Thursday, December 27, 2007
I'm on an extended holiday vacation here...as I'm in Las Vegas for my first ever, live UFC event, UFC 79: Nemesis. I'm a long time martial artist, and a huge fan of Mixed Martial Arts, and I've waited a LOOONG time to see these two fellas get into the ring and settle it once and for all.
Both of these men, Wanderlei Silva and Chuck Lidell are knockout artists, and I expect this one to be a real slugfest!
As Chuck is a Hawaiian Kenpo practitioner, and so am I (though I train a differnt style than he does, our schools come from the same roots), I'll be rooting for Chuck to win...however, I still admire the sheer brutality of Wanderlei's Muay Thai style!
I can't wait til this Saturday!
(MRA blogging will resume once I get back to Hawaii for the New Year!)
Happy New Years everyone!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
To all five of my regular readers...Mele Kalikimaka! Hauoli Makahiki Hou!
(That means Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!) I'm about to take a 5 day weekend for the holidays, so I'll be back after Christmas.
In the meantime, I'd like to leave the following political message that says it all...
(Thanks to Field Marshall Watkins from End of Men!)
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Nebraska Mall Shooter's Mother:
Maribel Rodriguez Tells Diane Sawyer She Did 'Best' She Could With Her Son
Rodriguez said her son's life had been a challenge from the start. She divorced Hawkins' father when the boy was 3-years-old, she said, and by 5 he was taking prescription Ritalin and Zoloft. She said she watched, feeling helpless the way a parent can, as raw anger took root inside her son.
Wow...no kidding. "Raw anger." Wonder if that had anything to do with a young boy's family being torn apart when he was only a toddler, than pumped him full of psychotropic meds by the time he was in kindergarten to put him in a chemical straight jacket for having fits because his father was ripped out of his life through no fault of his own?!Isn't it just wonderful that we have a system that encourages no-fault divorce...preaches that father's are not necessary...that single mothers are more than capable...that young FIVE YEAR OLD BOYS NEED TO BE MEDICATED FOR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS!!!
What the hell happened to common sense? What kind of "Doctor" looked at a young, hurting five year old boy, miserable because his family was torn apart by divorce...and conclude that he needs drugs to alter his body chemistry? Given the circumstances, it's COMPLETELY NATURAL for a young boy to be angry and hurt!!
The feminists who have declared war on masculinity and males...the feminists who have pushed for divorce as the solution to "free women," these are the folks that are indirectly responsible in creating the "monsters" who grow up without the structure and discipline of a two parent family; of a father to control, discipline and define adolescent male aggression. This is how we get these sociopaths that think nothing of killing innocent bystanders in our malls, churches and schools.
Think I'm taking one case and using it to indict feminism based on a lone freak incident? Think again:
|1. Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert Kennedy|
|2. Richard Lawrence, attempted assassin of Andrew Jackson|
|3. Charles Guiteau, assassin of James Garfield|
|4. Leon Czolgosz, assassin of William McKinley|
|5. John Schrank, attempted assassin of Theodore Roosevelt|
|6. Giuseppe Zangara, attempted assassin of Franklin Roosevelt|
|7. Dean Corll, the Houston mass-murderer|
|8. John Wilkes Booth, assassin of Abraham Lincoln|
|9. Lee Harvey Oswald, assassin of John Kennedy|
|10. James Earl Ray, assassin of Martin Luther King|
|11. Charles Manson, triple murderer of Sharon Tate, et al|
|12. Andreas Baader, mass murderer|
|13. Lynette Fromme, attempted assassin of Gerald Ford|
|14. Marc Lepine, mass murderer|
|15. Mitchell Johnson, 13 year old youth, shot 4 students and a teacher.|
|16. Aileen Wuornos, serial killer|
|17. Dorothea Puente, serial killer.|
|18. Marybeth Tinning, serial killer.|
|19. fourteen female serial murderesses in Heide and Keeney's study.|
|20. Jane Toppan, nurse who killed up to 100 patients.|
|21. Orenthal James Simpson, fatherless, "Fatherless America", pg. 38.|
|22. William Jefferson Clinton [list too long to post here].|
|23. Jesse James, bank robbery, train robbery, and murder.|
|24. Frank James, bank robbery, train robbery, and murder.|
|25. Henry McCarty, aka Billy the Kid, 20 murders.|
|26. Ted Bundy, murdered, mutilated 30-40 young women.|
