occur to them that Men have minds of their own, connected to their own ideas of what theyd like to have and do and be in life, and who to do that with. Moreover, they assume that the reason why they havent found Mr. Right, is because, well, they just havent found Mr. Right. It never occurs to them that the real reason why they havent found Mr. Right, is because theyre NOT Ms. All That - and the Mr. Good Enoughs of the world arent exactly beating a path to their door either.

They cant seem to make the connection between what goes on in their heads and what goes on outside it, and line the two up accordingly. And they cant seem to understand why anyone with any modicum of options, self respect or just plain ole sanity, would be out of their mind to even give one nanosecond, or one spark of brainpower towards even considering standing in the same room as such a Woman, let alone dating or worse, mating with her. Once again: Feminine Solipsism, anyone? Parting Shot: As if I couldnt be more pissed off by reading Ms. Gottliebs crocodile tear - laden cautionary tale, her constant rejection of men for congenital features (among a great, great many things), such as lack of the height she wanted and so on, really got me to thinking - you know, Women do not hesitate to call a man a Misogynist - usually because he disagrees with her - and some men have tried to answer back by charging some women with misandry. But it doesnt work, in my view. Why? Because the word is too esoteric, and besides, it smacks of a kind of loserdom; they call you a Misogynist, you call them a Misandrist? Nah. But as I was out talking a walk to cool off after reading Gottliebs mad ravings, something else occurred to me; Bigotry.

The intense dislike of another, just because of how they look. In fact, Gottliebs book, stands as an A1 case study in perhaps thee most pernicious form of discrimination around, and thats the kind that Women of her ilk visit on Men all the time. In fact, now that I think about it, I have been discriminated against MORE by Women - and in this case, Black Women than I EVER have by job employers, banks, landlords and the like. In other words, being an unacceptable Male has been the cause of my being discriminated against, by BLACK WOMEN, more than my being discriminated against, simply because Im Black. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate, and I call on all my Brothers - and Sisters of Good Will - to begin to call such people like Gottlieb for what they are: Woman, thou name art Bigot. And Hypocrite. And just plain ole Cwazie. And like Archie Bunker, well laugh AT you, too.

June 2010

What Do Men Find Attractive?

- Welmer

We are subjected to endless female fantasies about desirable men through every form of mass media, as well as narcissistic portrayals of the imagined American woman. In sitcoms, women are all in command of their faculties and emotions, in good shape and supremely competent. Were all familiar with the bumbling men on these shows, with whom many believe men are supposed to identify. These men do not serve as male role models, but rather as comic relief, which exposes a fairly profound difference between the contemporary Western male and female psyche. Men appear to be capable of laughing at themselves and their lot, while women do not seem to have the capacity for humor where portrayals of females are concerned, so female characters all tend to represent an idealized woman with only very minor flaws. However, these characters represent the idealized woman from the female not male perspective. The idealized male is a constant feature of entertainment media, and we have all become fairly familiar with him. He is wealthy, attractive, and something of a bad boy. He is a merciless sadist toward other men, and curiously an occasional defender of women while simultaneously something of a sexual predator. We are all too aware that what Western women prefer is an amoral alpha thug a handsome, borderline psychopath if you will. Because this character is created by and for women, we know its at least somewhat accurate, and this gives students of Game a serious advantage: all they need to do to figure out what women want is watch TV. However, women are deprived of some potentially helpful information. These days, they dont seem to have an understanding of what men truly find attractive. They know men like the female form and a pretty face, but thats where it ends. This is why one so often sees otherwise attractive

women walking, laughing, speaking and gesticulating in a manner that is repugnant to most men. And while they grasp the basic principle that displaying certain parts of the female anatomy arouses men, many of them could do a lot more with less. Perhaps because porn is the last genre that makes any real attempt to appeal to men, this is what women are going by; it certainly looks that way out on the street. Maybe movies would give them a better idea of what it is that men truly desire in a woman, but idealized female characters in the most masculine of movies tend to be poorly developed and peripheral. Reaching into literature, we often find unrealistic, exaggerated fantasies, from the Dickensian Doll Lucie Manette to the bisexual punker of Stieg Larssons Men Who Hate Women. The problem here, as in the TV sitcoms, is that so much of the market consists of women that famous authors and producers also profit from catering to female ideals. Have men failed in defining what they truly want in women? Would it matter to anyone if they did? Actually, I think it would matter a great deal, especially to women. If theres anything women care about, it is how others perceive them. This is why, in general, women are better students, more likely to seek consensus, and deathly afraid of shame. As to why men have failed to adequately express their desires, it has become a cultural taboo to do so. Any statement that might lead to some women losing so much as an ounce of self esteem is considered to be in the poorest taste in our culture. When it comes to criticism, women are considered offlimits. The result of this is that we have a society full of confused women who want nothing more than to know

what attracts men, but who will, in unison, denounce any man who threatens to let them know. Hence we have models judged only by women and gay men, actresses receiving only praise from men in public and young women dressing and behaving in extremely bizarre ways in the mistaken belief that they are desirable by doing so. Men ought to do women a favor and let them know what they find attractive. Women might be surprised to find out that it is rarely what they expected, and often quite far removed from what is considered the standard for feminine beauty. Of course, men who do this should expect to be met with howls of protest and condemnation, but after these die down they will inevitably find women listening from behind the curtain. If men dont make some effort to define what is attractive in women not only in terms of looks, but behavior and dress, their attempts to attract men will only grow increasingly absurd and gay fashion designers will be the only men who have any input. Obviously, gay and straight men are not attracted to the same physical qualities, straight men being far more interested in distinctly female characteristics, so leaving it up to homosexuals would tend to push women toward the androgynous archetype that they themselves find more aesthetically appealing in females.

For an example of this, behold the statue Night by Michaelangelo who, for obvious reasons, did a better job with his male statues: When artists are heterosexual men, they tend to do justice to the female form, so one could probably divine the sexuality of the masters simply through the attractiveness of their female subjects. For example, if Lorenzo Bartolini was queer Ill eat my hat: Unfortunately, today women are left pretty much in the dark, and have only outlandish, unnatural models to follow. Could this be why they are so neurotic? I think its time men actual straight, normal men started making some effort to define what is attractive in women. I cant remember the last time I heard an influential man give women any advice on what attracts men theyve all dropped the ball on that score to avoid upsetting any women. And although women will make a huge fuss if men do so, it will be beneficial for them in the long run to know, and theyll secretly appreciate it.

A Slut By Any Other Name

Elusive Wapiti

What do you call a promiscuous college girl who makes a decision to sleep around only half as much? And then permits herself to be the poster girl of one who used to whore around a lot, but does less so now? How does her father--assuming he's even in the picture at all-feel about his ho-bag of a daughter now? Has she no shame at all? Yep. She's accurately labelled a slut, and an unrepentant one at that: Casual hook ups fuelled by alcohol may be the norm across college campuses, but Boyle, now a 21-year-old junior at the school, chose to stop. Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene. "I saw it [hooking up] as a way to be recognized and get satisfaction," said Boyle, shaking her blond ponytail. "I felt so empty then." Some, like Boyle, experimented with hooking up and quit. Though she is Catholic, she says her reason for disengaging herself from the hook-up culture had more to do with the unhappiness she experienced afterward. Others influenced by religion have abstained from casual physical activity from the moment they set foot on campus. The idea of rejecting hook-ups may not be as strange as it sounds in a generation surrounded by sex. Pop star Lady Gaga recently announced she was celibate and encouraged others to follow. In Kelly Clarkson's song "I Don't Hook Up," she addresses the dominant hook-up culture: "I do not hook up, up I go slow, so if you want me I don't come cheap." "I'm respecting myself," Boyle said confidently one sunny

morning before class. "And I won't waste my time with some guy who doesn't care about me." Casual hook ups fuelled by alcohol may be the norm across college campuses, but Boyle, now a 21-year-old junior at the school, chose to stop. Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene. I find it difficult to be impressed by this SYF's decision to be only a fraction as promiscuous as she used to be. For her retreat from the extreme sexual behavior of the campus hook-up culture--but stopping far short of renunciating extra-marital sexuality completely, or even significantly-still means that she'll put out for guys after they jump through a few more hoops. In other words, she's still sliding down the gradient toward the used-up-tramp-thatwill-make-a-horrid-wife abyss. Lord help the beta chump that lands her, she is precisely the sort of girl the wise fellow should avoid if he's looking for a wife who can control herself and her emotions. Of course, given that the article mentions that 75% of women in college have hooked up, one is forced to question the wisdom of trying to find a wife of quality at a college anyways. Speaking of self control, I note that despite her nominal Catholicism -- a faith which Vox Day notes is not synonymous with the 'Christian' label -- has little effect on her actions. Instead, she allows herself to be led around by her uterus, judging the appropriateness of her loose behavior by its latent effect on her happiness meter. Her serotonin levels appear have more influence on her than her reason, or even her faith. Shame that we allow beings like her--barely above the animals, really, if their behavior is any indicator--to vote, or worse, to hold the fate

of legally unimpeachable men in their hands via false rape accusations and/or unilateral divorces, or worse still, to exercise a "choice" to commit fetuscide. Regulars of this blog and elsewhere in the MRA scene will quickly recognize a common thread running through this story, too: that a social issue is only a problem if it harms women in some way: Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene. Over the past decade, scholars, researchers and authors have begun to examine the psychological toll of hooking up. An April 2010 study from James Madison University in Virginia revealed more college women tend to want a relationship out of a hook up compared with men who prefer to stay independent. Other studies have shown the instability from hooking up can cause depression. Repeated rejection and detached relationships can also damage selfesteem. Yep. Nary a peep about how the hook up culture also harms guys, or even how men engaging in alcohol-fuelled sexual activity is morally, physically, physiologically, and legally risky. Instead, we're invited to care about how it hurts the poor little out-of-control darling's feelings. Tellingly, men's welfare matters so little that I doubt there is any research at all being performed on the psychological or other harm being done to men by risk-seeking behavior such as this. But you can bet that a whole slew of research is churned out about how bad players and cads and date rapists are. It's always the same refrain: women are soft, cuddly victims. Men are hard, unfeeling, uncaring rapists-in-waiting. Reading further in the article, we also see another familiar reason why the campus hook up culture is being rejected by a few women. It threatens their entitlement to unearned largesse: But what is clear is that some students, like Boyle, want old-fashioned courtship to return. Kathleen Bogle, who wrote "Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on

Campus" in 2008, says she's found there is a strong and growing desire to bring back traditional dating. Translation: we still want guys to conform to the old prefeminist social roles, to pedestalize us, to be all about lavishing unearned benefits on us for no other reason than because we're female, all while we gals are hard at work taking advantage of pro-female sexism in academia, in the workplace, and in government. For crying out loud, even the cover photo of the Love and Fidelity Network - -a website mentioned in the article that appears to otherwise honorably promote marriage and chaste behavior on campus--propagates the noxious notion that a woman belongs on a pedestal, that her sexuality is special or even rare, and that a man is barely worthy to kiss the hand he just bribed into marriage. Have no fear, though. These nascent demands for oldfashioned courtship need not scare the "day fratter" player, gamer, or cad away from this target rich environment. For these calls for a "return to dating" are not leading indicators of a resurgent morality but instead are nothing more than shallow shit tests, hoops for the circus animal, designed to boost the admission charged for diving into their vulvas: On Facebook.com, several groups are rooting for the traditional dates. The motto on the group Bring Dating Back reads, "This group is for all those girls who wish that once in a while a guy would take her out on a date before trying to get her into bed. At least invite us to dinner before expecting us to get down and dirty!" Indeed I am sure it is sexist to suggest that a fellow can expect to bang loose college women for anything less than the price of a plate of fettucini alfredo. And it is utterly piggish for a guy to want it for free.

The Oversaturation of Female Flesh

- Snark

Sex sells; specifically, it sells to men. Everywhere you look, there is female flesh. It is used to sell products. It is used to allure men into acquiescing to the demands of the woman it is attached to. It is used, I would argue, to maintain a near-perpetual state of arousal (or readiness for arousal) in men, deflecting their energies away from higher callings and towards physical ends far more than would naturally be the case. Most men, especially young men, feel sexual an awful lot of the time. Is this normal - is this just our human nature, now exposed and liberated from societal constraints? Or are we kept constantly 'on edge', aroused out of all natural proportions by the relentless bombardment of sexual imagery? If you were to ask a feminist about the sexualised images men are endlessly subject to, her response would be accusatory, holding The Patriarchy, and by association all men, responsible for the sexual subjection of women. But what are we to make of the third-wave mantra on choice? At least older forms of feminism were somewhat (and I stress 'somewhat') consistent regarding sexuality: keep yours away from men! What does modern feminism teach? Anything that a woman does is fair game, including the use of her sexuality to manipulate men into doing what she wants them to do. How does this fit with the idea that sexualised images of women are a tool of The Patriarchy, designed to keep women 'in their place'? Actually, it makes more sense if viewed as a kind of cultural pincer movement. Think of it operating on terms similar to

the free market - entrepreneurs create a demand for a product, and then they profit from its sale. Feminists have certainly played their part in boosting the demand for women's bodies - at which point, they about turn and tarnish men for succumbing to their physical desires. The sexual desires of men - provoked by women - are then used to denigrate men, as rapists and oppressors who see women only as sexual objects. The point must be made that the operation of this cultural pincer movement is quite unlike free market principles, because in this case, the demand is created with the intention of it not being fulfilled, or perhaps fulfilled only under certain conditions of male subservience. The cultural pincer movement enables women to retain their sexual gatekeeper role. Men are shamed for desiring women, though they must continue to desire women, to the point of deference, or the whole edifice collapses. Yes, it is about control - but not the control of women by men. On the contrary. By hyperexaggerating the importance of intercourse, women are free to provide or deny as they wish, to the men they have wrapped around their little fingers with the twin contrivances of allure and shame. The profit accrued to women through this shame market is psychic rather than financial. Women are in control, through the manufacture of the sexual means of control. Men 'thinking with their dicks' is not so much an insult as a godsend for feminism: when men fail to question this artificial, unnatural means of control, they become pliable to a woman's every whim. This is why Game is so crucial to men's liberation. I haven't written about Game much before, because, personally, I'm not interested in it. But undoubtedly, it holds the keys to liberated male sexuality. And this is why feminists hate it. They hate Game, to the point of trying to redefine rape to

