Misandry Review » Rebuking Feminism

Equality – The Pay Gap – part 1 of 3

Rebuking Feminism — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:46:00 +0000

Yes, this picture is real. Are women willing to go the lengths of death to acquire territory and resources? If they are, will they court us and provide them to us even outside of marriage after divorce? Men are and men do. Providing for women is the law both in social code and by the justice system. Women will not allow us different.

Will women allow men choices? Will men gain equal rights to earn a fair wage? Most importantly will women's "liberation" continue to simply mean more "choices" as to how to extract resources from men or are women able to support themselves and "her" child on her own? Will men achieve the ends of independence from women's dependency. Will men ever become "liberated" from women?

I love the video but I DO Not like the ending. "She is not oppressed, he is"

I do not think it should be described with the feminist vernacular "oppressed". What I implore women to understand is that men and women are mutually bonded and supposed to be in servitude to each other.

If we insist on using the feminist vocabulary it would be stated we are mutually "oppressed" by the other...

To use MRA vernacular it would be stated......"we are mutually bonded"

MEN'S RIGHTS COMMAND STRUCTURE & TRIBUTE:

Please check out his YOUTUBE CHANNEL
manwomanmyth
http://www.manwomanmyth.com

THIS IS VERY GOOD MATERIAL...I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO TALK TO THE FILM MAKER WHO HAS SO MUCH MORE MATERIAL.

THIS MATERIAL NEEDS TO BE SYNDICATED AND PASSED UP THE CHAIN TO MAJOR ELEMENTS SUCH AS ACFC, GLENN SACKS, Fathers 4 Justice, National Coalition for Men...IT NEEDS TO BE BROADCASTED ON INTERNET MEDIA OUTLETS AS WELL....I FIGURE IF WOMEN AND GOVERNMENT CAN POST VIDEOS LIKE THIS...MEN'S VIEWS SHOULD BE AIRED ASAP!

YES, YOU CAN GET PAID FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR VIDEOS!

THE LEADING ELEMENTS OF THE MOVEMENT HAVE FUNDING....I URGE YOU ALL TO GET IN TOUCH WITH LEAD ELEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTE

LEADING SCHOLARS ARE ALSO HAVING A CONFERENCE ON THE CREATION OF MALE STUDIES DEPARTMENTS NATION WIDE ON APRIL 7th 2010...http://www.malestudies.org/

THIS MATERIAL NEEDS TO BE SHOWN TO YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES IN THE NEWLY FORMING MEN'S GROUPS ON CAMPUSES AS WELL

MEN AND FATHERS ALSO NEED REPRESENTATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

This video makes me think what an attribute T.V. shows like DANGEROUS JOBS AND DIRTY JOBS ARE for the restoration of the image of men in our culture. I like your point that men need each other for the life of the other...

Men in these professions have been known to call each other baby when they are injured and coddle their head. I've seen combat video from the Iraq war of men doing this....It is a bond that is dangerous to share with a woman during such jobs....

You have to accomplish the mission or die. Men desire the strength and determination of other men to do it not women. Men work well with each other.

Women lobby to socialize what is supposed to be a free market run off market economic principals..When women do this they disenfranchise men from acquiring resources. I am very concerned about the "women first" laws we've implemented such as Title IX and Affirmative Action as to the effect they have on equal opportunities for men.....

Male value has been defined in terms of our willingness to sacrifice. Male value must no longer be understood as the proportion to which men are disposable and expendable both to marriage, as a husband, to children as a father and to society at large..

Claims about sex-based wage discrimination have been repeated so often that many Americans simply accept them as fact. But a recently published — and quickly suppressed — study reveals a different picture.

Titled "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women," the report tallies the results of over 50 studies. No one questions the fact that on average, men are paid more than women. But turns out this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The paper concludes the 20-cent odd wage difference is not caused by discrimination. Rather it's women exercising their right to make lifestyle choices. What choices are we talking about?

1. A greater percentage of women chose to work part-time.

2. Women may opt to leave the work force for childbirth, child care, or elder care.

3. Women are often willing to accept a lower paying job in return for family-friendly policies that allow them to have fewer hours, flexible schedules, and a shorter commute.

In addition, women work fewer hours than men. According to an article posted on the Department of Labor website, "Among full-time workers, 24% of the men, compared to 10% of the women, usually worked more than 40 hours per week:" http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/06/art4full.pdf

And then the fact that men tend to work in occupations that are far more likely to injure, maim, or kill.

None of these are earth-shattering statements. But once again, myth-mongering forced the government to commission a costly study to prove the obvious.

In its foreword, the Department of Labor concluded, "this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors." The DOL added this parting comment: "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas:" http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Academic Leaders To Gather ON DECLINE OF MALES

Rebuking Feminism — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:44:00 +0000

http://www.malestudies.org/

I'm very excited about this and what can be gained by this conference. I am looking forward to a new discipline to be added to our colleges, MEN'S STUDIES..which I hope to god are run by real men.. In fact as marginalized as my male job has become I think I will contribute to this if we can get it off the ground...Feminist groups currently run the Men's Studies programs...I know I know, it makes me cringe too...

Hopefully though it will be a formidable counteracting force to Women's Studies and most importantly, run by men..I WELCOME A VOICE FOR MEN.... Do you think it will happen or will women be screaming like witches that men are trying to speak about our condition, our feelings and the male experience? Do you think anyone will even show up to this conference?

The Boys Project is AN EXCELLENT EFFORT to study the disenfranchisement of men and boys. To me the overwhelming theme is that men are withdrawing from civic duties, that of private life and even the creation of families..If men and boys are doing anything in an upward trend, suicide is on the top of the male agenda.

Tom Mortenson: Senior Scholar: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education: http://www.postsecondary.org/archives/previous/GuysFacts.pdf

-Suicide: Among 15 to 24 year olds, suicide rates were 5.8 times higher for males than for females in 2000. In 1900 male rates were 1.3 times higher for males than those for females. Between 1970 and 2000 male suicide rates increased by 29 percent while female suicide rates decreased by 29 percent. (National Center for Health Statistics)

-Incarceration: Since mid 1970s, incarceration rates have gown very rapidly. U.S. rate of 707 prisoners per 100,000 population is now highest in the world.

-Male disengagement from civic role: Male voting rates have declined sharply since mid-1960s. Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent.

-Educational-Master’s degrees: The male share of master’s degrees has declined from 60 percent in 1970to 41 percent by 2001. (National Center for Education Statistics)

"You can sober up any audience when you lay out the suicide data," he said. "The room tends to go quiet. The audience is staring at figures showing young males giving up on life at the very beginning of life, and they understand that something dangerous is happening in our culture." In recent years several studies by the U.S. Department of Education, the American Council on Education, and others have confirmed Mortenson's findings.

Throughout my blog and in these reports you will see that all realms of male health are on the decline.