|27. Mary Flora Bell, at age ten, strangled two boys 4 & 8 years old in Britain|
|28. Dennis Nilsen, "Britain's Jeffrey Dahmer"|
|29. Luke Woodham, Pearl, Mississippi, killed 3 in school shooting|
|30. Jeremy Delle, Richardson, Texas, blew his brains out in front of teacher|
|31. Dylan Klebold, with Eric Harris, shot 26 fellow students in Littleton, Colorado high school|
|32. Robert Thompson (then aged 11) in 1993 abducted a 2 year old boy, killed him by bashing his head in|
|33. 13-year old Nathaniel Brazill, living in an SMH, shoots biology teacher in the head and kills him|
We can now add to this terrible list the following entry:
34. Robert Hawkins (aged 19), Murdered 8 people and committed suicide in the deadliest Mall Shooting in American History
UPDATE - After reading the list over again, I just noticed Number 22, Bill Clinton.
Yes, the guy was from a Single Mother Household...but no matter what your politics (and I'm as anti-Democrat as you can get), I don't think the guy should be on the same list as mass murderers like Charles Manson. But that's just my opinion...I'm sure there are those that would disagree and point out that he does deserve such a distinction. Afterall...god forbid should Hillary win the next election, we may end up looking back at the first Clinton years with nostalgia of better days gone by.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Is it any wonder the axis of evil in American politics - feminism, socialism and the Democrat Party - have been promoting family destroying, pro-divorce policies and welfare subsidies for single mothers for so long? They know that for every single mother without a husband and provider for her children, she will view the government as the surrogate solution. Taking a step back and looking objectively at the big picture, can one really find it impossible to consider that the socialist-promoting Democrats have purposely promoted the agenda that either destroys current, two-parent families or prevents the two parent family from forming in the first place? The more single mothers, the more Democrat, socialist policy voters!
Jim Wooten of the Atlantic Journal Constitution makes the point in his article, Single women could usher in big government:
Two trends bedevil America. One is taxes. The second, more important, is marriage.
Those who pay no taxes have no check on their appetite for services. If somebody else is paying, nothing’s unaffordable.
Is this not EXACTLY what we see with the rise of single mother headed households? Even the pro-Democrat, liberal research and think tank groups basically savor at the chance for electoral victory by getting the "gold mine" of the single mom vote!
The liberal polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research singled out unmarried women and their potential impact on future elections. What it found should chill the spines of those who wish to reverse, or even slow, the growth of government — not so much because of its cost, but because Big Government steals the initiative and enterprise and independence of its wards.
“Because of the often stark economic reality of a single-income family, they [unmarried women] support an active government that will give all Americans a chance to get ahead, not just the affluent,” the organization reported.As the nation discovered decades ago with welfare policies that pushed men out of the lives of poor women, except for procreation, women who previously found security in marriage turned instead to government. As Greenberg Quinlan Rosner find, unmarried women are a rich vein to be mined by Democrats.
A "rich vein" is an inaccurate metaphor as far as I'm concerned. A gold miner searches for "rich veins" and happens to stumble on it after much work.
I would say a better metaphor would be the liberal Democrat Socialists are farmers, rather than miners. They created the ever-increasing crops of single mothers and the growing population of unmarried females, full-well knowing that unmarried women and single mothers by-and-large support big government, socialist policies and politicians!
In truth, the liberal Democrats are counting on reaping the very harvest they themselves have sown.
As the liberal polling firm notes:
“Marital status is playing an increasingly defining role in elections. For the 2006 congressional elections, the ‘marriage gap’ was 32 points, far bigger than the gender gap, which was just 9 points. Among women, the marriage gap was an even bigger 36 points … unmarried women tend to vote like other unmarried women, regardless of other powerful demographic variables such as age, income and education.”