encompass situations where a man 'talks a woman into' sex - which is obviously not going to work, because the majority of women still insist that a man instigates everything. The reason they hate it and want to criminalise it as 'rape' is because it works, and the implication of it working is that men may come to possess what has been the sole domain of women for a long, long time - power in negotiations over sexual intercourse. Game teaches men the 'tricks' they can use to arouse women, against their will, making them potentially just as pliable to male sexuality as men are to women. The blogs about 'Girl Game' which emerged as a kind of response to Game miss the point entirely: women already had their own form of 'Game'. One of the reasons for the slut/stud double standard is that it takes no effort to be a slut. Girl Game has always been about wearing makeup, showing flesh, and laughing a lot. That's all it takes; she directs that towards the man of her choice, and he is prompted to instigate. What equivalent method does a man have to wearing makeup, showing flesh, etc.? Until the advent of Game, he had none; or at least, no method which was codified and widely disseminated for use. 'Studs', or alphas as they now like to be known, have their own Game now, but it takes a hell of a lot more work than it does to be a slut. A slut sells herself like junk mail - making herself physically desirable arouses every man who lays eyes on her. An alpha has to sell himself more like a door-to-door salesman, moving from one target to another and focusing exclusively on her, using ever more persuasive arguments to convince her to try the goods. Even with Game, it remains harder for a man to have lots of casual sex than it does for a woman. As for the argument that a Pick-Up Artist being persuasive in his pursuit of sex is an aggressive sexual pursuit, my only response is that women's sexual pursuits are similarly aggressive. If we are going to define that which causes unwilling arousal as aggression, then women are extremely sexually aggressive, causing the unwilling arousal not only of their targets but of every other man in the vicinity as well. Getting back to the point of this post, though; Game, as useful as it is, misses one important fact, and in so doing, wages war on the enemy's terms. The sexual control of men, through allure and shame, was achieved by constructing a hierarchy of male worth. Those men who

have sex the most sit at the top, regardless of all their other characteristics, while sex becomes less and less frequent as we travel down the pyramid. This hierarchy of male value is based, not primarily, but solely on the volume of sex he 'gets'. A man could be a sociopath, a serial killer, even a rapist, but if he has more sex than all others, he's still the most worthy according to this ranking system. And women seem to have bought into the idea wholesale; hence the phenomenon of 'Nice Guy' bashing, where men with pro-social and non-violent characters are denigrated by feminists for their lack of prowess, as seemingly the only indicator of their human worth. Having positive characteristics is something to be scorned; a man who refuses to cheat or manipulate others in order to get laid is living garbage. The aim of the cultural pincer movement is to elevate sexual prowess above all else, including one's character, morality, etc., because it is sexual prowess, not a man's character or his morality, through which a woman can manipulate his behaviour. Game falls into the same trap - some of the time. When all men are labelled according to the alpha/beta/omega ranking system, we find the same old wine in a new bottle. Once again, success in life is equated to sexual prowess. This is playing the game on the enemy's terms. Game avoids this trap when it uses the terms alpha/beta/omega simply to refer to one's behaviour in particular situations, not to describe the fundamental, intrinsic nature of a man or his place in the universe. Men's liberation will come when worth is not determined by sexual prowess at all; when this is seen as basically irrelevant to a man's human value. Men are men; there is no rite of passage preventing one from claiming his manhood. Victory for us all will come when professional Pick-Up Artists, Men Going Their Own Way, involuntary celibates and all those in-between have their worth determined by their characters and their actions, not by the criteria which women have designed for us, and which they, not we, benefit from. As long as we continue to rank ourselves according to their manipulative hierarchy, as long as we are passive victims of the bait and switch pincer movement, our energies will be unnecessarily directed towards women and away from more important things in life. Everyone else is getting laid all the time - what's wrong with me? is a worry which is probably widespread enough to negate itself. That worry, which can lead men to become so preoccupied by those

superficial aspects of themselves, directs energy towards the pleasing of women, and away from everything else. Seriously, how do you think feminists feel about men who spend all their time worrying and fretting over how to please women, how to get them to provide sex, etc., at the expense of living their own lives according to their own rules and interests? I would bet that they enjoy it. I would bet that they are laughing. We are oversaturated with female flesh, which we are permitted to see but not touch, to desire so desperately but not to hold - until we are ready to obey the rules. The oversaturation of sexualised female images benefits women rather more than men; we see the object of our desire everywhere, maintaining a constant state of arousal, or readiness for arousal, yet fulfillment remains beyond our reach, as a hologram. This cultural violence manipulates our natural desires and brings them to the surface, over and over, in order to blame us for having them; it constructs us as simple beasts, driven by nothing more than primitive rapaciousness. History teaches that men are so much more.

Magic tricks are all about diversion. While the magician draws your attention to all the fancy moves he performs with one hand, the other hand, ignored, pulls an ace out from up his sleeve. The oversaturation of female flesh is a cultural sleight, and the resort to blaming The Patriarchy is a diversion. But like all magic tricks, once you know how it's done, it fails to impress. I wrote this not to condemn Game, nor pornography (in fact, I am in favour of both), but to provoke thought and hopefully discussion on the methods by which women use sex to control men, and how we might make more of ourselves if we throw off this yoke altogether and decide to Go Our Own Way in regards to women - whatever way that might be.

On "Whining"
- Jack Donovan

Any man who spends any amount of time writing or speaking about a real or perceived injustice will eventually be accused of whining. Men are particularly susceptible to the whining charge because it is an insult to their manhood, a smear on their honor. An inveterate whiner is impotent, incompetent, dependent, helpless, childlike, lazy and not in control of his own destiny. He is a weak and colicky creature, not quite a man, unable to assert his own will, crying for attention and casting about for anyone to blame for his failures and his circumstances but himself. Men tend to loathe victim politics for this reason to play the victim means relinquishing control. Like the twelve-stepper, he admits he is powerless. Unless this admission is sanctioned by his peers, other men will distance themselves from his act of submission to avoid contact emasculation. The whining charge is shaming language, but sometimes men should be ashamed of themselves. Id rather be ashamed of myself for failing to demonstrate a virtue that I hold in high regard than I would be regarded as shameless. A man who has no shame has no virtue and no conscience, or he is a liar. But if we agree that there is such a thing as justice, even if we suspect it is somewhat subjective, then unless we believe we live in a perfectly just world, it follows that there is legitimate injustice. In a society that seems to be enamored with the notion of social justice one might think that any man who points out injustice or who seeks justice for others would rightly be regarded as heroic. And he usually is, unless he is pointing out perceived injustices against those who may only be regarded as the architects of injustice. In America today, men and whites are regarded as the primary architects of injustice. White men, it is assumed, have been accorded so much privilege by birthright that any perceived injustices against them should be regarded as slights or perhaps even just correctives. Take it from the white man; he can afford it. If he complains, hes a whiner. According to the

establishment rhetoric he has so many advantages that no matter what we do to him it is his own fault if he doesnt succeed. How great this white man is! A Gulliver among Lilliputians Its hard to deny that it is still good in some ways to be a white man. But it aint all it used to be. Boys today are raised in a world far, far removed from the good old boys club. Truth be told they really didnt always have it that great anyway the life of a white coal miner a century ago could hardly be called privileged. But even if, for the sake of argument, white men had always ruled the world together, free from personal sacrifice, hardship or responsibility, from the back porch of some golden country clubthey clearly dont anymore. Things are different now, legally and socially. Isnt fair to say that this group of men might actually face some legitimate hardships or injustices? Wouldnt any other position be blatantly racist sexism? Ive argued that seeking victim status and a place at the national grievance table is far from desirable. If youre facing some legitimate hardships or injustices, there must be an honorable way to speak about them. But, because inborn privilege in all areas will continue to be assumed whether reality-based or completely theoretical, and other groups stand to lose ground if Western Men regain it, men will continue to be called whiners by some no matter what they say or how they say it. These sorts of accusations can more or less be ignored. Men will also call each other whiners to make themselves feel better about their own shortcomings its a form of chest-thumping that should be taken with a grain of salt. However, its worth trying to define what whining really is. Because while every man whines a little bit sometimes, no man wants to be a whiner. Where do you draw the line? Real whining is infantile.

Whining is a cry for sympathy on ones own behalf, as if from the mouth of a babe. It says, I cant because and demonstrates helplessness and impotence because it takes no responsibility for changing ones own circumstances. There are legitimate grievances in life, and there are legitimate reasons to draw attention to ones own hardships. Sometimes there really are powerful forces working against you, or major obstacles in your path. The difference between whining and acknowledging a problem is that the man who is acknowledging a problem also demonstrates that he is doing everything within his own power to overcome that obstacle or to make the best of the hand hes been dealt. The whiner rationalizes and blames without taking responsibility for any wrongdoing or poor judgment on his own part, and makes no sincere effort to improve his own circumstances he cries out and expects others to make sacrifices to come to his rescue. A matter-of-fact statement of a problem cannot be considered whining. Unless you are asking for something. Sympathy is something. And asking is begging. A call to arms is not whining. If you are identifying an obstacle and trying to enlist others who face the same obstacle to work together to do something about it, you are taking responsibility for changing your circumstances. The people who created the obstacle or who benefit from it in some way may call this whining, but they are merely protecting their own interests by dismissing your concerns. Real whining is self absorbed. Real whiners dont care that other people have problems, too. Whiners are excessively focused on their own problems. The following passage about poor men in postwar Japan from Confessions of a Yakuza came to mind: In that world, there were a few things you just never said. One was Im hungry; the others were Im cold and Im hot. As far as being hungry was concerned, they were all in the same boat, so long as it was a kind of competition to see who could bear it the longest. If any of the men standing around there complained of being hungry, hed be treated as an outsider, a slob who didnt have the guts to stick it out. They were all barely keeping going as it was, and as for someone to talk about food would have been the last straw.

No one wants to hear your problems, especially when they are in the same boat. Commiserating is an undignified but understandable feature of human nature. One-sided whining in the company of other people who have the same (or worse!) problems is obnoxious. Calling attention to the problems of others is definitely not whining. It is impossible to whine on the behalf of someone else. Speaking up to correct real or perceived injustices is a noble gesture (or at least an attempt at one). Others may disagree with your aims, with your opinions, with your logic, or with your assessment of the situation but if they accuse you of whining on the behalf of someone else, they dont deserve to be taken seriously. If you have faced injustices in the past, and overcame them, and are telling your story to elicit public support for change so that others do not have to face the same hardships, that is not really whining either. Sometimes, altruistic statements are obviously a front for those who want to become victim celebrities. Some people will exploit or even manufacture hardships to get attention. When thats the case, its not as much whining so much as cynical, opportunistic and dishonorable. And usually, its not hard to spot. Think about Oprah Winfrey and the majority of her perpetually recovering celebrity friends who luxuriate in their own melodramatic miseries to increase their status within a community of professional victims. Social criticism is not whining. Social criticism is social criticism. In basic terms, social criticism is, Heres some bullshit, heres why it is bullshit, and heres why Id like to see it change to improve our society. Whining is Heres some bullshit that affects me and heres why I want you to feel sorry for me and take care of me. Its important to be able to separate legitimate charges of whining from general self-interested bitchiness, knee-jerk reactions, and attempts to manipulate or silence debate. All charges of whining are not equally valid, and knowing when to let other peoples bullshit roll off your back allows you to devote your energy to more productive pursuits.

'Anger Management'
- Paul Elam

The following is based on a true story. Actually, its based on many of them. Tobi Pitts leaned forward in her seat, clasping her hands together with forearms resting on her knees. She looked at Howard with tired green eyes that were sunken into a patchwork of premature wrinkles and thin make-up. Her hair was a mass of bleached, neglected curls that hung to the sides like twists of tattered rope. I cant make you say a word, Mr. Franks, she said. But the court did order you to come here, and I do think its in your best interest to talk about why that happened. Howard scanned the room. There were eight other men in the circle, some watching him, others with eyes to the floor. All of them silent; waiting. He looked back at Tobi and found her unblinking gaze still on him, patient as alabaster. I see, he said. My best interest. And the room sank into silence again. Tobi remained fixed. A man to Howards left, three seats down, cleared his throat and adjusted his tie. He had the meticulous look of a newscaster, complete with handsome profile. His hair was a highly styled crown of silver-gray perfection. He regarded Howard with eyes that were two striking pools of azure resting behind glasses that that had an executive sparkle. Howard, he said, in highly practiced tenor, Tom Watson here, and believe you me I feel for you. I didnt want to talk when I got here either. But once I got over that I learned a great deal. Todays my last day. Tom glanced over to Tobi and seemed annoyed to find her still looking at Howard. Anyway, I dont mind telling you I used to be a real bastard. I gave my wife so many beatings I couldnt even begin to count them. In here I learned where it was coming from. Power, man, and I am just flat addicted to it. It gave

me a rush, a sick rush, to do what I did to her. Ill bet you can identify with that a little. Howard studied the other men in the group. He noted some smirks and the look of disgust on the faces of others that seemed to deepen with each one of Toms passing words. Suddenly, without warning, he was rocked by the familiar cascade of grief that seemed to pour from core of his chest. He closed his eyes and braced himself as the other man continued to speak. So I hope you open up a little, buddy. Remember, were all the same here, Tom concluded. He then pointed at Howard with his hand formed into a mock pistol, winked and clicked his tongue. Forget that asshole, said a heavyset man. He had a cheerless face, shadows of stubble spread across his cheeks like a dark mood. If you dont talk they will keep you here longer, and theyll use it against you in court. Howard pondered that for a moment and finally spoke again. They? he asked, Dont you mean, her? And he tilted his head in Tobis direction. The large man grinned without even slightly diminishing the sadness in his eyes. Its all the same. he said. No, its not, Tobi interjected. Mr. Franks, I am a therapist, not a judge. I dont tell the court anything you say in here. Thats held in confidence. All I do is report whether you have attended and whether you are cooperative. Believe it or not, I am here to help you. Howard considered her words briefly. And what is cooperative, Ms. Pitts? Howard asked. Am I uncooperative if I dont spill my guts to you, perhaps put on a little dog and pony show? he said, cocking a thumb