-workforce participation
-voter participation
-suicide rates
-incarceration rates
-college attendance and admittance policy
-family law and marriage
-general health & health care

Lionel Tiger the author of The Decline Of Males will be there as well but from the review he seems to think that society should only serve as a means to an end in order to support a women's "choices". Not having read the book, perhaps Tiger believes that fatherhood is something that can be taken away by the woman and given to the State...

"Tiger, for example, thinks men should earn higher pay for the children they have during a first marriage, and that unmarried women with children should receive welfare without having to work."

I have a feeling The Decline Of Males gives no thought to the issue of Men's and Father's Rights....but may very well give insite into our current social ills and Men's place in the family and in society.

DO YOU THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM?...In short without trying to sound drastic men and boys are dying, I really don't know any other way to put it... However, I don't think society cares about the wellbeing of men and boys so much as that it's starting to and will increasingly affect the welfare of women...(the only human beings that seem to matter)

I know it sounds crazy but I am looking forward to the suffering of women as it is the only suffering that matters and will make change for the male condition. I've noticed that men have always come faithfully with honor to the aid of women but strangely enough, women seem to lack a feeling to do the same for men. In fact I venture to say the only thing that will help is if the woman has a son or is married to a man who is forced to support another family financially...

I do expect however that female reaction to male demise will not be one of empathy but one of resentment, scorn and misandry for what is at the moment and will continue to be invariably framed as the failure of men to live up to something or other.

Compound the above with women's natural tendency to make sure they are provided and protected for before and even to the exclusion of men (and this includes the obligation to die for women) you have a recipe for disaster when women are running social policies.

Women by nature don't care for the welfare of men, we are on our own, produce or die..Heck men don't seem to care about other men because we are in competition with each other making us a weak divided class who is not cared for by either sex. Take the diversion of the stimulus package to women for instance.. Women first college admissions through Title IX, Affirmative Action, 7 Federal Offices on their health when men have none... I'm not sure if the rest of you noticed but women control social policy to the federal level...

To me the message is crystal clear, women are a separate class with separate class interests who demand provision and protection and in response the male work horses women vote into power serve to provide it to them..."Women and girls first" and "Men and boys last". Males simply do not matter.

Men and boys are expendable, even to the family as is evidenced when a woman banishes her husband to forced resource provision or the fate of becoming an "isolated resource producing male" with fatherhood and family privileges revoked.

I really can't believe that men and society have given up everything we have to women. I never thought in a million years that the dreams of the feminists would actually come to be reality.......

And now a special report: The actual workhorses of the growing gynocracy, I give you the alpha males who maintain power by serving it.

When you tell women they are victims and not being provided and protected enough, look out, the rage of entitlement will soon follow! Government loves women!...It will continue to gain power by serving them until we consume and disenfranchise our own means of production needed to sustain us....males and the need for the enfranchisement of males as part of the family..

And now a quote from Hermann Goering a leading member of the Nazi Party. Among many offices, he was Hitler's designated successor, and commander of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force).

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."-HERMANN GOERING

I like this quote in particular because the primary element for the rise of fascism and tyrannical governments has always been to divide the populous in diametric opposition. What better than a 50/50 split between men and women...The classic subversion tactic has always been the age old divide and concur strategy.

--"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."--

In other words, All you have to do is tell them (women) they are victims and are being attacked or oppressed then denounce the objectors or pacifists (men) for not being complicit to the solution of removing women from danger.

The beauty in choosing men and women over Jews and Aryans is that men will strangely go along quietly with the solution with little or no opposition.. In contrast if the Stimulus Package was diverted to a specific race or religion, men would respond in an undesirable manner I assure you....

Increasingly if you have not noticed you will see copious amounts of propaganda pertaining to gender when speaking of The New Economy. Celebrating the victory of women is a rear guard action to hedge off male objection to the solution. Protection provision, and the advocation for the security of women is something men, in mass anyway, will not dare object to and unfortunately neither will women..

Our country is in the middle of a Revolution and does not even realize it... It will end in one of two ways...Men will become more a part of the family or less a part of the family and the lives of our children...With the continued disenfranchisement of men from the family and that of public and family policy I fear for the worst.

From this video I gather that men by nature are in competition with other men and as our value in the mating game is heavily weighted in external utility to the female, men will see to the demise of as many men as possible in order to gain status, territory and resources which get them mating opportunity..

I gather that men are not well suited to organize to accomplish social tasks in regard to the male experience or social fabric but rather at accomplishing such ends as building, fixing and intelligently utilizing resources to maintain life. It seems to me that male weakness in this area is used against men to divide them as a class and is one of the primary reasons we are in the situation we are with the rights of men and fathers... I fear men are trying but things may have to reach critical mass unless women contribute to helping men and women sort out our issues as a team..

I fear that women may have an innate tendency to see males as a means to an end for themselves and their offspring and oddly enough expect male suffering and sacrifice and even the death of males to reach these ends. I believe women expect male sacrifice, protection and provision to them and to complain about the male condition of servitude and subjugation to women is not allowed of men..We must continue to produce under any and all conditions..even that of an "isolated resource producing male" forced to provide for a woman that is not his wife and a child that he is no longer a father to.

I fear that women have no regard for the welfare and wellbeing of men and boys. I really do...I fear things will have to reach a state of critical mass..Again, men as either part of the family or no longer part of the family will be the result..

Feminism and the Communist Revolution

Rebuking Feminism — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:37:00 +0000

First a brief introduction from a famous playwrite....

Aristophanes A famous Greek playwrite produced a very interesting and revealing play in 390BC.

Aristophanes wrote Ecclesiazusae or Assembly Women (The Latinized spelling of the Greek title Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι, Ekklēsiázousai also known as Assemblywomen). It is a play dating from 390BCE which is similar in theme to Lysistrata in that a large portion of the comedy comes from women involving themselves in politics. This play is much more infused with gender issues than Lysistrata is. This play also shows a change in the style of Ancient Greek comedy after the short period of oligarchy after the Peloponnesian War, or at least an attempt at it. It seems to be a merging of the two styles that works in the beginning, but falls apart by the end.

The play concerns a group of women, the leader of which is Praxagora. She has decided that the women must convince the men to give them control of Athens, because they could rule it better than they have been. The women, in the guise of men, sneak into the assembly and vote the measure, convincing some of the men to vote for it because it is the only thing they have not tried.

The women then institute a Socialist-like government in which the state feeds, houses, and generally takes care of every Athenian. They enforce an idea of equality by allowing every man to sleep with every woman, but that the man must sleep with an ugly woman before he may sleep with a beautiful one.

There is a scene in which two men are talking. One of them is going along with the new government, giving his property to the women, and obeying their orders. The other does not wish to give up his property, but he is more than willing to take advantage of the free food.

If you are interested in the roots of feminism it is important to get to the roots of the ideology.