“Unmarried women are easily the largest segment of the Democratic base — bigger than Hispanics and African Americans combined.” And the second most loyal, second only to blacks. They favor Democrats over Republicans by a 70-24 margin, and Hillary Clinton over Rudy Giuliani by 66-30.
“From 1960 to 2006, the percentage of the voting age population that was unmarried grew from 27 to 45 percent … If this trend continues, the unmarried will be a majority of the population within 15 years.”
"Their top economic concern is health care. “This group strongly supports fundamental reform to provide universal coverage that can never be taken away.”
“In total, there are over 53 million unmarried women of voting age, a number that dwarfs the percentage of seniors, people of color and even union members.” Of those who voted in 2006, two-thirds chose Democrats. Some 20 million, however, did not vote. That’s 41 percent of the unmarrieds. Among the married, it was 29 percent. But “2008 could be very different if progressives see the opportunity before them.” Unmarried women “emerge as the largest contributor to the Democratic vote in 2008.”
The liberal socialists that have the nerve to call themselves "progressive" have carefully cultivated a crop of single mother households for their own harvest of electoral votes, to the detriment of society.
As my favorite Metallica song goes...
I never really thought about it before (I've been a die-hard Metallica fan since 1986...my first album I ever bought was Master of Puppets), but the lyrics to Harvester of Sorrow are quite fitting in describing the socialist-feminist-liberal triumvirate and the damage they have done to families and society...
My life suffocates
Planting seeds of hate
I've loved, turned to hate
Trapped far beyond my fate
This life that I forsake
Been cheated of my youth
You turned this lie to truth
You'll suffer unto me
Harvester of sorrow
Language of the mad
Harvester of sorrow
Pure black looking clear
My work is done soon here
Try getting back to me
Get back which used to be
Let the beatings begin
Distributor of pain
Your loss becomes my gain
Youll suffer unto me
Harvester of sorrow
Language of the mad
Harvester of sorrow
All have said their prayers
Invade their nightmares
See into my eyes
Youll find where murder lies
Harvester of sorrow
Language of the mad
Harvester of sorrow
Language of the mad
Harvester of sorrow
The Feminist, Socialist Democrats...they all speak the language of the mad while they prepare to reap the harvest of sorrow they have sown.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Congratulations to Janelle Schlossberger and Amanda Harinoff, seniors at John F. Kennedy High School in Plainview, N.Y., who won the team grand prize in the Seimens Math and Science Competition.
There personal effort to excel should be recognized and lauded.
But the socialist engineering and spin behind this particular story is a bit nauseating.
First of all, have a look at the headline published for this story:
Girls Dominate the Siemens Competition
Yay! It's another celebration for the feminists! Girls DOMINATE!
Than we read the actual comments of the winners themselves:
"Women lag far behind men in professional math, science, and computer fields, an issue that became the subject of renewed debate in 2005 when then Harvard President Lawrence Summers suggested the lack of top female scientists may stem in part from biological differences between men and women. Jain vehemently disagrees, but acknowledges with some annoyance that "the guy-to-girl ratio in math and science competitions is absolutely ridiculous. It's usually seven or eight guys to one girl." The results of this year's Siemens Competition may signify that more girls are "finally stepping up to the plate and are more than capable," Jain says. "And I'm proud to be a part of that."
The issue was NEVER "are women capable." This was the gist of Lawrence Summers point...it was not "women are biologically incapable" but that gender differences mean women are A LOT LESS LIKELY to be INTERESTED in pursuing math and science careers!!!
And that still holds true!
If these girls had not been raised by two highly-educated scientists to begin with (as the article points out), chances are they would be much more interested in the typical interests of the average American Teenage girl - social networking, dating, celebrity worship, fashion etc.
Just because they are the exception to the rule does not mean the rule is wrong!
Nevertheless, the statistics are in, and the results are undeniable: the further feminization of the school systems, and as more and more boys drop out of the educational system, the more we really will see females "Dominate" every aspect of the educational fields.
They have already surpassed males in attendance and graduation at college.