back at Tom, whose brow scrunched, as though in feigned indignity . Tobi swallowed. Her fingers, once woven loosely together tightened and began a slight tremble. A rose hue painted itself across the skin of her face and her eyes hardened. Howard looked at the big man, whose expression now simply pled caution. And silence again filled the room. This time a silence as taut and bloodless as Tobis fingers. Howard raised his hand and bowed his head pensively. The grief passed through him again like a great wave, stirring up the sediment of a thousand other feelings, all of which he was trying desperately to keep in check. He choked it all back down and drew in a great, settling breath. Then he lifted his eyes to meet Tobis and spoke. Six weeks ago I was a happily married man. Sixteen years with the same woman, Kate, and two beautiful daughters. I had a good business, a decent enough business partner and everything to look forward to. Then my father died. It was not unexpected; hed been fighting cancer for three years. Kate convinced me that it wouldnt be best to pull the kids out of school and fly them to Baltimore for the funeral. I agreed and went on my own. Howard didnt notice, but at this point none of the other men were looking at the floor. Each of them leaned forward, studying his face as they listened. When I got back I stopped on the way home to pick up some flowers. Just something for Kate, for carrying the weight while I was gone. But my credit card was declined. I called the bank and was informed that all my accounts were closed. All the money was gone. Tom interrupted. Oh man, here come the excuses. I can see it already. Shut the fuck up! the big man boomed, and Tom shrank back in his chair. Howard shook it off and continued. I went home and nobody was there. I found the kids with her mother. And she, she was Howard raked his fingers through his hair and took a deep breath. She was with my business partner. They had taken it all. The money, the business; everything. All gone. I caught up to them at his place. She came to the door

wearing a silk robe I gave her last Christmas. I just stood there dumbfounded for, I dunno, what seemed like forever. When I could finally make myself speak all I could do was ask her why. Why had she done this? She told me it was because I was a loser. She told me she was a woman with needs and that I never, from the day we were married, met them. She told me the kids would be better off without me and that any more contact with her or them would have to be through a lawyer. Then she told me something else. Howard closed his eyes and seemed adrift for a moment in the vacuum of the soundless room. He opened them again and found the group transfixed, as though mesmerized and teetering toward whatever he would say next. She told me that she would kiss me goodbye but she didnt think Id like the taste of another mans cock on her lips. A single tear slid from Howards eye and tracked down his cheek. I lost it, he said, clinching his hand into a fist and beating it against his knee. I punched her in the face and broke her nose. I just stood there afterward, looking at her on the ground with her face full of blood. It was like I was watching a movie with the sound off. Her mouth was moving and I knew she was crying and saying something, but I couldnt hear any of it. Of course I went to jail and thats how I ended up here, as your new assignment, Ms. Pitts. Another statistic of domestic violence. Tobi adjusted herself in her seat and gently cleared her throat, as though sensing her opportunity to speak and announcing that she was taking it. She spoke in a soft, rehearsed whisper, beaconing Howard to consider her question. Are you saying she deserved to be battered, Howard? That she deserved a broken nose? Howard seemed to think for a moment and then replied. No, Ms. Pitts. I am saying she deserved the ass kicking of a lifetime. The entire room seemed to animate in a flash as

the men shifted around in their chairs. The circle filled with nodding heads. One of the men muttered Fucking A right, under his breath but Howard heard it, and apparently so did Tobi. Her eyes narrowed to slits and she looked around the room at the men, as though wanting to identify who said it. Nonplussed, she turned back to Howard and started to speak again, this time awkwardly, but he cut her off. Im not done. he said, His tone was final and unyielding. You wanted me to talk and I am talking. You just listen. He settled himself for a moment, and then said, Please. Tobi gently bit her lower lip, and then gave Howard a reluctant, almost unperceivable nod. Youd think this was the worst of it, but its not. After doing flips for weeks to try to see my daughters, last week I was allowed to talk to my oldest, Lisa, on the telephone. I was thinking the whole time that as bad as things were that I could live with it, that I could manage a way to move forward if I could just be with my children. I was so happy to have Lisa on the phone. I couldnt wait to tell her how much I missed her and that I couldnt wait to see her. But you know what she said when I told her that? he said, and then whatever composure Howard had faltered. His will and strength buckled and folded under the brutal pressure of one last cataclysmic wave of wrenching pain. The tears poured forth like two rivers and his breathing came in great heaving hitches as he cupped his hands over his face and sobbed. He had to force out every word, one at a time, to finish his story. She said, I cant see you till youre better Daddy. Mommy told me that youre sick. ___________

An hour later, Tobi Pitts sat in her office at a desk that was a sea of open charts. A dusty picture of two blond haired boys, one a toddler and the other about kindergarten age was taped on the side of her computer screen. There was no father in the snapshot. She cradled the phone against one ear and drug a chart into her lap as she talked. The last one here, Howard Franks. First show today. Pretty typical. His wife had an affair so he thought it would be fine to rearrange her face. Totally in denial. She paused for a moment and reached for a pen. He could be a problem, though. Smooth talker, that one, and calculated. In his first session the sick bastard had most of my group thinking he was the victim. Not that those morons know the difference. Luckily, I know the CPS worker assigned to his kids. Ill be giving her a call on this tomorrow. A moment later, Pitts hung up the phone and turned to a blank page in Howard Franks chart. She wrote with the steady and dispassionate hand of a surgeon.

A Quick Primer on the Sexual Marketplace

- Obsidian

Over the weekend I happened across Girl Game team member Aoefes post The Stock Market & Mate Selection. It was a most timely subject, given the current state of affairs on the economic front not just for Americans, but throughout the world. Her piece, while well written, was just basically a kind of checklist that a Woman would use in trying to land a real catch of a Man-no argument there, since this has always been the primary mating strategy of the Female. But, because of the deep and far reaching implications of our economically stressed times, I for one was hoping that someone out on the Femosphere-be it Girl Game, Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart, the crews of Feministing, Feminste or Jezebel, of *somebody* on that side of the aisle, would offer a comparatively cleareyed analysis of our times and how that directly relates to the dating and mating market. Needless to say, that to date, since the Mancession began, and Maria Shrivers much heralded A Womans Nation report came down the pike, there has been, at best a kind of oblique nibbling around the edges by the likes of Ms. Aoefe, Ms. Bhetti (the latter of whom gives her take on the current economic situation in a new piece over at Girl Game) and Ms. Walsh (the latter having a Wharton MBA!), and at worst, the usual mocking of the Menz by the latter most feminist-identified sites (for example, a recent piece at Feministing openly mocks the idea of a Mancession, then turns the focus back on how bad Women have it, which is in direct contradiction of the Shriver Report-but then again, would we really expect anything less of Feministing?). While Im fairly sure the ladies of the previous cohort may raise their hackles at the notion that I lump them in with the latter cohort of fem-bloggers, the bottomline is, that they all comprise what I call the Femosphere, and serves as a kind of counterpoint to what some has coined the Manosphere, which is made up of Male blogging voices spanning the MGTOW and MRA corners of the Internet, to

the Game and PUA oriented bloggers. They different in many ways, both camps do have quite a bit in common, and which serves to be the backbone of this essay. For example, as noted above, there has been no metaanalysis of the current radically altered economic landscape and how this WILL effect the dating and mating one by ANYONE in the Femosphere; while, in the Manosphere, from Marc Rudov to Roissy in DC, there have been any number of takes on the situation that are easily found at the click of the mouse. Curious guys like me sit back and take notice of such a glaring difference and has to ask, whats up with that?. So, this article is gonna layout, in real basic terms, how the sexual marketplace works, the changes that have happened in recent years, and the changes that we see before our eyes right now, and why the Femosphere, with all due respect, is basically incapable of giving the kind of metaanalysis that one cant help but trip over walking ten paces in any direction in the Manosphere. Ready? OK, here we go: Astute readers of my post Why Game & Choice For Men Elicits So Much Hate will recall how I laidout the basic mating strategies of the Human Male and Female, which was deeply informed by our evolutionary past. Simply put, both sexes were exposed to environmental pressures against which they had to form adaptations to overcome; for the Male, he has to figure out a way to be noticed by the Female; for the Female, she has to figure out a way to screen out all but the best Male with which to mate. While both skill sets do take time and trial and error to perfect, it doesnt take a rocket scientist-or a Wharton trained economist-to figure out which job is inherently harder-the Males have it infinitely tougher. Not only do they need to make the best showing to the Female, but they must also beat out all the other competition-which could prove deadly, and very often did.

This occurs among sperm even; millions of them fight to the death to unite with the one egg, and thus forms the basis of the sexual marketplace-eggs expensive, because of their scarcity, and sperm is cheap, because of its vast surplus. In said marketplace, Women are the sellers; Men, the buyers. And for much of Human history, and until relatively recently, its been a Sellers Market. Contrary to all the boilerplate many feminists and the like try to foist on an otherwise ignorant and unsuspecting public, in truth Women have always gotten a kind of artificial market bump, much like the bumps Wall Street has received from the govt in the form of taxpayer funded bailouts and the like. For example-weve all heard of the Shotgun Wedding, right? Guy meets Girl, Guy hookup with Girl, Guy gets Girl preggers, Girls fam finds out, Guy is pressured to marry Girl. Now-who wins in that scenario? The Girl, of course. She gets support in the form of Guys resources, and is insured in this by the threat of her peeps doing something very bad to Guy if he welches out on the deal. There are many other instances of artificial bumps in the market aimed at assisting Women historically as well, marriage in the more broader sense being yet another example. It helps Women, not necessarily Men. At least it does first and foremost-the benefits Men get got from marriage historically, were a secondary thing. From a purely Evo-Psych standpoint. Polygamy is yet another example where the clear beneficiaries are the Women, because shes almost assured of getting a share of a wealthy Mans resources, rather than having a full claim on a poor Man to herself. Aside from a very small pool of Men who can put themselves in a position to gain from such an arrangement, the vast majority of Men do NOT benefit from Polygamy. So, we see how, contrary to the arguments of the feminists, how the Female side of the SMV equation has always gotten a leg up as it were. So, what does this have to do with the current Mancession, the Shriver Report, and the dearth of meaningful, straightahead discussion about it in Femosphere? Very simple. As my previous article clearly pointed out, Women are genetically wired to seek out the best Men with which to mate, and then do all they can to make him stick around after the partys over. Doing this by necessity, means that a lot of guys have to be eliminated from the search. The

current Mancession-where some 70-80% of ALL layoffs and firings have been Male, and the Shriver Report, which clearly says that for the first time in American history, there are more Women than Men gainfully employed, simply means that Womens field of erotic view, as F. Roger Devlin would put it, just got a heck of a lot narrower. Far from giving the guy whos down on his luck a mercy shot, they will follow their instincts and simply set their sights on the few remaining Alphas left in the field, and vie like made against all the other Females in the round hoping to rope him in. This is why there has been no discussion of these types of topics along these lines in the Femosphere, BECAUSE WOMEN SEE THE ISSUE IN A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT WAY THAN MEN DO. They dont need to figure out workarounds like Men do. They only need to figure out, how to get the Top Guy to stay with THEM. Now Lets go back to the site, Girl Game. It is a site found by a bunch of Women, whos sole purpose is to give Ladies the tools with which to land the Best Guys-again, nothing wrong with thatin theory. The problem comes in when one considers what has happened in the sexual marketplace over the past four decades or so. Aside from medical interventions like the Pill and Abortion, things like access to education and money/jobs, along with massive support from the govt, have made it possible for Women to make choices she could have never dreamed of only a half century ago, let alone 5 centuries ago. That she can do this all with a minimum of censure or reprisal, makes it all the better. I consider this a kind of deregulation of the sexual marketplace, where people, definitely Women, but as well soon find out, a goodly number of Men, too-can really do as they wish. If ever there was a time when one could see our raw mating strategies at work, this timeframe, the late 20th to early 21st century, was it. Because, while Women now have maximum choice in terms of mating, so too do Men-but, as Ive said before, and contrary to popular opinion, not ALL of them-only a select few. This is just how Women prefer it, of course. Remember-the scarcer a resource, the higher the price. The problem is, that the current situation, the SMP if you will, is greatly inflated-a kind of SMP bubble-and sooner or later it will burst-meaning that there will be A LOT of

Lady Losers in its wake. They will have all the sex they can handle, but because of the Mancession and because of their own ability to provide for themselves, very few will be able to land the Man of their Dreams for more than a fortnight, if that. For one, the environment doesnt support it, and two, of the few remaining Alphas left, they have every incentive to enjoy what is now essentially a Buyers Market of Poon. This is where Game-and by that, I mean in its original parlance-comes in, because all it does is gives the Man more bargaining power at the table of the Sexual Marketplace. Of course, being gainfully employed helps, but it is NOT, I repeat, NOT, the end all be all, and weve all seen that to be true many, many times. Which is why my good friend, The Fifth Horseman, says that having Moderste Game Competence is worth roughly $2M. I, agree.

Ive told the ladies at Girl Game before, and it bears repeating, that what theyre attempting to do can only, by design, work with a very small number of Women; by and large, unless the playing field is leveled again, the vast majority of Women, can and will LOSE. Of course, therell be a lot of Male Losers, too, but thats nothing new; what is, are little things like Glocks and Rugers, and the extreme losers will make use of these and exact their revenge on a number of ladies too. But I digress. The point is, for the first time in human history, Women en masse wont be the winners of the mating game. For the first time, theyll be the losers. Im just sayin. Now adjourn your asses

What is "Feminist Sex"?

- Hestia

A self-described feminist named Amanda, shared recently on The Spearhead about her "feminist" sex life, As a personal example, the sex I have is feminist even when my fiance is being dominant in bed it is feminist because it is freely chosen and enjoyed by both of us. Reading this and then pondering the idea of "feminist sex" gave me quite a pause as I thought back to my days spent in a college class where we learned about the "plight of minorities" and considered their position in the world as we constructed in groups a new Utopian society in which all would be equal. Naturally some of the nastiest feminist drivel was required reading in such a class, most with disturbing examples of what "feminist sex" would be. In Their Own Words: "All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French via fiction in "A Woman's Room" "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
Sheila Jeffrys.