Much of feminism is rooted in the political ideology of Marxism which is the basis for the formation of Communism and Socialism..

The feminist revolution began during the Russian Revolution around 1917. Alexandra Kollontai, much like Obama's Valerie Jarrett was tasked with leading the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department" in 1919 as was Jarrett just appointed the same position for Obama's new Federal Council On Women and Girls. You can see from the below quotes that Kollontai espouses the views that Communist Feminists espouse today.

On Women in the Workforce:
"Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance." "Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

On Childcare: (Leading to the Implementation of Child Care Facilities through the Commissariat of Health and Education): Note: this would require a large health appropriations bill which incidentally our Congress is working on now....Do you know where your government is leading us? Perhaps it is time to lead your government as our founders intended.

"The state is responsible for the upbringing of children" "The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

On "Free Love":

The key, to Kollontai was to eradicate the bourgeois \ proletariat relationship between men and women.. The idea was to get as much access to sex between men and women as possible without forming a mutually dependent "submissive" and "oppressive" pair bond which involved "ego" and "possession".

The bourgeois \ proletariat relationship i.e. male incentive to produce and be worthy of the female who in Marxist terms owned the means of production must be destroyed.

The courtship and economic model that formed the nuclear family and gave rise to it must be destroyed. Although she was opposed to prostitution as it represented to her the epitome of the capitalist relationship between men and women.

She also exclaimed that Communism would free men of their provider role:

"Contemporary society goes even further than the ancient tribal society in acting as woman’s trustee, instructing her not only to marry but to fall in love only with those people who are “worthy” of her."

"Now imagine another situation. A respected woman of bourgeois society – a social figure, a research student, a doctor, or a writer, it’s all the same – becomes friendly with her footman, and to complete the scandal marries him. How does bourgeois society react to the behaviour of the hitherto “respected” woman? They cover her with “scorn”, of course! And remember, it’s so much the worse for her if her husband, the footman, is good-looking or possesses other “physical qualities”. “It’s obvious what she’s fallen for”, will be the sneer of the hypocritical bourgeoisie."

It was claimed that if the capitalist relationship between men and women could be destroyed women would be able to select men by who they are as a person rather than someone who was of high status, monetarily successful etc.

Unfortunately Kollontai did not understand hypergamous matting behavior of females i.e. the tendency to look for tall, strong, high status, resourcefully successful males..

Here: you can see...as crazy as it sounds...that female matting behavior changes in proportion to how much college she has attended and thus her monetary earnings ratio to a prospectful male mate..... The study shows that female chance for matting with a male lowered with every year of higher education...

Thus also lowering the percent who ever become mothers:

Kollontai Continued:

Here she exclaims the need for the destruction of the family through the use of no fault divorce:

"The attempt by the middle-class intelligentsia to replace indissoluble marriage by the freer, more easily broken ties of civil marriage destroys the essential basis of the social stability of the, bourgeoisie. It destroys the monogamous, property-orientated family. On the other hand. a greater fluidity in relationships between the sexes coincides with and is even the indirect result of one of the basic tasks of the working class. The rejection of the element of “submission” in marriage."

Below you can see the effect that the "free love" concept has had on America from the time these ideas influenced the American Cultural Revolution in the 1960's.
40% of all women in the United States now give birth outside of marriage.

The question we need to ask ourselves is yes, marriage and the family have been and are being destroied but what are we building to take its place???? Are we better off now??

Single Woman Births now at 40% of all births in U.S.

With so many men's lives defined by what is now a 70% female initiated divorce rate what are we to do in order to establish the rights and "choices" of men within the contract of divorce? Should they lose the right to fatherhood and be reduced to "visitor" or "visitation" status by default or should men be allowed the option to share custody of the child and thus be freed from his fatherhood being turned into money and capitalized...Can fatherhood be bought with money? These are very good questions?

Women lobbied to create no-fault divorce which was first implemented in California and soon swept the nation. Should men have an obligation to financially support women who have left them? Should the "choice" of women to work if they want or stay home if they want be formed into a capitalized liability to the man in the form of Alimony (woman support)? These are very good questions...

With women as a gender collectively divorcing men how can men find a place in the family and with our children? With the dissolution of family what is the male place in society? Is a husband and father even needed? Shouldn't an isolated resource producing male be sufficient? Are men simply a means to an end; the work horses of civilization.. Do men even matter? Do men like to be isolated resource producing males? These are very good questions to ask...

The early beginnings of The Feminist Majority, one of the leading Women's Party organizations in the United States along with N.O.W.

NOTE: No-fault divorce was pioneered by the Bolsheviks following the Russian Revolution of 1917. No fault divorce was also introduced in the final ends and fall of the Roman Republic. It was introduced here in the U.S. in the Family Law Act of September 4, 1969 (effective January 1, 1970)

The Above image was annotated because it is now thought that divorce is on the decline because marriage itself is on the decline..The drop off in divorce rates seem to coincide with increased cohabitation among couples and the 40% single woman birth rate...SEE: http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/03/divorce-declining-but-so-is-marriage-by.html

Kollontai Continued:

NOTE: When she refers to "individualist" she means "capitalists \conservatives" in the American lexicon.

"The “individualists” who are only loosely organised into a collective with other individuals, now have the chance to change their sexual relationships so that they are based on the creative principle of friendship and togetherness rather than on something blindly physiological."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/sex-class-struggle.htm

"The conservatively inclined part of mankind argue that we should return to the happy times of the past, we should re-establish the old foundations of the family and strengthen the well-tried norms of sexual morality. The champions of bourgeois individualism say that we ought to destroy all the hypocritical restrictions of the obsolete code of sexual behaviour. These unnecessary and repressive “rags” ought to be relegated to the archives – only the individual conscience. the individual will of each person can decide such intimate questions. Socialists, on the other hand, assure us that sexual problems will only be settled when the basic reorganisation of the social and economic structure of society has been tackled."

These ideas soon spread to the United States. The subversion of American Culture to Communist ideology began in the "free love" era of the 1960's.

The Council On Women and Girls serves the same purpose as a Communist Women's Workers Party i.e. the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department". Representation at the Federal level has been the goal of Women's Organizations since the 1960's. Now they have secular representation for women as a separate socio-political class with their own class interests. Many of these interest go against the class interests of men who's economic wellbeing and the prospects thereof are directly affected by the "Women's Party" policies such as Title IX and Affirmative Action "women first" laws..Not to mention that women lobbied and successfully diverted the bulk of the Stimulus Package to themselves though 80% of jobs lost in this recession have been to men.(Read article: No Country For Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers)...WOW!!!
This is just the beginning...

We simply can't afford the chivalry to add any more women first laws to handycap men as a class. Our earnings prospects are directly related to our ability to garner a mate as is shown by the hypergamy study referenced earlier in the article..Not to mention these laws are against the founding principals on my dear Republic. Equal opportunity, not unequal outcome by unequal means.... I challenge the "Communist Women's Workers Party" i.e. The Council On Women and Girl to remove women first laws so that males may have equal opportunity to attend college.