So when will the feminists finally look at the numbers and realize they "achieved equality?"
Because it never was about equality. It has always been the agenda to promote female supremacy.
Friday, November 30, 2007
From the latest issue of Feminist-infested drivel, Glamour magazine's Best and Worst of 2007 feature:
Gutsy new moms
Melanie Brown and Bridget Moynahan remained thrilled about their pregnancies even after their relationships fell apart, just like glamour.com’s Storked! blogger, Christine Coppa, did. Are their lives Christmas-card perfect? Nope. Are they proud mommies? Absolutely.
Proud of what? That these Hollywood Harlots managed to shag a noteworthy male celebrity? That they now have 18 years of child support coming from rich, famous and successful men? Proud that their publicly chronicled slutty behavior and resulting illegitimate offspring who are celebrated by the mindless cult of fame worshipers?
The worst part is that there are no doubt millions and teenage girls that read this mindless drivel and accept the notion at face value that having kids out of wedlock is an act of "Glamour."
Hey girls! You too can get knocked up by casual sex with a man! And if it doesn't work out, and your life is not Christmas Card perfect, don't worry! As long as you are proud, that is all that matters! Never mind the fact that having a fatherless child will result in a long life of financial hardship for you, and that your kid that you are so proud of is far more likely to develop learning disabilities, become a drunk or druggie, and much more likely to become a criminal! The important thing is that you are the BEST if you are PROUD MOMMY and THRILLED to be pregnant out-of-wedlock!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The descent of Western Civilization into the social chaos and primitive existence of Matriarchal structured society is becoming more and more evident. Another sign of the decline is the recent trend of the last few years in which Hollywood Harlots eagerly expose their unmarried pregnancies in the nude on magazine covers.
This kind of thing is no doubt fostered by the delusions of feminist minded publishers and photographers who tell themselves that women who are pregnant are "sexy."
It is also another manifestation of the feminist centric idea that the female form, fertility and pregnancy are all goddess forms to be worshiped and celebrated. The fact that these women are not married, don't intend to get married, and are perfectly content to give birth to bastards and raise them as such, proudly and publicly, goes to show you just how far gone our societal standards of morality have fallen into disgrace.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wow...this story is completely amazing. As a young kid, I used to love watching Hulk Hogan battle with the Iron Sheik, Andre the Giant, and Randy the Macho Man Savage and King Kong Bundy in the bad old days of the World Wrestling Federation.
Hulk Hogan was the mythical American hero who overcame tremendous odds to defeat mind-boggling, athletic, muscle bound villains and gigantic behemoths of humanity, while urging the kids to say their prayers and take their vitamins. He captured my pre-teen imagination like no other wrestler. I have no shame in admitting I was once a "Hulkamaniac" as a 12 year old boy.
Having since long outgrown Professional Wrestling in my early teen years, I still have fond memories of the excitement I used to have watching the Wrestlemania pay per views at friend's houses and cheering for the Hulkster to overcome the seemingly impossible odds against wrestlers like Andre the Giant.
But now it seems like the mighty Hulkster who defeated so many intimidating opponents is about to be defeated by a much more insidious and dangerous foe than he ever faced in the ring...his materialistic, gold-digging wife.
From The Superficial blog:This is the perfect example of the kind of power and leverage the feminsts wanted to give females in the institution of marriage. They worked to turn the Patriarchal model of family into nothing more than a tool to enable women to blackmail, extort and become financial parasites off of men.
Linda Bollea, the wife of wrestler Hulk Hogan, is seeking half of the couple’s assets after filing for divorce last week. She also wants an unspecified amount in alimony and health insurance for their son Nick Bollea, according to People:Linda is seeking to split the couple's assets, which include the 17,000-square-foot Bel Air mansion where the family primarily lives and a 3,474-square-foot home in Clearwater Beach, Fla., as well as a condo under construction in Las Vegas. The two existing homes alone are worth nearly $9.5 million.
Linda has an obsession with houses which a source for Page Six says caused rifts in her marriage to the Hulkster:"She just goes nuts and acts like Hulk has Tom Cruise money - when he doesn't. She wanted to buy a $12 million house in LA, and when Hulk refused, she went ahead and rented a $35,000-a-month house. They already have four to five houses and she wants more?"