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
Robin Morgan

"Sex is the cross on which women are crucified ... Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape."
Hodee Edwards

"Our culture is depicting sex as rape so that men and women will become interested in it."
Naomi Wolf

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."
Catherine MacKinnon

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto

Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
Judith Levine

"Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone axe." S
usan Brownmiller

In my time researching feminism, I have yet to come across a passionate defense of normal, natural heterosexuality by a feminist. There are arguments for sex with men to be a crime against the sisterhood, essentially inviting young women to take up with each other. The quote wrongly

attributed to Catherine MacKinnon, about all sex being rape was the attitude pervasive among my left leaning grrrl professors in college. Sex can hardly be talked about without rape being brought into the conversation, which is absurd considering most women are not raped, most men do not rape, and men & women tend to enjoy having sex with each other. As was proven on The Spearhead, even talk about loving sex must come with a disclaimer that rape is not being promoted. The rape madness is so explosive I would not be shocked to say, "My husband and I have sex" and be asked by a feminist if we rapes me. Even the sex positive flavor of feminism misses the mark, with sex being seen as a tool for female empowerment rather than a loving enjoyable act shared between a couple. But it's not just that absurdity, it's very act of politicizing something special and private that I find especially troubling. For all the talk of "keeping laws off womens' bodies", feminists seem to have no problem bringing their politics into our bedrooms. They have taken from men and women their respective expressions of normal sexuality and turned them into a political tool for the profit and gain of feminists. Men are perverts and brutes, seeking to hold women back. Women must never surrender, in life or bed, to a physically strong and more powerful man. Men 'objectify' women and are wrong to be attracted to a woman for just her looks at

first. Women who do not attract a man are simply too strong and too much for him to handle. On and on it goes, misleading young people first becoming aware of their feelings and desires about themselves and the opposite sex and preventing older people from finding meaningful bonds with the opposite sex. All in the name of a Feminism. It seems Amanda has mislabeled what it is she shares with her fiance. 'Feminist sex' is not what's on the menu, but rather normal longings and desires for a young woman in a committed relationship. There is no shame in submitting to a man sexually or otherwise. Such action might be antifeminist, but it's not anti-woman, if anything it's embracing womanhood, and is precisely the route women desiring meaningful relationships ought to take. Surrender, be conquered, enjoy. And do it, as the feminists would say, without apology. "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist". Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey Indeed it is, and for this we should all be most thankful.

July 2010

The Real Reason We Do Not Have a Male Pill

- Robert O'Hara

On Sunday, May 9th 2010 women everywhere celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of the female birth control pill. In those fifty years no equivalent for men has been developed. Why? Every five years or so, and you can almost count on every five years like clockwork, we hear news concerning the development of a male internal fertility control drug or device whose side effects are tolerable and whose fertility effects are reversible. In fact, men in many parts of the world already enjoy the benefits of such methods. Why do we have not one single method in the U.S., the U.K, Australia and Canada? Ten years ago a drug called Nofirtill was introduced for testing in Brazil and was purported to be 95% effective, have very little side effects and completely reversible. In China and France men have enjoyed the option of hormone treatments rendering them temporarily infertile for years now. In the U.S. and U.K. there are studies being conducted as I write this that hold tremendous promise for the male pill. Standing in the way of this whole thing coming to fruition, however, are the drug companies themselves who are very sketchy about putting up money, not only to develop methods of mass production, but also to market these methods in a cost effective manner. Why are they frightened? Who or what is keeping them from taking the plunge into what could be a very lucrative market. It seems to defy common sense doesnt it? But common sense has very little to do with reproductive issues in the western world. Unfortunately, and to our tremendous discredit, men have been almost entirely silent about the male pill leaving the entire debate on reproductive control methods, and for that matter reproductive rights as a whole, dominated by a chorus of female voices. And also like clockwork, this

chourus starts chiming in just around the time mention of a pending internal male fertility control method comes up. Many of these voices support the idea of a male pill citing fairness and the desire that men carry more of the contraceptive burden. The most energetic and pernicious of these voices, however, come from a hoard of columnists writing from a womans perspective who oppose the idea of a male pill. The tambre of the commentary ranges from the condescending to the appallingly bigoted. In January of 2010 HLNs Joy Behar discussed research developments with, of all people, Ashley Dupre, AKA Eliot Spitzers rather over priced companion on her show. Along with discussing the G Spot with this supposedly renowned expert on male fertility issues Ms. Behar also discussed with Ms. Dupre the inability to trust a man when he says he is on the pill. Also discussed was the fragile male ego that we hear so much about and how rendering ones self infertile might just be too much for a mans pride to take. Predictably mentioned as well was the idea that men simply do not possess the intelligence to realize we can get an STD without the use of a condom. Hmmm, whodave thunk you could get somethin that AJAX aint gonna wash off by not wrappin it up first? Not nobody ever told me that! Other commentaries include a particularly offensive one written by MJ Deschamps from the University of Ottawas Centertown Journal called Give Them the Remote Not the Pill in which she paraphrases the concerns presented on the HLN interview stating: What Im worried about are all the other men the unmarried, uncommitted, casual daters who can walk away from a situation if an accident happens because they forgot to take their birth control, or just lied about taking it altogether. Never mind the large increase in STIs and AIDS that would probably arise from the inevitable decrease in

condom use. Walk away? Yea right, men are NEVER thrown in jail for failure to pay child support and we are all just an ignorant bunch of jackasses, as I have pointed out above, (sarcasm) who have no idea how STDs are spread. No doubt, pharmaceutical company executives in lieu of very expensive market research will take note of these voices and conclude that spending the money to develop and viably market such a method might pose more a financial risk than its worth. If there are so many opposing voices and not much observable support for these methods why put up the money? So why is there is so much opposition to this idea of male fertility control? Surely enabling men with the option to control their fertility would be good for them as well as society. There would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and couples and single men would have more control over their futures. But keep in mind the operative word here is control. What does this word mean when talking about reproduction? In times past, rules were developed to ensure that fertile women were paired with men that could protect and provide for them and any resultant offspring. Men, taking on the burden of providing and protecting, were also guaranteed certain say-so as it comes to their mode of life as well as access and control when it comes to raising their offspring. Both sexes were given roles, rights and responsibilities in these systems of reproductive code and similarities are ubiquitous throughout all of human civilization. It was imperative the female had to give some assurance to the male the children he was to protect and provide for were indeed his. This was achieved, admittedly, through strict social enforcement of female chastity before and strict loyalty after pairing with a male. Neither she nor society could rightfully expect the man to support her and her children if this was not the case. Just as imperatively, the males status and prestige were almost solely based on his ability to protect and provide for his family. Failure to do this has always resulted, with every society and culture, in total chastisement of the male leading to the diminishing of this Family Name the value of which determines the offsprings ability to find viable mates in the social group they lived in. This arrangement was by no means perfect, and some even

call it oppressive. But make no mistake, it has supported thousands of generations, each producing healthy well kept homo sapien offspring who were much better off than their counterparts in other primate species. Also, one has to conclude, that without this system of rules not one red brick would have been laid atop another foregoing virtually every single feature of civilization as we know it. In the Late twentieth century medical advances and changes in the law regarding reproduction, parental rights and responsibilities changed this paradigm forever. Also changed were how we would bring children into the world and raise them. In 1960 the female oral contraceptive was brought to market, to be followed in subsequent years by a plethora of effective and relatively inexpensive methods through which women could control their fertility in a safe and reversible manner. This truly freed women to seek sexual affection without fearing the consequences they would have suffered prior. Ostensibly, men would seem to benefit in this respect too, but they would have to rely on the word of the women they had relations with as men still had the same responsibilities that come with a pregnancy. But this was ok right? Pregnancy is so treacherous and the ordeal of taking care of an infant so daunting no woman would ever want to be anything but honest while disclosing her fertility status. Right? Unfortunately for men at that time there was no equivalent solution to the problem of controlling their own fertility. To be fair, it was a hard nut for scientists to crack. (Pun intended) Surely though, science would work its wonders and make available in good order the same type of option for mensurely. Years went by and the pill became safer. New methods were being tested as well with the promise that if women could not or did not want to take the pill there were other options to be made available. Also on the horizon were rumblings of a totally different form of birth control, separate from a medicinal form. Soon, the use of the operative word birth would take a whole new meaning in the phrase: Birth Control. Abortion had been available illegally for some time but in 1973 the Unites States Supreme Courts decision in Roe v. Wade declared that the imposition of parenthood on an individual was just too much for the state to impose on somebody given that they were female. This meant that

even after conception women would have a right to decide whether or not the pregnancy would come to term. Males however were not to enjoy that same option. Consequently, men were given the burden of someone elses choices as far as parenthood was concerned. Congruent to this legal development were the expansion of parental responsibilities for men and the diminishing of those for women. It is ("Male Pill" Cont.) now, for all intents and purposes, legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy as well as abandon or give up for adoption a child without the consent of the father. Men, however, will get thrown in jail for not being able to write a check out to a woman who has no accountability as to how that money is spent simply because they are the mothers of the child(ren) of said man. This can happen even if the child is, in fact, not that of said man and said man can prove it. Furthermore, in our society a fathers parental rights are based in most part on the good will of the mother. There are armies of social workers and lawyers on the government payroll who will assist her in taking the child out of his life if she so wishes. Re-read the last three paragraphs above and let it sink in before reading further. Ok, having done that, lets draw our attention to an article written by the UK Daily Mails Leah Hardy entitled Of Course Women Dont Want a Male Pill- It Would End All of Those Happy Accidents. This particular article enraged me more than any other commentary on the subject concerning a mans right to seek control over his own fertility and future. In light of the fact that there have been millions of men jailed because they didnt hold up to the state imposed responsibilities as parents the assertion that children for men are nothing more than happy little accidents I find abhorrent as any right thinking person should.

This article illustrates perfectly and unabashedly the REAL reason that so many women and womans advocacy groups demonstrate a fierce resistance to the male pill. That reason not being they are afraid that we will lie or forget, as if women never do those things, rather, it is the fear that we will actually use it. Contrary to popular belief there is no evidence of any real long term or broad opposition to the female birth control pill after its introduction. The pill was, in spite of anything you might hear from feminists, handed to women on a silver platter and the development for the male equivalent was simply left in the doldrums. Just what will it take for men to assert control of their own reproductive processes? A fight. Yup, you heard me right! There are too many agencies and interests representing the female genders total control over reproduction for their not to be a fight over it. Whenever a woman says you men have birth control its called a condom or keep it in your pants or just get a vasectomy the response should be equivalent to the cynical and bigoted verbal spit in the face that that statement is. Men also need to get vocal as a group concerning the male birth control pill. Writing pharmaceutical companies and encouraging them to develop an internal male fertility control method is a good start. Most importantly though, we absolutely must wrestle the male fertility control debate out of the hands of women and take ownership of it. This may sound extreme to exclude women, but they are free to support the idea if they want. They should not feel free to oppose it. The male pill is about men, not women, not children, not the government MEN and MEN alone. Gentlemen, let us get busy and start doing something about this.

Suicide - Men's Dilemma

- Vargen

"How fortunate for us that the people cannot think".

Adolph Hitler.

The fact that men are so vastly over-represented in the death statistics comes as no surprise to me. I am acutely aware that the society I live in is heavily stacked in favor of women - despite what the media says. This feminist inspired myth of female oppression is not only a lie - it is the polar opposite to the truth. For me there is no doubt that women are extremely privileged in this society and it is men who are forced to pick up the tab. Hence men's increasing over representation in the death statistics. In order to hide this reality from the public the western media needs to spin the truth 180 degrees - to lie and deceive us basically. Their tactics, when forced to look at the death statistics, are therefore always the same. For example; When it comes to the subject of suicide - and men's obvious over representation in the statistics, the media tends to talk about "persons". When a gender breakdown is ever made (and this is something the media try to avoid at all costs), so that we can easily see that it is indeed men who are 4 times more likely to commit suicide - the fact that women are 5 times more likely than men to attempt suicide is always quickly added on afterwards. I get the distinct impression that men's over representation in the suicide statistics is politically very embarrassing indeed. But this only leads to more questions, that the mainstream media and the so called "experts" at the Social Services have never bothered to take up as far as I know. Namely why are women in Sweden 5 times more likely than men to attempt suicide - but - men are 4 times more likely than women to actually succeed? How does one seriously attempt to explain this discrepancy?

One could say that men use more violent methods in their suicide attempts and are therefore more successful than women are. But this explanation would only make logical sense if men and women attempted suicide at about the same rate - and - because of their more violent methods, men succeeded maybe twice or three times as often than women. No - this rather vague explanation cannot explain such a huge discrepancy - namely - that men are a staggering 9 times more effective in their suicide attempts than women. A very logical and interesting theory, that seriously attempts to explain this phenomena, was forwarded by the Psychologist and author Robert Anton Wilson in his online article entitled: "Androphobia - The Respectable bigotry" (April 1996). He says that there exists nowadays a tension in many men that Psychologists call a "Double Bind". In his important research on this phenomena the Psychologist Gregory Bateson described a double bind as follows; An impossible situation that cannot be avoided. But more importantly; A social rule that forbids the verbal communication of this impossible situation. Wilson says that it is ironic that we nowadays live in a society where homosexuals, women, immigrants and other minorities can freely demonstrate and protest their situation publicly, by for example, marching in the streets and this is of course a good thing. However - for a man to even talk privately about feeling discriminated against, is not only politically incorrect, but unthinkable - a taboo, according to Wilson.

He says that it is because of this double bind that literally thousands of men and boys stagger directly from depression to suicide every year. I am not trying to imply that women who attempt suicide do not suffer in any way. It is not my intention to cheapen their suffering - and neither do I wish to give the impression that suffering can be measured in any way. However - if one looks at Batesons model of the double bind one can easily see that a woman who finds herself in an impossible situation can "attempt suicide" in order to draw attention to her particular situation. This has been called a "cry for help". This is achieved by the suicide attempt which acts like a kind of warning signal to her surroundings. The tragedy is, according to Wilson, that many men would also presumably like to send out a warning signal to their surroundings, but because they live in a society that either doesn't care or wouldn't listen, they go directly to suicide. Wilson makes the profound comment in the article that "No group can feel well in a society that hates their guts". I believe that this subject needs to be seriously addressed and discussed. I have a son as well as a daughter and I don't like the idea that he is growing up in a society where he will

be, statistically speaking, 4 times more likely to commit suicide than her, just because he is male. I would of course be equally concerned if I lived in a society where she was 4 times more likely to commit suicide than he was - especially if this phenomena was also being deliberately hidden by the media for political reasons. And therein lies the rub you see. If it was women who were committing suicide 4 times more often than men, then the subject would be discussed at great length and no cost would be spared to address the problem. Or, on the other hand; Would society's media and politicians choose to not look at the problem - and when forced to do so - chose to instead fixate and focus their attention on the fact that men were 5 times more likely than women to attempt suicide? You decide....