I leave you with this.....I believe with women'sincreasing marriage to the State including it's accompanied mandates of forced male resource provision
will continue to grow..

I believe that as seen from the graphs above on Hypergamy pitting females against males in the economic sphere (especially while using "women first"laws such as Title IX and Affirmative Action to handicap males from competing and producing will lower overall birth rates and mated pair bond formation.

In terms of the breakdown in the family: Our high divorce rate,our 40% single woman birth rate and the skyrocketing amount of loose knit cohabitating relationships coupled with family laws pertaining to divorce or cohabitant separation, a critical mass of isolated resource producing males will be reached, lowering male productive incentive as a whole...A healthy society thrives on males with productive incentive...

When you disenfranchise a critical mass of males from a role in the family and the productive incentive that comes with it our Republic will consume itself of it's own means of production.

At this point in time however I believe the best choice for male equality is to in fact become complimentary to the feminist paradigm of equality i.e. men must withdraw from protection and provision of women and from the family.

It is said that men do not contribute to their fair share of housework but when the entire structure of mating dynamics are analysed women do not contribute to their fair share of providing and protecting the family. Men must free themselves from female hypergamous mating behavior. Men must demand the role of stay at home dad and primary care giver of children. Alimony must be abolished and shared custody of children implemented.

The male role in the family can no longer be reduced to a monetized or capitalized liability of provider or in the case of divorce as an isolated resource producing male.....As the Communist Revolution sought to establish, following through on Marxist form of equality entails men no longer playing a role in the family or the lives or our children..... Do you the reader have another solution???

How can men achieve equal rights and a place in the family in this new order? Can we fix this? Both men and women have the duty to try.....

More on women as a separate socio-political class away from the class interests of men.. Can be found here
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2010/02/we-need-to-huddle-close-to-women-for.html

***Jessica Smith in Women in Soviet Russia (1928) describes conflict between men and women in Changing Attitudes in Soviet Russia and records debates in which women accuse the men of condescension (oppression) and patronage or (misogyny) & (patriarchy).
------------------------------------
Works of Alexandra Kollontai
MAIN: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/sex-class-struggle.htm

Wow Men Are Still Speaking Openly In Academia

Rebuking Feminism — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:05:00 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpkXEfuuylY Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqybaseue5Q Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KBhvdvhtg Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJwp6SKxthc Part 5

I'm sure we all know what happens when a man speaks openly about such things in the highest chambers of academia but this brave man has taken the courage to continue the discussion and the search for truth..!

A Tribute TO: www.the-spearhead.com

Rebuking Feminism — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:25:00 +0000

I want to recommend an outstanding site to my readers!

This site has some of the most truly exemplary and intelligent thinkers and writers in the Men's Rights Movement!

http://www.the-spearhead.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outstanding Article: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/14/john-bagot-glubb/

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC better known as Glubb Pasha (born 16 April 1897, Preston, Lancashire – died 17 March 1986, Mayfield, Sussex), was a British soldier best known for leading and training Transjordan's Arab Legion 1939-1956 as its commanding general. During World War I, he served in France.

A soldier for much of his life, John Glubb was also a historian who wrote a number of books on Middle East and Arab history, including The Life and Times of Muhammad. But it is his prescient book “The Fate of Empires,” that is quite interesting, excerpt below...

“An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolized by men. “What,” wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, “have the professions of clerk, tax collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.” Many women practiced law, while others obtained positions as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed. The disorders following the military take-over in 861, and the loss of the empire, had played havoc with the economy. At such a moment, it might have been expected that everyone would redouble their efforts to save the country from bankruptcy, but nothing of the kind occurred. Instead at this moment of declining trade and financial stringency, the people of Baghdad introduced a five day week.” -Sir John Bagot Glubb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here gentlemen in correlation with an unrelated source is a glimpse into the decline of Rome you may find relevant to our time!!!

Upon the dissolution of the Roman family, falling birth rates, female sexuality moving from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C....

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

"Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Wow, our birth rate in the U.S. is barely sustaining replacement levels.

So Quintus said the above in 131 B.C... It seems The Roman family really declined in the final century of the Republic--that is, the period from 146 BCE to 49 BCE when Julius Caesar was proclaimed sole dictator.

During the last century of the Roman Republic, no-fault divorce was introduced.

Following the complete end of Manus Marriage in the 1st century BC (100-1 B.C) and the emergence of Free Marriage Divorce, divorced ceased needing any reason, (No Fault Divorce). Reasons for any divorce became irrelevant.

Hmmmm well I know with the decline of the family comes the decline of a civilization and empires. Looking more into no-fault divorce: "No-fault divorce was pioneered by the Bolsheviks following the Russian Revolution of 1917" Hmmm so no fault divorce was introduced during the major transition to Communism... Interesting that both were implemented during the last days of the Roman Republic and during the Communist Revolution. I think it is time we make divorce equitable for both the husband and the wife!

Currently, in my country The United States it is the wife that maintains sole power in marriage. Marriage is the lawful commitment from a man to a woman. Children are the property of the woman and the husband is subject to forced labor under penalty of prison to support her financial needs and that of his estranged children in the event of divorce. The wife maintains the sole option of "choice" to work or stay home and the man the sole obligation to support her both in and out of marriage. We are the first civilization that I know of to revoke all male rights within the marriage contract and thus the contract and obligations in divorce.

If history is any lesson my country will continue to make "change" we won't want to believe in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

There has been a substantial movement in favor of the revival of fault in the context of divorce in the United States.[15]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce did not stop at removing the requirement that grounds be cited for a divorce, so as to allow for divorce by "mutual consent"; they also allow either spouse to end the marriage without any agreement or fault by the other.[16] They state that no-fault divorce should be referred to as unilateral divorce.[17]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in modern history that have effectively ended marriage as a legal contract.[13] They also state that it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family, adding that government officials can, at the request of one spouse, end a marriage over the objection of the other.[13]

They add that no-fault divorce has left fathers with no protection against what they describe as the confiscation of their children.[18]

Members of the fathers' rights movement propose "reasonable limits" on no-fault divorce where children are involved.[19] Other commentators on no-fault divorce propose an amendent to no-fault divorce laws to create a (rebuttable) presumption of custody of any minor children for the respondent [who is innocent or does not wish to divorce] regardless of gender.

Tim O'Brien, a proponent of the proposed amendment and a Libertarian, predicts that the proposed amendment would result in a plummeting divorce rate, and would reduce the negative consequences of divorce for children.[20]

Columnist Melanie Phillips wrote that "the divorce laws...were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion."[13]

Hmmmm, I DON'T LIKE THIS PART.."Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in modern history" The truth is that No fault divorce has been implemented before in history and we should look at the results......