The Non-Violence Lie

- Welmer

Feminists and their satellite organizations like NOMAS always pretend to deplore violence. They consistently claim to be striving for a nonviolent society, and to be opposed to all forms of physical force. Usually, they take a stand against violence against women, but sometimes they suggest that a peaceful society in general is their goal. This is a snow job. It is not really nonviolence that these people want, but power. Whether raw or distilled, they crave the intoxicating rush of power. Solanas, perhaps the only truly honest feminist out of the entire lot of them, openly advocated murder and slavery. She exulted in the idea of murder and destruction, and was and still is cheered on for it. But one need not read Solanass SCUM Manifesto to see that the claims of peaceful intentions are false; the facts on the ground bear witness to the violent intent of feminism. To achieve the power they lust for, feminists and their allies have passed laws that result in a great many men being imprisoned for anything from grabbing the wrist of a woman who was hitting them to losing their jobs and being unable to pay child support. Imprisonment is a form of violence, and is recognized as such by law. Not only are men imprisoned, they are beaten or arrested with excessive force every day. Witness the case of the man set upon by dogs at the behest of his ex-wife in Tennessee. Every year, scores of men are shot and killed by police responding to domestic disputes. In many cases it is the police response, mandated by feminist law, that precipitates the crisis. Men who couldnt afford child support orders are beaten and raped in jail and prison. Some have died there. Untold thousands have been driven to suicide. This, to the feminists, is nonviolence. Achieving domination by turning uniformed men with guns on their enemies is the means by which feminists pursue their aims. Throwing men in jail is how they do it. Forcing

confessions from men who are under threat of imprisonment and losing their children is another method. Shooting people works for feminists. Beating people is OK. Attacking men with dogs? Just fine. Confiscating property is considered benign from a feminist point of view. Shocking and gassing people to subdue them is all in a days work. Caging impoverished fathers like animals is justice. There is no country in the world that practices this brutality to the same degree as the United States, but others, such as Australia, Canada and the UK, are catching up. What we have to recognize is that men have paid an enormous price for socalled womens liberation, which has brought the world little more than Oprah, Hillary Clinton and the worn out, skeletal old hags of Sex and the City. Oh, and lest I forget, rampant illegitimacy, hundreds of millions of victims of broken families, and enormous, incalculable social welfare costs. Men have lost a great deal of liberty. Men have lost a great deal of property. Millions of men have lost their children. Many men have lost their freedom, and many their lives. If there is such a thing as a human rights crisis, this is one, and yet the feminists make the rounds as though they have halos floating over their heads. Youd think they are all clones of Mother Teresa from the deference they are shown in public and the mainstream press. Its time to call a spade a spade. Feminists are not nonviolent. They are not good people. Their vision for the future entails, to paraphrase Orwell, a stiletto heel stamping on a mans face, forever. Feminism is bare-faced barbarism.

Suicide Among Men and Boys

- Kim

A 17 year old boy from my area went up into the woods a couple of days ago with three guns. The search party found his frozen body the next day. He didn't die from exposure but bled to death from a self-inflicted gun shot wound. Several months ago, a neighbor's son, also 17 years old, got into a fight with his older brother, went downstairs and shot himself in the head in his closet. About a year and a half ago, another neighbor's son got in a fight with his parents and jumped out of the car as it was still in motion. The car wasn't going very fast, but his foot got caught and he was dragged across the pavement. Those few seconds from the time he jumped and his parents were able to stop the car cost him his life. A man I knew, a really good, nice man, a kind and devoted father, son and husband, hung himself some months back when his business failed. And a very, very dear friend of mine, despaired by hurts and losses he could no longer stand to bear, tried to kill himself recently. Everywhere I look I see the deaths and blood of men.....the tragic and untimely demises of beautiful, precious lives. Incidentally, I don't live in some poverty stricken area where hopelessness and despair are so thick that they hang palpable in the air. I live in a conservative, religious, small town, middle class America, where all our kids know they can look forward to going to college should they choose, where we still eat dinners as a family at night and we know each and every one of our neighbors and their children by name. Yet, even here, we can't stop our boys from dying tragic, unnecessary deaths. We can't infuse them with the same hope and self-worth that we've managed to instill in our

daughters. Our daughters aren't dying. Our daughters aren't going out into the woods and putting guns to their heads. No matter how much love and support we give our boys, we can't stand as a barrier and protect them from the constant barrage of negative, anti-male stereotypes. We can't protect their hearts and minds from the pain and disillusionment they're sure to find in a world that simply doesn't care about them any further than as a means to an end; a way to move forth industry, bodies to send to war to further political causes, or, should they fail to prove constructive, to fill our jails. From ages 10 to 14, the rate of suicide among boys is twice as high as among girls. From ages 15 to 19, four times as high and from ages 20 to 24, six times as high. Where are our emergency measures to combat this crisis? Where are the commissions, the funding, the programs and the public concern? William S. Pollack, the director of the Centers for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School has noted, "Theres no doubt that in relation to suicide, boys and young men are in a crisis," said Pollack. "And almost nothing has been done to remediate it from the gender perspective." So while we spend millions on programs empowering and furthering the interests of women and girls, hardly a finger has been raised or a dime spent to help boys and men that are in crisis. Instead, we devote our time and resources to telling boys that they are all potential abusers, rapists and murderers......frightening, violent things that women and children need to be protected from. In 2005, in the U.S., 25,907 men killed themselves. For perspective, that is roughly 21 times the number of women

who were killed by intimate partners in the U.S. in the same year. Because of the 1200 or so women who are killed by their partners each year, we have massive campaigns addressing violence against women. What do we have to address the 25,907 lives of men that were ended needlessly? Again I ask, where are the commissions, the funding, the programs and the public concern? Why do we stand idly by while our boys and men flounder in emotional pain, despair and hopelessness? Life is precious and I am heartbroken and angry for the loss of these lives. I am angry that nothing has been done to address this crisis. I am angry for the growing number of lives that will be lost because they won't be deemed important enough to do anything about. Why don't we do anything?

Because to do something would mean admitting we've been wrong. It would mean taking a long, painfully honest look at the hatred and disdain that we have so willingly and thoughtlessly infused into our society. It would mean addressing the horrible, destructive neglect and damage that has been wrought upon boys, men, fathers and husbands.....apparently, it's simply easier just to look away. It can be especially hard for men who are alone; who have been alienated from the lives of their families and children. We need to remember the worth and value of the lives of men; to remember the little boys and young men who need nurturing, care, kindness and understanding; to remember that the lives of these men and boys are invaluable and irreplacable, Remember how important it is to show that they matter....especially in a world that doesn't.

And This Person Wants To Transform All You Men!

- Mark Richardson

This is a story with an extraordinary ending, so please bear with me and read all the way through. It begins with a man named Robert Connell. Back in 1995 he wrote a book called Masculinities. There wasn't much that was new in the book. It consists mostly of standard patriarchy theory: the idea that masculinity is a construct and that it provides men with a "patriarchal dividend" at the expense of women. Therefore, social justice requires the deconstruction of masculinity. But how to do it? Connell argues in Masculinities that there are many masculinities but that one is "hegemonic". This is an idea borrowed from Gramsci. It means that there is one form of masculinity which manages to get itself accepted as authoritative and that through this the existing values of society are upheld. Therefore, there cannot be transformative change until the hegemonic masculinity is deconstructed. But Connell recognises that a sense of masculinity is embedded in the male personality and that it is formed in part through bodily practices (such as sport). So what's required is not just a change in patriarchal institutions. What is needed is a change in the male personality and bodily practices. Men need to be degendered in body and in personality. Connell's book was highly successful. He became the world's leading theorist of masculinity. The charity Oxfam, for instance, believes that its role is to secure gender equity by transforming masculinity throughout the world. The information on its website is clearly drawn from Connell's work: Throughout the organization, we will base our work on a common understanding that gender equality is key to overcoming poverty and suffering.

[this requires a consideration of] the invisibility of gender issues to most men and the notion of the patriarchal dividend (i.e. the privileges that all men draw upon simply by virtue of being male) ... the dominance of specific forms of (hegemonic) masculinity; how masculinities are actively constructed; the costs associated with masculinity for both men and women; and the dynamic nature of masculinities over time. Hegemonic masculinity is a concept that draws upon the ideas of Gramsci. It refers to the dynamic cultural process which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women. Again, just to illustrate how serious Oxfam is about transforming masculinity here are some additional ideas from its website: Oxfams approach to poverty the importance of gender analysis The study highlights the importance of coherent gender analysis Gender analysis is central to Oxfams understanding of the root causes of global poverty if gender relations are to be transformed Changing masculinities, changing men masculinities are actively produced by individuals, rather than being programmed by genes It is sometimes argued that being natural masculinity is impervious to reform. But our research demonstrates the reverse Clearly there are risks involved in attempts to reshape masculinity Again, Connell is the most frequently cited authority in this

document written for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The document reminds readers that the UN has called for a "transformative change" to achieve gender equity. Masculinity, it is claimed, stands in the way of "progress" toward a new world order of centralised, global government and increasing ethnic diversity: In effect, masculinity becomes a rhetorical currency by which opposition to global integration, state centralization and increasing ethnic heterogeneity can be mobilized. (p.4) It is Connell who is again looked to as the expert authority on the matter: Typically, as Connell notes (1998: 17), hardline masculine fundamentalism goes together with a marked antiinternationalism. (p.4) So Connell managed to become an international authority on masculinity, or at least the deconstruction thereof. But this is where we get to the dramatic twist in the story. In his book Masculinities Connell anticipated that the aim of degendering men in their bodily practices and in their personalities would arouse opposition. In particular, it would arouse the fear that a process of degendering men would turn men into women: If the problem is basically about masculinity, structural change should follow from a remaking of personality. (p.230) ...emotional turmoil and guilt feelings ... are a measure of the resistance even in favourable circumstances. In other circumstances the project will be rejected out of hand as an attempt to turn men into women. It follows that a degendering strategy, an attempt to dismantle hegemonic masculinity, is unavoidable.

The degendering strategy applies not only at the level of culture and institutions, but also at the level of the body the ground chosen by defenders of patriarchy, where the fear of men being turned into women is most poignant. (p.232) What we are moving towards is indeed "something rich & strange"; and therefore, necessarily, a source of fear as well as desire. (p.234) The reason I highlighted these passages is this: Robert Connell is no longer legally a man. He has, it seems, had sex change surgery, legally changed his identity, and transformed himself into Raewyn Connell. Below is a photo of the radically transformed Robert Connell. Given that Robert Connell took this drastic step, I think we're entitled to ask some questions. Did Robert Connell always feel conflicted in his own masculinity? Does this help to explain his feeling of estrangement from mainstream masculinity? Or his repeated claims that men needed to change their bodily practices to more feminine ones of nurturing babies? Or did the theory itself push Connell to view masculinity as so malignant that it had to be physically cut away? Or did the theory, with its emphasis on the bodily transformation of men, lead Connell to arrive at the radical solution shown? At any rate, the idea that the great project of liberation is to degender men's bodies and personalities, is associated in the case of its founder with a result that won't appeal to too many men.

VAWA: Pure Government Evil

- Anonymous

Dear Senators Leahy, Sessions and Honorable members of the Committee: I am writing regarding the May 5, 2010 Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act. I find it interesting that the only individuals and groups who are invited to testify in front of the committee are ones who directly benefit from the billions given out via the continued re-funding of this act. This funding, since 1994 has been granted through half-truths, fear mongering, one sided testimony and outright deception. I have also mailed my story to one newspaper for every state in our union since all working Americans fund this program via tax dollars that are destroying men, children and families under the guise of protecting females from abuse. I am college educated and also an honorably discharged veteran and a firm believer that strong families equal a strong society. With that said, I have made mistakes during a 10 year marriage and I will be the first to admit it. But let this much be clear, I have never in my life ever laid a hand on a woman, including my ex-wife, nor my four children. The nightmare of my divorce was a simple but common one. I was served on a Thursday by her attorney and by the following Tuesday I was in jail for domestic violence. After being served with the papers, I made it a point not to contact her until I was properly represented by an attorney. Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, however, would change my life forever, beginning what can only be described as a descent into hell. At the time, I held the title of director of sales for a national company with over 200 individuals under my direct supervision. That morning at 9:30, I received a call from my ex-wife that admittedly turned very bitter on both sides of the conversation. The thrust of her call was that through her attorney she was going to make me pay and ensure she got full custody of our children and then she would make sure I would only be able to see them when she lets me.

At some point she hung up the phone or we lost the connection. I tried to call her back, with no response, so I set my phone feature to auto-dial that would call until she answered. I left the phone on my desk to take care of another issue at work and turned it off about a half an hour later. At 11:30 AM, 3 police officers showed up and took me into custody in front of my employees and my supervisors. Previous to this day, I had never been in trouble with the law, but still I was arrested, booked and thrown into a holding cell with men wearing both the blue and orange jumpsuits. Thinking this was just a misunderstanding, I tried to reason with the officers at the jail but was immediately taken, stripped naked in an another open cell right in front of two women; not police officers, but detainees. Standing there naked, embarrassed and scared, I was given the green suicide jacket and left under loose supervision in a holding cell. The door later opened and another inmate wearing a green padded suit was let in. After talking with this individual for a bit, I found out he was in custody for felony assault and aggravated robbery. Then he stood up, defecated in his hands and wiped it all over the floor and his body. Needless to say, I begged to be let out of the cell and finally, 7 hours later, about 11 PM, after promising not to hurt myself, I was taken out of the suicide watch and processed into general population. I was locked into a cell and told that I would see the judge in the morning. Putting into words the desperation and sadness I felt is not something I am able to do, but I can say with absolute authority, it was not only the longest but also the darkest night of my life. In the morning, the cell door opened and I was ushered into another holding area in preparation to be transported to county court. In this cell were approximately 45 other individuals waiting as well and it was another mixture of the orange and blue, or more accurately, those accused of felonies and misdemeanors.

I remember standing against the wall. (Actually trying to melt into it) minding my own business, praying, begging in my mind for that door to open. After what seemed like an eternity, we were ushered like cattle out of the cell and ordered to put our nose on the wall and then kneel on the bench that lined the hallway. We were then administered shackles around our ankles, waists and wrists. Walking with shackles is not easy, but I knew in my mind that the judge would see how silly this situation was and everything would be back to normal in no time. It was clear I was going to learn the realities domestic violence enforcement the hard way. I was loaded into a van with 5 other domestic abusers and we made our journey to the courthouse. We were locked into a cell down the hallway from the courtroom and waited our turn for justice. We were all brought to a table where a District Attorney offered us a fast track program that would drop all of our charges if we went to DV classes and fulfilled a two year probation. I knew I was no abuser so I refused the offer and said I wanted to see the judge. We were walked into the courtroom and one by one, each individual I took the van ride with stood and took the DAs offer. I was called to the podium and when asked what my plea was, I retorted,This is just a divorce situation, you can see that cant you? When I asked what I was charged with, the reply was menacing and harassment. Of course Im not guilty of that I said. So I was given a personal recognizance bond with my not guilty plea and sent back to the cage down the hall. About 20 minutes later, the officer that drove us down to the courthouse came in with papers for me to sign. I was, from that point forward, restrained from having any contact with my ex wife, but more importantly my own children. I asked why I was not able to defend myself when this was decided; the officer replied that it was decided in a hearing that took place while I was in jail the day before. No opportunity to respond, no chance to defend myself, no right to be a father, until otherwise ordered. I was out of jail but would later find out that I had to prove I was a good father, rather than just be one. Good enough to be a dad every day before this day, but now I was in the position of proving I even had any right to be with my own children, stemming from an argument between two parents.

I checked my voicemail when I got home and found out that I had been fired. It turns out that having three officers arrest you at work over a phone call is a pretty embarrassing thing to happen. So, no children and no more $70,000.00 per year position either. Once I had a chance to explain the truth to my boss, I was offered a sales position but not my old one back as a leader due to the perception in the office. I turned it down. I had to focus on the permanent restraining order hearing coming up and I had to find an attorney to represent me in those proceedings. Having paid a total of $10,000.00 to an attorney, I would go in now for round two. That hearing was postponed and the magistrate, knowing I had not been convicted of a crime, and seeing I had no prior criminal record, a solid work history and hearing testimony from all sides, decided to let me see my children, when her parents were around to watch me. Its called supervised visitation, or, being innocent and treated like a criminal that needs to be watched, and evaluated based on your exes parents watching the contact and reporting back to the magistrate. This, honorable Senators, is what is happening to innocent fathers in this country each and every day. This supervision went on for months. I showed up, played with them, had dinner with them, got them ready for bed, brushed their teeth, and read to them from books. Most of all I can remember kissing them on their heads goodnight and then getting into my car, tears streaming down my face, only to go home alone, unable to sleep, unable to eat and unable to find any semblance of happiness. Being restrained from the kids also meant that I missed my little girls first day of Kindergarten. I was able to see them, but was restrained from the school per the ex-parte hearing. Again, I cant articulate the pain associated with that day, but I know many other Fathers out there are going through the same thing. It is cruel and unusual punishment, without so much as a crime ever having been proven. I sucked it up and did what I had to do. I went back and forth to court and finally was granted unsupervised visitation. Its a shame to say that in todays America a father would actually be proud of that; would see it as a victory, but this is the America that VAWA brings us. Eventually, I ran out of money for legal representation. This is what happens when courts and attorneys drag things

out, bleeding people of their resources. So, I had to represent myself at the end of both the divorce and DV cases. As part of the divorce decree, in which I was given unsupervised access to my children, I had to show her parents a house with a bedroom for each of them. I had to get an SUV, as my children were all too young to sit in the front seat, and I also agreed to a $2,400.00 per month Alimony/Child Support arrangement, per my past three years of income potential. And the best part, I was told to pay her attorney over $10,000.00 for her decision to divorce. Nevertheless, based on my past performance, I thought No sweat, on any of those issues. Im a proven winner in the corporate world. At least I get to be a father to my kids! After this fantastic performance on my own in the divorce (so I thought), I knew that defending myself in the DV case would generate a similar victory. So I went into the pre-trial portion of the case and made motions to dismiss based on: Violations of Due process of law I argued that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. Arrest without a warrant, the officer must first witness a crime being committed. Violations of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Keeping in mind that under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, citizens are guaranteed due process under the law; throwing out evidence as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree; Violation of a speedy trial; we were approaching a year, and the whammy, her 911 tape/impact statement. So I went in and every single one of my arguments was thrown out. VAWA, I learned, trumps the constitution. I did get the Menacing charge dropped, proving no imminent danger was present, the basis of the entire case, but they were still going forward with the harassment charge. The thing about the harassment charge is that they were still attaching a domestic violence tag to it since we were intimate partners. So I was out of money and soundly beaten by the DA in the pre-trial hearing. I went in the day of the trail and with no other options, forced to plead guilty to harassment. This case too was changed to another Judge at the last minute, so my options were limited. I had no attorney and no preparation done to defend myself in a trial, so I took the plea and was put on two years probation, with 24 domestic violence classes mandated. I went to the first class and listened to men talk themselves through why they were there. Then a guy stood up and said he was there because he set his daughter on fire for turning off the football game he was watching. What? Are

you kidding me? He set his own daughter on fire? Then I find out in order to graduate, under the Duluth Model, I had to admit being a perpetrator of violence against women. What? Are You kidding me? I have to admit what? That was the first and only class I attended. Then the economy happened and I was one of many who were hit hard by the downturn. I was unable to keep up with my court ordered payments. As I write this, my legal bills and court costs and support payments sit at $48,000.00. My father passed away this year and my mother is on her deathbed, so my small inheritance, all of what my parents worked for, will go to satisfy that. After the divorce was final, my ex made it a point to make it very difficult to allow me to see them at their location and she would not have them brought to me. The final conversation I had with her was this: We are divorcedyoure not invited over here. Your trick in court was nice with the 911 tape, but all I need to do is make another call. That stopped me in my tracks. Spending a night in that cell, courtesy of VAWA, and a false allegation, literally scared me out of trying to see my own children. Especially knowing first hand that my ex is right. Thats the world now, and another call is all it takes. In my mind there was only one choice to be made: My Freedom Or My Kids. She remarried within the year after the divorce. I wonder to myself daily, are they told to call him Dad? Is he a good guy? What are they told about me? Are they healthy? Happy? Do they miss me? Do they think about me? Can my little one ride a bike yet? One thing that comes with a DV charge on your record is that finding a job becomes all the more difficult, compounding all issues associated with this situation. I have been told, We dont employ wife beaters, and, HR said your too much of a risk due to your violence issue. With no income, I was evicted from my town home, lost all of my furniture, defaulted on the SUV, but above all and most important, lost my children. I have not seen them in over 2 years and every single day

that goes by takes another piece of my soul along with my hope. I often wonder how I can get back the chance of being a father. The sad truth of it is I cant. You see, the agenda today is intentional propaganda that a man does not want to be part of his childs life. We are called deadbeats, abusers, selfish and uncaring. As the VAWA implies by its very name, All men are violent. All women are victims. Any lawyer today knows how to ruin a man in the divorce process, using this silver bullet to undermine what it means to be a father. Jobs by the thousands are created under this act and more are created via the biased testimony given on Capitol Hill, from only those that have something to gain when its re-funded. Think about how many individuals are employed through Domestic Violence industry. The more arrests made, the more funding a state gets from the Federal Government. The more fathers that fall behind on child support after not being able to find good employment from this act, the more enforcers are needed to track them down. The more the VAWA is manipulated, the more Police Officers, DAs, Attorneys, Jails, Corrections Officers, Shelter Workers, Victims Advocates, Judges, Case Workers, Defense Attorneys, Therapists, Lobbyists, Politicians and Feminist positions are created and funded. Millions of stable homes are turned into millions of single mother homes creating millions of fatherless children. Since 1994 that is what this act has given America under the premise of protecting women. Having my fundamental, God given right to be a father taken from me for monetary/political reasons is not American, nor is it right, and it certainly is not the constitutional values I served honorably to uphold in the military. Make no mistake, violence against anyone is always wrong . So is, however, the heavy handed destruction of men, boys and families based on the ever expanding definition of what violence is. I understand that the billions of dollars generated from taxpayers via this act is a hard thing to turn down. Then again, the choice is yours to make. Billions of dollars, or both loving parents after divorce. Billions of dollars or families. Billions of dollars to keep the Silver Bullet alive and well for divorce attorneys to use to destroy a man, since it has been made so tragically easy to do.

To make it simple: Billions of dollars to continue the destruction of our society. At the end of the day, Im not a fool and I know the choice will be money. President Obama will lecture men this Fathers Day that we need to be knocked over the head once in awhile. Vice President Biden will still call this his greatest achievement. Senator Reid will get up and let everyone know that when men lose jobs in this economy, they beat their women. Senator Boxer will let us all know that Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition. Taking Billions from taxpayers every year to continue to fund this act is shameful, sexist but more importantly a clear violation of the Constitution. It does little to help those that need it; rather it funds the destruction of the family on an ever increasing scale by lining the pockets of groups that desire the family unit irrelevant, and they are succeeding at an alarming rate. Since I know nothing will change, I would ask that you take a small portion of those billions we as working taxpayers give to this act, and put out a national PSA telling men to walk on eggshells at home, never raise his voice (rather whisper), ask them to say yes dear, you are right, I am so sorry on every occasion. Dont ask her to slow down her shopping if you cant afford the mortgage payment. Never direct negative comments toward her about anything and never, ever, give your partner an angry stare. If nothing will change, that is the least our government can do to make men and boys aware of the enormous danger they face in any relationship as a result of this act. It would be a sad day in America to keep everything the same and allow even more men and fathers to walk the same plank to Hell that I was forced to walk, via a now standard divorce strategy that works to perfection. Then again, its not morning in America anymore. Its midnight, for men, boys and families. Sincerely, A Father.

Masculinity Redefined?
- John Hembling

Ive heard feminist apologists declare that feminism is a social movement dedicated to the promotion of equal rights between men and women. Im sure youve heard this too, and if you werent paying close attention when you heard it, you might have believed it. You might think, if unfamiliar or unimpressed by mens movement literature, that any statement to the contrary is nothing but reactionary, anti woman patriarchal atavism. If thats the case it puts you in common company. The tenets of the feminist movement are, for the most part, accepted by most people living in the western world. Feminist ideology now holds a majority share of public perception of reality. Feminism informs the policies and decisions made in our law courts, it controls the climate of the workplace, it rules with absolute fiat in our family courts. It also informs the difference in the way police treat male and female citizens. If a man is assaulted by his female spouse and calls the police, he will be arrested. If a man is assaulted by his female spouse and attempts to defend himself- without doing any violence to his attacker, he will be arrested. The assumption informing this bizarre outcome is that he must have committed some offense against his assailant, thus justifying her attack on him, and his subsequent arrest. One problem with this is that even granting the assumption of prior offense by the male victim of an assault in such a case, western law does not operate on an eye for an eye dictum. Prior insult or injury is not legal justification for personal violence. A man who assaulted another man because in the past, he was assaulted by that man would find no sympathy at all from either the police, or the courts. When a parallel situation involves a woman committing violence against a man, not only is she excused based on her being a victim of who she is now assaulting, the

victimization is assumed by the police and courts regardless of whether any such prior event occurred, and with no inquiry. A narrative of victimization and justification is fabricated to support the ideology that women are good, and men are bad. Men are assumed to be aggressors and villains, and women are characterized as poor, cartoonish victims, regardless the actual behavior of either party. Do gender feminists recognize that in promoting this social pattern, they are casting members of their own sex as perpetual children? An ostensibly adult woman for whom violence is excused based on a real or imagined prior injustice is not really an adult. How far does this fantasy go? Apparently, a long way as the female centrism dominating so much of modern life is incongruent with a concept of personal accountability for women in any dealings with men. This pattern works for the reality divorced, which is to say that it works for the culture at large. The monopoly on force held by the government inflicts a standardized profemale outcome ignoring the perverse marginalization of men necessary to maintain the gender feminist narrative. Thats the narrative that claims women have always been oppressed, and men, through some sinister conspiracy are the ones oppressing them. Debunking this fantasy is beyond the scope of this article, and would in any case be redundant. The question which does bear consideration is what is the logical outcome of continued normalization of a fantasy which equates masculinity as crime, and femininity as innate superiority, while also needing steeply tilted playing field encompassing continued affirmative action, public funding of historical revision, thought police, differential treatment by law enforcement and so on.

Do gender feminists really want their fathers, brothers, sons and husbands to be caged, hobbled, and enslaved as bipedal beasts of burden? How long can the illusion be maintained that men laboring as legislated nonpersons in a tiered society are in fact the sinister oppressors of that society? Alternately, are we all now ready to adopt a public ethic that the real or imagined crimes made by members of some antiquarian historical patriarchy should be revenged on half our population, based on their sex? Are we to systematize hereditary imaginary guilt? No. Even assuming actual guilt by past generations, culpability is non transferable. This is a basic foundation of ethics, both legal and moral, at least as I understand it. Do Gender feminists want to enslave and scourge half the population based on their sex? It sometimes seems like it, when you listen to gender feminists. But I really dont know the answer to that. What I do know is that a small segment of the male population are no longer willing to play this game according to the established rules. I count myself as a part of this small group. What should be interesting to an alert observer is that the traditional concepts of reward and punishment that have, for thousands of years been used with great success to curb self actualization in males who would chafe in the class bondage of traditional society are increasingly ineffective as a means of social control today. Paul Elam some time ago wrote an article in which he coined the term Zeta male. This is not an alpha male, and its not a beta male, and it isnt anything which fits into the traditional social hierarchy. It is, in my own shaky grasp of the concept a wholly self determined and self defined man. Elam is one, I am one. I am proud to be. Detractors of masculinity, of the mens rights movement, and apologists for gender feminists will be quick to define men forging this new role as losers, malcontents, failures

and so on. Some of the pejorative will sting, because malcontent is true, but its incomplete, and patently misleading. There is more to this than just some sour grapes redefinition of failure as success, and there is a fundamental difference between simply being an entitled malcontent, and the experience of anger at institutionalized and organized discrimination. Out of that anger, many mens rights advocates are redefining masculinity and success using a yardstick in defiance of the definitions gender feminists use to exert control. Before the full catalog of shaming language can be unlimbered and brought to bear, let me mention a few things about my own motivation and aspiration. I will never be married. Is this because Im a loser who cant get a woman? I get that in my YouTube channel email with regularity. The thing is I have a job, a pretty good one doing something I enjoy and which challenges me. I happen to own the company I work for. Were making a profit and expanding. In spite of this apparent material success, I am an invisible man, and I mean to remain one, at least to the forces that threaten me as a man. That does not mean that we in the mens rights movement hate you feminists. We certainly dont hate you as women. We dont even hate the male apologists for female supremacy who foolishly seek to ingratiate themselves with women through some form of public self flagellation and self loathing. We are simply finished with being vilified, criminalized, marginalized and stripped of our earnings, our homes and our children. The Zeta male is inventing a new path, and we are leaving you behind. You are, of course, welcome to join us, because as I said, we dont hate you; but we wont be following the rules as you understand them anymore. John Hembling is a Canadian writer and social commentator. His videos can be seen on YouTube on the JohnTheOther Channel.