NOVASEEKER HAS SOME GREAT POINTS! EXCERPT BELOW:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/21/patriarchy-works-ii/

"Indeed, Jack. There is no historical precedent for a non-patriarchal society thriving in the long-term.

However, this does appear to be a cycle in the course of human history. Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin penned a book at the beginning of the 20th century titled “Sex and Culture” which explains this dynamic fairly well. Following a rather exhaustive survey of human cultures around the world, Unwin concluded that societies which restrain female sexuality tend to thrive, but eventually, as a result of their prosperity and success, tend to erode these restraints, due to women demanding this and men acquiescing. In other words, the societies thrive, and this gives rise to demands from women to participate in the success and prosperity, and men generally acquiesce (at least the powerful ones do) at some stage — and that acquiescence pretty much always takes the form of relaxing the strictures of marriage and allowing women to exist “independently” from men — sexually and otherwise. The history here is revealing and, in the broader world, largely unknown. For example, very few people are aware that ancient Babylon, prior to its collapse, instituted civil reforms to family law such as no-fault divorce and child support. Or that Sparta, which is widely known for its military tradition, had liberated women to such a degree that they ran the Spartan economy, and as a result had below replacement rate birth rates, leading to a collapse, eventually, to surrounding patriarchal states. Or that marriage in late Rome had declined so precipitously that the Empire tried to encourage men to marry by instituting a bachelor tax (to no avail, mind you, because men did not *need* to marry due to the relatively freely available sex after women were “liberated”)."

We Need To Huddle Close To Women For Provision and Protection

Rebuking Feminism — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:12:00 +0000

I would like to share a letter with my readers I've written to a friend on the state of jobs for the American man.. With the pieces of governmental action and statements put together I've been able to create a picture that will allow me and my countrymen to survive...

Good choice leaving IT Jeremy, I'm doing the same.. Send me an email if you like, I'd like to know what drove you out as well.... A lot of the tech and engineering guys I know are getting out and going the only place left for decent work...healthcare and education....

The best thing is to go where the women are as this is where we devoted the majority of the stimulus package.. "No Country For Burly Men" is an interesting article... Women are the largest voting block so they devoted the money there.
In Joe Biden's address to women he stated that women are the most affected by the recession and that we live in a male chauvinist society..

Robert Reich Obama's cheif economic advisor stated "I am concerned as many of you are, that these jobs not simply go
to high skilled people who are professionals or white male construction workers" "Criteria can be set so that the money goes to others, the long term unemployed, minorities and women."

Many men's jobs are gone for good.. 80% of all jobs lost in this recession are to men. President Obama said regarding the future economy of our country, " “Women are just as likely to be the primary bread earner, if not more likely, than men are today,” ...

BELOW: U.S. Dept of Labor Statistics LARGEST PROJECTED SECTOR OF GROWTH IS THE SERVICE SECTOR.
LARGEST GROWING OCCUPATIONS ARE ENTIRELY FEMALE

They are celebrating that women are now the majority of the workforce and earn 60% of the college degrees. The week long presentation on MSNBC "A Woman's Nation" helped outline the plan to push women into the primary role in the workforce.

The Council On Women and Girls is planning to extend Title IX and Affirmative Action for women to all Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics departments in all colleges nation wide. The best idea for men is to huddle close to women for protection and provision.

I've also found that it helps to declare yourself a "diversity candidate" on your online resume. You might also change your name on it to Jeremi which could also help.. You can also tell them that you are 1/5th African American as I believe you can declare your race, they just can not ask. So as I've experienced your contacts will increase.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a lighter note, do you happen to know where I can get a pair of synthetic breasts along with a breast milk pump that comes will hermetically sealed containers to keep the milk.. I need to get some good equipment in order to breast feed? I'd like to get familiar with some good products. It is important to adapt accordingly to our marginalization... I'm looking forward to being an oppressed stay at home Dad! Women will just be a means to an end like men are today! If we want to leave she will have to send us alimony and child support to support our "choices"!

Man breastfeeding

Nature made the sexes complimentary for a reason, the natural roles of each gender are indispensable. We simply need to fill in the vaccume that women have left. Maria Shriver said on "A Woman's Nation" that men need to contribute to more housework and if we do then we will get more sex.. Me man, all my needs are reduced to one thing, me like sex, me do what woman want! Women have moved away from work in the domestic sphere and apparently are feeling stressed that there is still valuable work to do when the workday is complete... They seem to want men to pick up the extra work load.

Sources:
Vice President Joe Biden informing women that we live in a male cheuvanist society and that women are the primary victims of a recession:

Head Economic Advisor Robert Reich advocates the diversion of the stimulus package to women:

Stimulus Package gets diverted to women: "No Country For Burly Men" by Christina Hoff Sommers:

President Obama states that in the future women will be as and more likely to be the breadwinner:

Video detailing the truth of the matter

I like this (what I think is a woman's) reaction to the article in The Economist magazine. I like it because she feels viscerally that something is not right though she does not know what I have pointed out above in regard to the allocation of the stimulus package. It seems she believes that celebrating the "mancession" as economists are calling it and the loss of male jobs as a victory for women seems to be quite sexist to her:

BlueEyes1 wrote: Dec 31st 2009 1:10 GMT
The title "We did it!" coupled with its subtitle "women … are taking over the workplace" carries with it the sexist implication that men have lost: that they have had something taken from them because they were not competent enough to hold onto it, and that they should therefore feel ashamed. How are men supposed to react? Its unsurprising there is such negative reaction from men in these comments.

"within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce."

If true, this seems like it could be an indication of sexism against males. Females are approximately 50% of the population. On the face of it, in an equal opportunity, non-sexist environment we should expect to see women at about 50% of the American workforce. More than that may be an indicator of sexism against men, but is anyway probably an indicator of a significant problem, and is almost certainly not cause for unchecked celebration (although it is exciting that women have achieved success in the workplace).

As the section in this article "Dealing with the juggle" points out, women make career choices to drop out of the workforce, including raising children. If it is true that more women choose to leave the workforce than men, the conclusion is that we should expect to see women's participation at somewhat less than 50% of the American workforce. The observation that women have exceeded the 50% threshold is an indication that whatever the cause, men are not presently seeing equal employment opportunities. The article seems to agree, since it rather uncharmingly dubs the situation the "mancession". It is disparaging to men that the article's tone is so jubilant, rather than more solemnly reflective.

Replacing sexism against females with sexism against males is not an improvement.

I definitely recommend reading the comments on the article....

http://www.economist.com/node/15174489/comments?page=1

Women Only Food Distribution In Haiti

Rebuking Feminism — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:59:00 +0000

Above: Well Fed "vulnerable" women.
Below: Skinny, hungry unfed males are left to fend for themselves.
Caption: "An angry young man shouts at an organizer during food distribution on Sunday. Aid organizations have switched to a system that favors women "the most vulnerable" populations in distributing food."