The Myth of Women's Oppression

- Bernard Chapin

One of the most impressive ideas Ive ever heard was put forth by Christopher Hitchens in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian. He believes that we always profit from debating our opponents as the act of responding to one another propels us towards the ultimate truth. Based on my experiences, Hitchens is absolutely right. Just as doing sets of bench presses cause our muscles to grow, the mind is strengthened by the process of intellectual exchange. Interaction with our enemies makes us fitter. All of this is undeniable and essential to the marketplace of ideas, but, sadly, the situation today is far different than it was in the past. Political correctness has eroded both civility and the possibility of dispassionate contention. Should one contradict the inflexible views of the cultural Marxist, then one is dismissed as a spouter of hate speech as opposed to someone who may have a legitimate point-of-view. Theres little likelihood that this will ever change as unfettered response negates the possibility of indoctrination which is exactly why PC became practiced in the first place. Only by labeling their foes with a namesuch as hater, racist, homophobe, sexist, and/or misogynistcan leftist anti-liberals win the moral high ground allowing them to overlook the arguments made against them. The tossing of isms is a horrific replacement for logic and accuracy because they are rehearsed and tell us nothing about real people. Resorting to such a tactic only illustrates weakness; a weakness of which we on the other side have long been aware. Their strange perception of the world is rarely an outcome of reality or reason. I think that a lot of their positions satisfy psychologically for one reason or another. Their skewed predilections supply them with a crutch

throughout life. Spinning webs of conspiracy and fable alternately stimulate and sooth, and also are a way in which to control their environment. For this reason, we can never hope to convince them of anything at all. Our battles are chiefly of indirect benefit alone. They are a way in which to persuade intentional or unintentional observers as to the rightness of our cause. Hearing us or seeing our words may be the only intellectual diversity which some students ever encounter. We should not blame younger people for repeating mindless non-sense if mindless non-sense is the only information they have ever received. We offer them an alternative; without it, theyll think that submission to white guiltists, female supremacists, emotioniacs, socialists, racists, and those who think that Majdanek is a synonym for America is their only option. In no area is debate more tenuous than with the feminists and their coveted myth of womens oppression. Their privilege renders them far above any fray. We make logical arguments while our foes brand us as woman haters and sexists. Our responses to isms are ignored as they continue to go about the business of remaking the justice system, society, and our personal relationships. Yet, like most other situations, there are always deviations from the set pattern. One such irregularity occurred today when I got a response to a piece that I wrote about the ridiculousness of regarding women as oppressed. I have no idea who or what the person is, but one of the guys termed him a mangina[i] which is probably true enough. At any rate, I thank him for his rejoinder because his words helped crystallize my positions and Ill respond to him momentarily. Ironically, the idea that women are not oppressed received independent confirmation from the Baltimore Sun. If there were any truth to the idea that men sit atop the social

hierarchy then one would not expect them to have published Ms. Dombrowskis scathing criticism of the patriarchy, but they did. My response, however, was rejected. The editor told me, Thanks for the offer, but I cant use this on the op-ed page.[ii] Shouldnt my genitalia have opened the door to privilege? Are Women Objectified? Lets go over this again: women are not objectified by menperiod. We know this to be true as men do not gaze or interact with women in the same manner they do objects. Allow me to ask my brothers reading this as to what objects they affix their male gaze as they do women? I am sure the answer is none. Men behold women in a fashion unlike anything else on earth. One examines the fairer sex differently from the way one studies a monitor, an oven, a refrigerator, a hose, a book, a building, and a car. No, women are clearly not objectified by men. No object absorbs a mans attention like a woman. One becomes habituated to many things but never women. Objectification is an argument so poor that it cannot even stand up to a puppys first breath. The argument was raised that women looking at pictures of themselves in magazines is also a form of objectification [I know, I cant believe it either] but this is false as well. Those women who gaze at other women are perfectly aware of their being flesh and blood as opposed to objects. For whatever reason they may come to ogle a picture, their eyes do so with the realization that whats on the page is a person and not a thing. Being a compulsive shopper or consumer certainly is shallow in my estimation, but one does not become an object by participating in such activities. If we define objectified as meaning appreciated for then we can find some common ground on the topic. Men appreciate women for their youth and beauty, but they are not dehumanized by our doing so; no more than men are dehumanized by women appreciating them for their wealth, status, and security at any rate. The Comfy Patriarchy Means That there is no patriarchy. Radical feminists pathologically refuse to acknowledge how blessed and easy their lives are, but, when pressed, they occasionally admit that the patriarchy is not an oppressive system in any of the

traditional meanings of the word. One made mention to me that we do not live in a Planet of the Apes society but remain a patriarchy nonetheless. If the patriarchy commits crimes that we cannot see, hear, or catch then it isnt much of a patriarchy at all. One cannot be oppressed in a society in which one has been given an infinite number of rights and benefits. If it looks like the good life, feels like the good life, but ones own internal inadequacies prevent them from enjoying it, then it remains the good life. These feminists should learn to be more critical of themselves and take it easier on those around them. Theyll be much more happy and productive if they do. Some, like Susan Faludi, have argued that men are harmed by the patriarchy, but this cannot possibly be true for the reasons she outlined. Pressure to conform to the standards of masculinity is something that troubles few men. What we really long for is the right to be ourselves which is exactly the opposite of what Faludi and many others hold. Competitiveness, vigor, valor, and responsibility are manly virtues even if they are found in women as well. With therapism and emotion celebrated over bravery, honor, and effort, our society has become the complete antithesis of a patriarchy. That our society is closer to being a matriarchy than anything else is a very real cause of frustration to many men. The Real Misogynists: That women wish to raise children is not a social construct. It is an effect of biology shaping personality. This was known to Simone de Beauvoir who said: No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[iii] Things havent changed since she died and they wont for as long as we remain humans. Linda Hirshman wrote Get Back to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World in which she insists that women stop putting their own needs and desires before her leftist-socialist ideals. Here we see once again why feminazi is such a rich and valuable term of description. When women, or anybody else for that matter, disagree with these totalitarian types they are quick to dismiss their opinions as arising from false

consciousness. Its their way or youre an ism. Why cant they just respect other peoples diversity? Thinking that women dont know whats actually good for them is the height of condescension and misogyny. That they need imbalanced feministas to make their decisions is absurd. In this way, feminists, the self-proclaimed protectors of women, are the oppressors. Free men, who only expect women to be no more or less responsible than ourselves, are falsely accused in the hopes of obfuscating the issue. If women want to stay home or work they should make the decision for on their own, and not out of a concern for what the media, society or some pathetic harpies think. Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Men's Studies: the Complete Freak

- Paul Elam

A disgraced shyster. A male feminist comedian that admits to being sexist and prone to violence. A transsexual. A grandiose, pathological exaggerator. A supporter of domestic violence perpetrators. A McCarthyesque academic thug out to get anyone around him that doesnt have their mind right. And a gaggle of puffy, self loathing, pseudo intellectual neer do wells; the inhabitants of a picaresque house of postmodern freaks. No, this isnt the set up for a work of comic fiction, but rather an unblinking look at a real life cadre of laughable gender activists in the world of mens studies. And by their stranger than fiction behavior, they amplify the meaning of Jonathan Swifts famous words, When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: That all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. In this case, the genius isnt a man, but an idea. Male studies. It is admittedly radical in that it is a proposed discipline intended to further scholarly investigation that would actually benefit men and boys without feminist permission or approval. In another time, perhaps, this would only be sensible. But in todays world, it is genius. And the mere mention of it has set these less than relevant academic autocrats, this Mens Studies Confederacy of Dunces, on the warpath. And so they have appointed themselves the defenders of feminist orthodoxy; the male guardians of misandry in academe. It is fitting, then, that they are now introduced to the larger world of men; that they be seen, even as they sit on their stools in the corner, for exactly who they are, right up to the very tops of their pointed hats. All of them belong to, or are in some way affiliated, with two mens [sic] organizations called the American Mens Studies Association (AMSA) and the National Organization

for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS). Those are the new age fig leafed boys clubs, so lets meet their versions of the alpha dogs. Barry Goldstein Well start with Barry Goldstein, JD., who is listed on the NOMAS website as their co chair on child custody. He is also an expert witness on domestic violence and has written a book on the subject, Scared to Leave, Afraid to Stay: Paths from Family Violence to Safety. The book chronicles the experiences of ten females, alleged to be victims of domestic violence, including, get this, how the courts abused these women for seeking help. But even aside from the idea that courts discriminate against battered women, theres a credibility problem here. Goldstein had his law license suspended by a New York appellate court for deceit, fraud and misrepresentation. The laundry list of charges against him stemmed from two cases. One was misappropriation of funds involving his representation of a not-for-profit tenants housing resource center. The other was from his involvement in the Gina Shockome divorce case, which was a feminist cause clbre in New York just a few years back. In an internet article he wrote about the case, he accused the presiding judge of denying his client due process and of causing her to suffer PTSD, among a slew of other accusations he leveled at the court. None of it turned out to be true, or at least provable, and that was added to the charges against him. Perhaps the most comical of Goldsteins antics was to claim to the court during the Shockome case that he had a seen a video tape that showed a court appointed supervisor had slept for 15-20 minutes during a visit. When the court demanded that Goldstein produce the tape he claimed to have lost it. During one court appearance, he claimed the

video tape was in his car, and later, at another appearance, he denied ever having had the tape in his car or anywhere else. Well, apparently, to Goldsteins misfortune, his dog didnt eat the tape, which was about the only excuse he didnt offer. Officials eventually acquired it, and after viewing the video, the court stated, Anyone looking at that video will see that there is nothing on that video that suggests that [the supervisor] was asleep for 20 minutes. It seems that Goldstein was caught lying like a, well, like a crooked lawyer. And misappropriating money like one, too. Among some of the other complaints was that Goldstein repeatedly defied a court directive to refrain from calling the father in the case, who was eventually awarded custody, the abuser as there was no proof to support such a statement. Imagine that. Additionally, in the last 60 days, the Supreme Court of neighboring Pennsylvania disbarred attorney Barry Goldstein. Despite all of this being a matter of public record, NOMAS retains the now legally defunct Goldstein as an elected member of its national council. Ben Atherton-Zeman Perhaps his presence there is actually funnier than that of another council member that touts himself as a professional comedian. Any sense of ironic metaphor notwithstanding, Ben Atherton-Zeman, hyphenated surname and all, is the designated spokesman, excuse me, spokesperson, for NOMAS. He lists among his primary qualifications that he is an actor and a comedian; that he does impersonations and that he is a feminist. Impressive credentials, but given the circumstances in the organization, its probably good that they dont require a license. Among many notable statements attributed to AthertonZeman is that he identifies himself as a recovering sexist and believes that every man should challenge sexism and violence, in the world, and in themselves. Let us hope that there is a mental health professional on

the board at NOMAS. Perhaps with some counseling, Bens projection of his personal struggles with sexism and violence onto the entire male sex can be resolved. Or, if he can identify the women he discriminated against and people he battered before getting into recovery, he can make amends to them as a part of the healing. He might benefit from a referral to Doug Gertner, another NOMAS National Council Member. Gertner, it seems, has considerable experience counseling men, particularly young fathers for whom he runs a Boot Camp for New Dads. But there is a concern about that one, too. The boot camp looks to have a problem with condoning and enabling domestic violence. Seriously. According to information reported on their website, the young male recruits in his basic training have made reports of their hormone driven mates sometimes using them as a punching bag. Gertners answer to the abuse? Well, there isnt one. After all, if a young soldier cant take an ass kicking with his mouth closed, who can? He sends them home with a new sense of confidence. Perhaps it is from their reeducation. No intervention on the violence. No protection. No concerns. Gertner just ignores the assaults and issues marching orders for his young men to go home and take it. National Organization for Men Against What? Also, NOMAS President Robert Brannon penned a piece on their site, Does Consensual Prostitution Exist?, in which he implies that female prostitutes are not competent enough to make informed decisions on what to do with their own bodies, and tacitly implies their male customers are raping them. Men Against What? Perhaps the best explanation for NOMAS as an acronymic misnomer can be found in their motto, Pro feminist, gay affirmative, anti racist, enhancing mens lives. As you take a trip through their website, you get a sobering dose of what they mean by enhancing mens lives; they demonize anything masculine and further every anti male sexist stereotype imaginable, including a wholesale

endorsement of the New York Model for batterer programs. That program explicitly sees all domestic violence as male perpetrated, despite the overwhelming proof that it just isnt so. And with that endorsement they embrace a proscription on any notion of counseling or treatment for batterers in favor of criminal consequences. Do you hear that Mr. Atherton-Zeman? There is no recovery. You are unfixable. Please turn yourself in to the nearest authorities. And bring the rest of the male sex with you. The NOMAS mission is enhancement through sexism, bigotry and incarceration. And they are steadfastly working to further those ideas. AMSA, a similarly misnamed organization, with a similarly misleading mission, turns out to be just as misandric as NOMAS, with a crew no less motley than their abhorrent brothers. But they are significantly more dangerous if taken seriously, which an unfortunate few in the mainstream media have done. Robert Heasley After the recent conference on male studies in April, AMSA president Robert Heasley was spotted in places like Forbes.com complaining that the new discipline wasnt really new, but actually an unnecessary redundancy. Regarding male studies he told Forbes Their argument is that theyre inventing something I think already exists. That sentiment was also expressed by Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland, which is basically an attack manual for use against almost all men and on women who dont subscribe to feminism. Kimmel admonished me personally not to think that male studies was anything new, and informed me that a robust and healthy field of Masculinity Studies already exists, and is well institutionalized in the US and abroad. He also went on to boast, I myself have been working to build this field for nearly thirty years. Michael Kimmel These would seem to be two of the authorities on mens studies, such as they are; The President of AMSA and a well regarded author on masculinities. Both are touting the idea that any new approach to studying men is unnecessary, but perhaps, as Heasley suggested, Why not just add some new classes? [to already existing studies] The question becomes where to add them actually.