Hmmm a new policy has been enacted by some food aid organizations in Haiti, stop all food distribution to men and give food to women only. Large groups of hungry glaring males are starting to gather in the streets.

I know that women hold a higher status and privilege in society and as such it is customary for men to die so that women may live but I hope that these men can get food to eat.....

It will soon be time for the men to arm themselves and attack the food convoys themselves. It would also be wise for men to start attacking women to reestablish access to food supplies. Being that no competitive advantage economic structure or social order exists and males are being denied the opportunity to do so or contribute I expect violence, roving bands of males fighting for territory and resources, warlords and rape.

It would be wise to put these males, most importantly the single males to work. Cutting them off from food, access to territory and resources is a recipe for chaos and war.... Nice social engineering job morons!!!

We all know that when women get a hold of resources they share the fruits of their labor with males...oh wait no it's the other way around. Get ready for all out social chaos in Haiti!

COMMENTS FROM WOMEN: Margaret Leafe (poetmaggie) wrote:
Good idea, unlike the men, the women will see that the children and men get fed.
Tue Feb 02 2010 08:59:12 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Irene Cardenas (irenesee) wrote: When is a subtle battle of the sexes afoot in comments? Haven't many women, for generations, been hurt very deeply by many men? Isn't it important that women have love, empathy and compassion for the horrors they've endured?

Debra Williams (debralovesgospe) wrote:
I know now being in the work force for years women are doing most of the work at my workplace and then go home to do most of the house work.

Breatha Freshare (Seuss) wrote:
Sorry guys. Fortunately I know a lot of good men, married one of them 33 years ago.
-(Hmmm this woman seems to think there is some goodness in men and that they deserve to eat food)

Trena Gravem (Trena) wrote: What is wrong with these young men??? Why are most criminals men? Most abusers men? Most prisoners men? Most porn addicts men? Most wars fought by men?? Most governments and businesses run by men? Call it a stereotype, but it seems to me that, generally, while women nurture life, men destroy it!

Debra Williams (debralovesgospe) wrote: Men should be helping to protect and feed women and children!

Jennifer McClung (JenMc) wrote:
Sorry, folks, but yes, in these kind of highly unusual circumstances organizations need to ensure that the weaker members of society (elderly, pregnant women, women taking care of children) get food rations- that's what humanitarianism is all about.

Anne Greene (KUAF_supporter) wrote:
Seems similar to the argument on why educating girls is so important - women tend to nurture their families and communities when they have to tools to do so. Part of human nature? Probably. (But apparently not the nature of males) There don't seem to be many reports of women going through the streets with weapons to take food from others.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123202099

Why Do Women Tell Us To Build Things For Them?

Rebuking Feminism — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:50:00 +0000

Hmmm, I was listening to some history of the City of Fort Collins in Colorado the other day and there was one thing the historian mentioned that I found quite interesting. I believe it gives us a unique insight into the oppression of women in those days.

Before the streets were paved in Fort Collins they could get quite muddy at times. Women of the day wore dresses down to their ankles. At a certain intersection the mud could get quite atrocious at times so a make shift plank walk was made that could not support two parties crossing at different directions at the same time. The women did not like this and thought a more substantial bridge should be built.

It was not a woman's role at the time to build a bridge or work in construction of any sort. I find it odd that women are still oppressed in these and related fields today.. I suppose that is why the Council On Women and Girls has announced it plans to extend Title IX gender equality law to all Science, Technical, Engineering, Mathematics courses in colleges nation wide. Anyway, women either will not or can not build bridges to this day so they decided to tell men to build it for them..

To do so was simple, the women waited at the street corner until a man came along who was crossing from the other end. When the man started crossing the women would start crossing at the same time. Naturally, seeing that women were crossing, the men would step down into the mud and bow their hats as the women crossed. Upon the combination of women telling their husbands to build a bridge and forcing men to defer to them by having the men stand in the mud to let them pass, the men built the bridge for them..This story gave me an insight into the oppression of women in the early days of the American West.

I don't know how women got to be so oppressed. I don't know how women can be dependent on men or get men to do such things for them, I suppose it is for one reason alone.....because they can.. I thought to myself, what does "an independent woman" mean, what does a "liberated woman mean". It means liberation from dependency on men! Hmmmm will women ever be independent from the dependency on men, will they ever really be independent?

Then it became ever more apparent that NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Women depend on and get the very same things from men as they always have, mostly all things stemming from protection and provision.

The only difference between then and now is that women have the choice to lean on men anytime they want to but do not "need to". To me it seems that women don't need and have told men they no longer want provision and protection but are glad to take when it is convenient for them.

I don't know about any of you but I show no form of chivalry, deference or respect to women for the fact that they are women. I will not pay for their meals or court them in the traditional sense. I do not open doors, buy them drinks, bring them flowers and gifts, get on one knee and propose to be their servant and I most certainly would not stand in the mud or give my life for some strange women because she is a woman. The list of female privilege goes on and on.. It would be one thing if deference and graces afforded to the opposite sex were reciprocal but it is only men who bear obligation, responsibility, lack of choices and risk in our relationships with women.

I struggle most with the fact that I, as a man am forced to provide financially to a woman and the children she takes from me both in and out of marriage... Will I commit to deference to women NO. WILL I BECOME A HUSBAND AND FATHER NO!

MY CHILDREN ARE A WOMAN'S NOT MINE, MY BODY AND THE FRUITS OF MY LABOR ARE A WOMAN'S NOT MINE, MY PROPERTY IS NOT MINE. I, A MAN HAVE NO CHOICES BUT ONE....

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves: by Phyllis Schlafly

Rebuking Feminism — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 00:32:00 +0000

A Syndication:

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves
November 2009
Written by Phyllis Schlafly:
Report SATURDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2009 21:29

The feminists are going through one of their periodic soul-searching psychological examinations of what the women's liberation movement did or did not do for them, and why they are not happy with the result. Feminist dominance in newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television and academia makes it easy to command a full media rollout for their agonizing.

The media are glad to divert public attention from the failure of Barack Obama's Stimulus to create jobs. So, we have ponderous discussions: Maria Shriver's report (with help from a liberal think tank) called "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," a Time Magazine cover story headlined with the double entendre "The State of the American Woman," Gail Collins' book When Everything Changed, and articles from all the feminist columnists.

We wonder if it's just a coincidence that this torrent of words immediately preceded Halloween. The writers are scared of their own research because it contradicts much of their gender-neutral ideology.

These well-educated writers long ago identified the major goal of the women's liberation movement as getting more wives out of the home and into the labor force. Carolyn Graglia's landmark book, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism, explains that the chief purpose of the feminists was to make the role of fulltime homemaker economically untenable and socially disdained. She analyzed the writings of the feminist intellectuals and she documents their attempts to ostracize fulltime homemakers as childish "parasites."

The feminists have been strikingly successful with this goal; women are now half the labor force, and 40% of women are essential family breadwinners.

In the current recession, the majority of workers laid off have been men (especially from construction and manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not been much affected.

Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama Administration give half the Stimulus jobs to women rather than to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing the Stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Demo

crats they get, and the Stimulus money was directed to jobs in education, health care, and social services. The feminists' tactics to divert Stimulus jobs to women were described in the July 2009 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

So what are the feminists complaining about? Now that women are half the work force, they want workforce rules to be changed to be more female-friendly. (These are the same feminists who have been saying for years that there is no difference between male and female.) Feminists demand that the taxpayers provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, that new laws prohibit employers from ordering women to work overtime (as men are often required to do), and probably that men should be forced to assume half the household and baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still is, because the majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists, but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and women still say it is best for children to have a father working and a mother at home."

Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising because of who is going to college and who drops out. Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college campuses was 60-40; now it's 40-60, and women receive the majority of college degrees.

But the feminists are griping because women students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser paid jobs than male students, who in larger numbers choose math, science and engineering. The feminists want government to remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers' money to make other choices. (Feminists claim that there are no gender differences, but they demand government intervention to override women's choices.)

The feminists push hard for what they call "Title-Nining," using Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in schools and colleges, to force equal numbers of women in all athletic programs. Since this misuse of Title IX was initiated by radical feminists in Jimmy Carter's Education Department, the feminists have forced colleges to eliminate thousands of men's teams, including many championship teams and more than 450 wrestling teams. Now the feminists are Title-Nining science and math departments. Using phony charges of gender bias, they are directing millions of dollars of federal and university money to override women's choices in order to increase the number of women in math and science at the expense of men.

Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments. She writes that feminists defined "progress for women too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the expense of attitudes."

She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with feminists; as long as they believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful. Women won't be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated in most of these current articles) that women make only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. The Equal Pay Law was passed in 1963, but requires equal pay only for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as many hours per week as men do, and women voluntarily choose jobs that pay less.

Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of humor." That's a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the students who are not laughing.

Only one sentence in all these feminist articles confronts the fundamental reason why today's women are not as happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote: "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood."

That's what the feminist movement did to America. All those impressive statistics about women holding well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce happy women as long as 39% of children are born to unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband.

And one more glaring point: the lack of grandchildren isn't mentioned in these exposés of women's unhappiness. In rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure of women's happiness.

Feminists Are Still Unhappy

All this self-psychoanalyzing of women's attitudes appears to have been triggered by a study released earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in the American Economic Journal. Called "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," this report concluded that women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. Since this study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation movement, the feminists recognized it as a challenge to the goals and alleged achievements of their movement.

The authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, advanced a theory that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. The authors also presented a second theory that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.

A more realistic explanation is that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach. If you believe you can never succeed because you are a helpless victim of mean men, you are probably correct.

Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers; if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.

Another explanation for women's unhappiness could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (39% of American births are now born to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70% of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth around" policies.

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. At the same time, the private enterprise system produced many products that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers, and paper diapers).

Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book The Feminine Mystique, which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the fulltime homemaker dissatisfied with her role.

Economic need plays no role in the feminist argument that women should seek labor-force jobs. Feminists encourage wives to leave the home because marriage is allegedly archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force is upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.

Women's Studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.

A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, Myrna Blyth, wrote in her book, Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America, that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."

According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance the feminists' political, legislative and judicial goals.

The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said, "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children . . . precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers irrelevant and unnecessary except to provide a paycheck. Most divorces are initiated by women. More women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers.

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20% of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. Women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth.

Feminist Attack on Marriage

While the gay lobby gets most of the blame for the assault on the institution of marriage, the modern feminist movement has always been virulently and effectively anti-marriage. When the movement marched onto the stage of the culture war in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they called themselves the women's liberation movement. The buzz word was liberation, which specifically meant liberation from home, husband, family and children.

Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield's book entitled Manliness includes a most informative chapter called "Womanly Nihilism." Mansfield rightly concludes that the 20th-century feminist intellectuals, such as Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Germaine Greer, wanted independence not only from men, but from morality and from human nature and motherhood.

The feminists' first legislative triumph was to change the divorce laws of all 50 states to unilateral divorce, i.e., allowing one spouse to walk out of marriage without the consent of the other spouse, and without having to allege any fault or reason to sever the marriage contract. Big media eagerly cooperated to promote the notion that we have moved into an era of "serial" (rather than lifetime) marriages. "Ozzie and Harriet," a then-popular sitcom featuring a traditional family, became a favorite epithet for feminists to scoff at traditional marriage and the role of the fulltime homemaker.

The feminists' second victory was Roe v. Wade. Abortion has always been central to the feminist movement (proving there is no connection with the movement for women's right to vote, whose leaders were very anti-abortion).

Their third victory (a Gloria Steinem favorite) was getting President Jimmy Carter to pluralize the name of his White House Conference on Families in order to popularize the notion that non-traditional families should be recognized and included.

The anti-marriage feminists stormed state capitols to repeal the laws designed to respect morality and preserve marriage, such as the laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy, and alienation of affection.

The only goal they failed to achieve was ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Meanwhile, beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being. Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.

Feminist solidarity with the gay rights movement was cemented at the International Women's Year (IWY) Conference in Houston in 1977, following impassioned emotional entreaties by Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal. IWY resolutions proclaimed the feminists' attack not only on traditional marriage, but also on motherhood. Feminists view society's expectation that mothers should care for their own children as oppressive discrimination against women.

Marriage: One Man, One Woman

The institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been fundamental to America ever since the founding of our nation. When the famous French commentator Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the United States in the early-19th century, he recognized the fact that respect for marriage is very American. He wrote: "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated."

Not only do American laws specifically recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but many laws legislate special benefits to the institution of marriage. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the definition of marriage in its traditional meaning, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers.

Attacks on the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the feminist movement that opposes what they call the patriarchy (that supposedly makes women second-class citizens), and also from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair and/or a religious contract, and that the terms of this union should be none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards, or issue marriage licenses.

Government's Role in Marriage

Government has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child, or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women, which is totally demeaning and harmful to women.

The very first Platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism." Always a stalwart defender of traditional marriage, the 2008 Republican Platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it." It's vitally important that the Republican Party continue to be the standard-bearer for traditional marriage.

We thought our nation had definitely settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but it recently raised its ugly head. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is on record as supporting polygamy. The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." And on October 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.

Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.

The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that practice polygamy and marriage to children and close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been allowed to immigrate and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.

President Obama's nominee for a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a radical manifesto that endorsed polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner"). Signed in 2006, this manifesto, entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."

Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"

Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

In Socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. In a current lawsuit, British Columbia's Supreme Court is being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.

Traditional marriage is essential to a stable society. We should maintain government's proper role in defining it and protecting it.