Despite Kimmels assertion of the fields vitality and Heasleys call for male studies to be surrendered to mens studies, here is the track record. After thirty years of Kimmels personal work and AMSAs group contribution, the field has yielded the following degrees awarded in mens studies. Ph.D. 0 Masters 0 Bachelors 0 Associates 0 That is correct, after three decades of effort, begging for (and then spending) money, and the current territorial, defensive reaction we are witnessing from the mens studies leadership, we are left with a discipline that for all practical purposes does not exist, except in a handful of publications and in the minds of an intellectually incestuous group of ideologues seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. I think I understand Kimmels thinking very well now. Exactly squat = robust and healthy. No degrees = well institutionalized. A man could run for elected office on the tricks from academe. And win. The lack of substance in Masculinities is apparently in direct proportion to a lack of substance in those who supposedly study it. It isnt just Kimmel and Heasley. And a quick look at AMSA conference literature reveals even more. At one of their more recent conferences, all of which appear to float on paper submissions from grad students and even some undergraduates, the focus of mens studies is revealed in all its irrelevant glory. Here are a few of the topics presented: Contemporary Queer Cinema in a Mens Studies Curriculum Masculinities in Play: Examining Hegemonic and Technomasculinity in Action-adventure Video Games

A Queer Greenwood Beyond the Cricket Pitch: Queer Sporting Masculinities in the writings of E.M. Forster, D.H. Lawrence and Edward Carpenter Foucalt and Parenting: A Feminist Essay of Personal Reflection and Application What are You? Transvestism in Octavia Butlers Kindred and Fledgling Black Gay (Queer) Masculine Studies: Insights from Richard Bruce Nugent And Differently Straight Guys: How Did That Happen? Setting an example for such scholarly pursuits relevant to the average man is Dr. Christopher Kilmartin, a former comic (yes, another comedian) who recently presented the master lecture, Guy Fi: The Fiction that Rule Mens Lives How they have avoided a wild proliferation of university courses and degree programs in this discipline is mind boggling, unless you consider that the mens studies group is actually representative of, and obsessed with, about 4% of the male population, while condemning and attacking the other 96%. Paying attention to the issues of homosexuals and the transgendered has its place in modern culture, but to use that agenda to play a part in hoodwinking people into believing you are addressing the lives of men in general demonstrates a deficit in integrity and a pathological drive to ensure the problems of the great majority of men and boys are either ignored or exacerbated, or both. Its bullshit. And not just bullshit that helps a bunch of middle aged, meagerly accomplished men get together once a year to feel important and mark the progress of receding hairlines, but crazy, mean spirited bullshit that draws attention away from some very serious problems in our society. Raewyn Connell- Masculinities Guru And how could we ever have expected a different outcome? The circus of mens studies has gone so far astray that they have coalesced around an ultimate masculinities icon, Raewyn Connell, who is a tranny. He opted to have his balls cut off and started wearing dresses, at least publicly, about four years ago. And note that Connell isnt just an

icon for mens studies, but the icon. The widely published and acclaimed Connell is roundly regarded by the entire mens studies community the erudite harbinger of forward thinking modern masculinity, sans the penis and testicles, of course. Theres your study of men, men. And if you dont like it, theyll sure nuff don a strap on and take care o bidness. Harry Brod Recently AMSA board member Harry Brod (no, not even in this gender bending train wreck of a true story did I make that name up) wrote an editorial on the AMSA website in which he departed from the notion that male studies was a repeat of mens studies and opted to just paint the entire new discipline as bullshit, using that exact word, though with not the same credulity as when it is used to describe his own arena. He invoked the surgically altered Connell, though, to vilify the new discipline as just another excuse to ignore gender injustice. It was the first of what will sure to be more salvos aimed at publicly ridiculing the proponents of male studies. MND publisher Mike LaSalle posted a brief, but courteous dissent in the comments section of Brods article, as follows: The kernel of your argument against Male Studies is revealed here: Mens Studies scholars are primarily concerned with Justice, not Science. Male Studies assumes knowledge comes before justice, not the other way around. The comment was posted, and then promptly deleted. And that is the very least of their efforts at censorship. MND contributor and Wagner College professor of psychology Miles Groth, who hosted the recent conference on Male Studies, is a former member of AMSA. He is also the co founder and former editor of Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies which became a part of the Mens Studies Press (MSP). Some time into his involvement with AMSA, he grew concerned with aspects of the organization that he described as out of touch with the current concerns and needs of most males, especially young males.

Groth went on to express concerns with the nature and quality of literature being featured at AMSA conferences. Some presenters at the last conference were undergraduates. At such events [annual conferences in a major discipline] it is customary to hear the work of senior researchers. James Doyle MSP director James Doyle became aware of Groths unfortunate propensity for independent thought, and didnt take to the idea of such intellectual diversity with much enthusiasm. In an email he wrote the following to Groth: Over the past several months, it has become clear that you believe the field of mens studies in all its forms to be a pointless, if not harmful, pursuit. As disseminating mens studies research, serving mens studies scholars, and promoting a positive image of mens studies to a broad readership are the central purposes for the Mens Studies Press and its publications, it seems clear to me that you current involvement with the Mens Studies Press is antithetical to your new found philosophy for the study of mens lives. Therefore, it is with regret that I must terminate your editorial duties with the Mens Studies Press as of this day, April 29th, 2010 In short, when ousting Groth for not having his mind right, he stripped him of his editorship of Thymos, the journal that he co-founded and edited all the years of its existence. Booted, berated and burned, all for having an actual concern for men and boys in defiance of a group of bigots that seek to undermine the same. There is no greater demonstration of the kind of people we are talking about here. And all my attempts to add levity to this situation aside, it is clear they are capable of the most pernicious kinds of fascist bullying. It now seems they are gearing up to exert the same, if they can, on anyone else interested in helping men and boys, especially those furthering the idea of male studies. After a decade old split between the organizations, that by their own account demonstrates that slash and burn politics are no stranger to this crowd, there is a lot of kissing and making up. Kimmel, who has operated more or less independently since the split, is returning to give

the key note address in 2011. This had to happen for a reason that overcomes the petty divides that sent them on their own separate paths. In an email from James Doyle provided to me by someone within their ranks who wishes to remain anonymous, Doyle reveals his personal feelings about Kimmel while acknowledging the sacred adherence to ideology. Says Doyle: I have no problem with people being turned off by Kimmel (I am also) but only in terms of his arrogant and self-centered personality. As for social constructionism, I think this an extremely useful theory. Aside from the fact that neither social constructionism, nor narcissism, begin or end with Kimmel, Doyle tips his hand on priorities quite nicely, and along with his treatment of Groth solidifies his ideology over values, truth and scholarship mentality. This entirely sordid matter would be far funnier if it were not so serious. We might even expect a punch line or two from Atherton-Zeman or Kilmartin. We might even laugh. But we are, in some of the most serious ways possible, talking about the future of our sons in this culture. These fascist pigs are part and parcel to a system that helps shape government policy. If you are interested enough in those policies to have read this far into this article, then you are likely all too aware of what those policies are and in how they are harming our men and boys. When the intellectually carcinogenic on this level operate under the blanket of political and social denial, their work eventually becomes cancerous and starts to metastasize. It is time to gear up for treatment. This is especially true now, as we watch these frauds broadcast their intent to start a campaign of bullying and strong arming against anyone who disagrees with them. The mens studies establishment does not pursue knowledge, but a program of wholesale skullduggery, all to fit a political agenda whose only connection to education is to corrupt it. After all, if youll lie to a court of law about domestic problems, about men being abusers when they are not, is there anyone you wont lie to, about anything?

How Long Can They Pin It on 'Fringe Radicals'?

- Snark

Surprisingly resilient is the claim of earnest feminists, that they don't hate men at all, and that those so-called feminists who do hate men are not really feminists at all, and that we've just got it all wrong. There are so many examples to the contrary of this, which show that the misandrists who wave the flag 'feminism' are not only the loudest voices, but the most powerful, most well-organised, most determined to affect change, and arguably the most numerical, of all those who claim the tag feminism. That is, the feminists who most give a damn about feminism, are absolutely unrelenting man-haters! Example #1. Gudrun Schyman, who co-founded the Swedish political party Feminist Initiative, was responsible for the idea of a 'man tax' - that is, taxes levied against men for having the gall to bear a penis. To quote this disgusting pig, "we have to have a discussion so that men understand that they have a collective financial responsibility." Interesting - what kind of discussion begins with its conclusion as its very premise? What kind of discussion rules out compromise altogether in favour of the other party having to simply "understand" the terms set out on their behalf? This would be no discussion, but then Gudrun Schyman is no lady. She is a would-be petty dictator, and the word she was looking for is 'dictation'. And by the way, a year before making this disgusting proposal, she had been charged with misleading tax authorities, for attempting to make illicit tax deductions. You just could not make this stuff up. No matter how low you set the bar for feminists, they always manage to limbo right underneath it.

So tell me, those of you who claim that self-identified feminists like Gudrun Schyman are just 'fringe radicals' where were the organised and powerful feminists opposing this? Schyman was a member of the Swedish parliament when she proposed the 'man tax'. That makes her pretty damn powerful in my book. So where were the other powerful feminists? That's right - they were backing her up, nodding in agreement that all men shall pay for the crimes of a few, titillating at the thought of making men suffer even more. If these are the fringe radicals, where were the genderegalitarian majority? I feel like D'Angelo Barksdale at the end of season one of The Wire when I say this. Where the fuck are the egalitarians? Where the fuck are they? Where's the fucking 'equal rights' feminists? That's a great show, by the way. Example #2. Ruth Hall, from feminist organisation Women Against Rape, nearly has a hemorrhage over the new UK coalition government's plans to extend anonymity to men accused of rape. Note that's not men convicted of rape - of whom plenty are in fact innocent, as recent events have shown in sickening detail - it's men who are only accused, a large number of whom are falsely accused. That Ruth Hall could come out in opposition to such a proposal in the same week that a story ran about a serial false accuser who ruined one life and caused another man to commit suicide - just shows how black her heart really is. Just a 'fringe radical', is she? Well, one thing led to another, and fifty-three Members of the UK Parliament signed a motion opposing anonymity for defendants.

Let's be clear - this is radical misandry. The arguments put forward in justification of the motion are so flimsy that a child could see right through them. Of course, the language used centres around 'the victim' - meaning, 'the woman', whether she is the victim or in fact the criminal. According to the motion, defendants in rape cases should not be afforded anonymity because it will prevent women from coming forward. Um, what? How are the two remotely connected? There is not even an attempt made at connecting cause to effect the two are breezily conjoined without the slightest regard for the men whose lives have, and will, be torn apart by vicious lies. When Prime Minister David Cameron broached the subject of the falsely accused during a parliamentary session, and mentioned the fact that men's lives are "blighted" by false accusations, some going so far as to kill themselves, do you know what the Opposition did? They shook their heads and booed. That should tell you all you need to know about the Labour Party - the party of feminism, currently led by one of the country's most spectacular misandrists Harriet Harman, and the source of most of the signatures against the extension of anonymity to rape defendants. This all brings me back to my question - where the fuck are the feminists who "don't hate men"? Where the fuck are they? The support for this Bill has come from all manner of people across the political spectrum, from conservatives to liberals - but certainly not from feminists. Example #3. The National Organisation of Women, one of the most powerful women's advocacy groups in the United States of America, has publicly celebrated Valerie Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights," and "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement." And by the way, the latter quote is taken from her trial, where NOW was defending her character after she went on a shooting spree, targeting (you guessed it) men. Ask yourself, would gender-egalitarian feminists really support this woman? I quote her at length, from her most popular work (and, apart from her shooting spree, the only thing anybody remembers her for):

To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples. SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Mens Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Mens Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Mens Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUMs goals; faggots who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a womans primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd, then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present. Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex; makers and promoters of sex books and movies, etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men. Are NOW just 'fringe radicals'? What about the Feminist Initiative? The 53 members of Parliament in the UK opposing anonymity for rape defendants? Women Against Rape? For fringe radicals, they certainly hold a lot of power in setting the terms of the discourse, don't they? Useless, piddling, powerless feminists will state again and again that feminism is about equality and that any woman who so explicitly hates men is not really a feminist. Really, dear? Because you're referring to the driving force of the movement itself. The actually organised, well-funded lobby groups, who have the power to affect change, who are in

government, in academia, in the legal system and in the media, all proudly working to institutionalise further abuses of men. Nobody cares that you don't personally hate men - although I will always find that claim suspect from one labelling herself 'feminist'. Can you blame me? The actual movement is not comprised of college undergraduates who have yet to be exposed to the ways of the world. The actual movement is out there, embedded in the institutions of the state, pushing for greater punitive measures against men, all the time. Where are the organised, well-funded 'feminist' lobby groups fighting for equality and fair treatment between the sexes? Simple answer: there aren't any. I chose only three examples for this post, but a cursory glance around the 'manosphere' will provide you with many, many more.

'Fringe radicals', my foot - you don't get much more radical than the woman who wrote tracts about the need to exterminate all men, and subsequently attempted to murder several. How surprising that one of the most powerful feminist lobbying organisations in the world celebrated her and defended her at her trial. That's because, like fascists, feminists don't care in the slightest about due legal process. Like fascists, they categorise all human beings according to their demographics, and like fascists, they demand collective retribution. Like fascists, they support a command state model with their own interests institutionally embedded and unbound by any kind of constitution. And like fascists, they aim to ratchet up the abuse, more and more, until their chosen scapegoats are enslaved or simply disappear from the face of the earth.