Source: http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911297520/culture-wars/feminists-psychoanalyze-themselves-update-november-2009.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a man and know that marriage is certainly not for me. However bad I want a wife and child I know that the rules are stacked against me.

First of all it is now only a commitment from a man to a woman to provide to her and "her" child both in and out of marriage.. Men don't have the right to even have shared custody of their child after divorce.

The way I see it is that men are no longer a part of the "family" and are expendable so why even start one, much less commit to only
one woman.

Yes, in fact our single woman birth rate is at 40% but this is normal given the changes women made to family law and marriage..I've seen the graph and it all starts around the same time. Women don't want to "need a man or father" to contribute to raising their children and men have gotten the
message quite clear..

Personally I can't wait until the diversion of the stimulus package to women coupled with Affirmative Action, and Title IX-ing men out of the last places they reside in our
colleges catches up to us.. A nation where men are an underclass and do not produce nearly as much as women is a good thing. It will bring us to a cultural and social chaos for sure. There will be no structure. Our individualistic,
nebulous and subjective relativism will continue to grow.

We will continue to stand for and accept everything and in the process stand for nothing in particular.

Plato has said in no uncertain terms that tolerance taken to
this level is the demise of culture and societal context.

Such things have happened before in history.. The American Empire is in a state of decline. Looking at history we've survived a little longer than the rest.

To me the picture is quite clear. Male suicide rates have tripled since 1970, we have had a 400% increase in incarceration rates,
males now die 7 years earlier than women as opposed to 1-2 years in 1920, male participation in the workforce is on the decline all together, alcoholism, drug use and crime or abhorrent acts of violence will continue to grow. Voter participation among males is on the decline along with commitment to women, marriage and a family.

This is all a normal part of our societal decline towards moral
relativism based off the individualistic or individualism
ethos.

Over all male productive incentive is on the decline.. With such a large proportion of disenfranchised men both politically, socially and economically speaking I do expect
our social issues, mental pathologies, depression along with
the "freedom" of individual autonomy and lack of commitment
to anything other than the self to continue in a culture where 70% of our GDP is consumer consumption and the product of the day is rightly named "I" this or "I" that...

Anyway, Barrack Obama himself along with the supreme federal Council Of Women have shown that women are now a separate political, social and economic class away from men and family as policy and even social culture respond accordingly. These gender identity and class politics will be the wedge that drives us further into demise.

I have no doubt that the American people are headed headlong toward
the same socialist or communist infrastructure that the Soviets were when they established the Genotdel or Women's Section of the Communist party as Barrack Obama did recently with the establishment of a council having the same goals of "equality" or a classless society in mind.

Either way, in the coming future men will have little incentive or ties to women and family other than by force of the government. I expect social and political instability to ensue. Either way the sexes will have reached a state of mutual independence or mutual dis-need of each other.. In short the rise of MRA's and the Men's and Father's Rights Movement is not a fluke. Men seek independence from women's dependency.

No more provider-dependent both in and out of marriage, no more primary custody of children..

Either way the policies in place are designed to put women and men in competition and produce a female victory by force. The effect is paradoxical and self compounding. More and more men will have nothing left to lose. Besides if a woman does marry us it will be her liability... Who knows maybe this
liberated woman will need a man to
stay home and watch her infant or take care of domestic tasks.

Either way the tide will turn and men will be freed and independent from women's dependency. Men will infact go our own way as women desire.......... Looking at the
data...we already are.

Wow A Brave Young Lady Speaks Out !

Rebuking Feminism — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:28:00 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZP3iq-dhIw

My Women's Studies Class in college was the final experience as a male in our culture that inspired me to speak out. I could not be quiet any longer. It is what helped make me a Men's and Father's Rights Activist. What this young lady speaks of is just the beginning of what young women and young men are taught about themselves and men in these classes.

The radical political ideology of feminism is often taught under the guise of "science". My class was called "The Psychology Of Women". I was so excited as I LOVE WOMEN and thought we would get to see comparative functional MRI brain scans and all kinds of good stuff. I was so excited that science could teach me more about women and about me as a man. I was so angry with what I experienced there my parents were worried about me. I came home red in the face with tremendous anger. I sought to reach out online but at the time there was no such thing as a Men's and Father's Rights Movement, there was no MRA's, no Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Summers, Steven Bakersville, Bernard Chapin, Cathy Young,Steve Moxon, Kathleen Parker etc etc etc.

I would not be so concerned about feminism if it did not have the effect it has had on me personally and society as a whole. I've written extensively about my personal experiences, thoughts and feelings on this blog. Feminism has effected me and my experience as a male in our culture very deeply. I hope to illustrate where we are with the course feminism has taken us and hope to make a difference in the world. I hope to heal this. I want to make something good of what has become......

It is highly unusual for women to separate from the pack like she has and speak out about this. I commend her for her courage to do so. Deep in my heart I really believe that it is the awareness of women, the active role of women in the changes I hope to make in our social fabric that will turn this around. I know that men can not do it without you.

Ladies, I love you and fundamentally revere your essential natures. I revere and hold in the highest regard how we compliment each other. But I can bear this no longer, men are no longer going to stay quiet about this. Our male nature has been used against us. We have slain ourselves, stepped over each other and provided, protected, sacrificed, passed law after chivalrous law in your favor. Women it seems want more so men came to the rescue and heed the call. We take the pain as we have always died for you. We have always put women first. We have always put children first..

If you do not think we are mutually bound, mutually dependent on each other, if you believe that men succeed and dominate ANYTHING for the sake of ourselves and are men for the sake of ourselves you are gravely mistaken. Men are angry and our sacred bond with you has been sullied and desecrated.

In this blog I will illustrate this to you with facts, graphs, pop cultural expressions and a myriad of other sources including those of other men to show you my anger, my pain and suffering and that of men and boys. I know male suffering is expected of men, I know that we are not as valuable as you are. I know we are expendable and disposable by law but I ask you to listen....listen. I will show you that male participation in society is dwindling.

I will show you suicide rates, marriage rates, divorce rates, single woman birth rates, male health in comparison to women, male education in comparison to women, women only laws, family and divorce law, homelessness and the "glass floor", Domestic Violence, the state of fatherlessness and the family, disease, voter participation of men, the wage gap, rape law, and even the essential soul of men, our essential nature... I will show you functional MRI Scans of the male brain in relation to territory and resources! You have a lot to listen to, I know you are not used to this but you have a lot of work to do and it is your turn to listen.

I do, I do invite you to join beside men in this fight. I will leave no one behind and believe we are in this together, our experiences and essential natures define each other. The male experience becomes the female experience becomes the male experience and vice versa..

THIS IS NOT MY "FRAGILE MALE EGO" TALKING.. I AM NOT a MISOGYNIST. I AM A MAN, A human being. I hope to be a husband and father someday. Listen to us, hear us and do not shame us for speaking out...We will no longer be silent.........