Hogan's wife demanded he buy what she wanted. When he wouldn't give in to her base materialism and greed, she now resorts to turning to the State system instituted by the radical feminists to forcibly pin him down in "family" court, pile drive his finances and body slam her family into fractured oblivion...all to satiate her greed and crass materialism.
What a whore.
I think MGTOW will continue to grow as more and more of these stories become common.
Monday, November 26, 2007
When I have the time, I always take some time to google up articles, columns and other such findings related to topics that interest me...including MRA topics, of course.
It's always a pleasure to find writings I've never before had the opportunity to peruse, but upon finding them, find myself nodding in agreement.
And today, I'd like to talk about one such find: the townhall column archives of Philis Schlafly.
Mrs. Schlafly was the original Counter-Feminist...and I say that not to cast aspersions or to slight Fidelbogen and the title of his most excellent blog, Counter-Feminist, at all - but to merely point out that at a time when the feminists made tremendous headway into the consciousness of mainstream American, Philis Sclafly was one woman who stood up, and fought against the tide of popular political propaganda put forth by the feminists, and successfully lobbied and fought to stop the feminist's attempts to legislate feminist philosophy into law, the Equal Rights Amendment.
In a column tribute to Schlafly, Ann Coulter noted:
When Schlafly took up her battle against the ERA, the Senate had passed it by 84 to 8. The House had passed it by 354 to 23. The ERA was written in to both the Republican and Democratic Party platforms. Thirty states had approved it in the first year after it was sent to the states for ratification. Only eight more states were needed.
But the ERA had not yet faced Phyllis Schlafly. Over the next eight years, thanks to Schlafly and her Eagle Forum, only five states ratified it -- but five other states rescinded their earlier ratifications.
The fact that she is a major player in defeating the radical feminists should make her an eternal hero to the MRA movement. Schlafly made a huge impact in decades ago, but she is by no means finished in her work in exposing the lies, deceit and family-destroying legislation and propaganda the feminists constantly attempt to foist upon society.
The following are some excerpts from a few of her columns...points that make so much common sense, it's easy to see why this woman has been such an effective Counter-Feminist throughout her career as a Pro-Family advocate.
Schafly on Children's Rights in Divorce:
It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month. The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?
Schlafly on U.S. women doing fine without International Violence Against Women Act
The International Violence Against Women Act is based on the lie that violence against women is the same problem in all countries. Many non-Western countries have social norms that justify abuse (such as genital mutilation, forced marriage, and polygamy), and "international standards" would vastly diminish the rights and benefits U.S. women now enjoy.
U.S. women are the most privileged class of people on the face of the earth. That's because we are the beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian civilization, including the requirement in the Ten Commandments to honor mothers and the Christian religion that honors the Virgin Mary and respects women.
Schlafly on exposing Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign's "Mom Strategy"
Clinton invites us to "imagine a country in which nearly all children between the ages of 3 and 5 attend preschool in sparkling classrooms." That children's paradise is France, which "makes caring for children a top priority," and where "more than 90 percent of French children between ages 3and 5 attend free or inexpensive preschools."Schlafly on United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The assumption of "It Takes a Village" is that daycare, run by tax-salaried and licensed "professionals" in centers regulated by the government, is preferable to mother care. Clinton even praises the fact that many French children are in full-day programs "even before they reach the age of 3."
The re-issue of Hillary's old book dispels the notion that she is re-inventing herself as a moderate. Her mom strategy is badly out of sync with her book praising a country that starts government daycare for children at age 2.
The notion is downright ridiculous that American women (the most fortunate class of people who ever lived) should submit to a treaty that dictates uniform rules for 185 other nations, all of which treat women worse than the United States.
It's good to see Mrs. Schlafly is still going strong, writing a lot of columns in the past year. The fact that she is largely unrecognized for her efforts speaks volumes to how much popular culture and the mainstream media will only idolize women who toe the politically correct, feminist line.
As Ann Coulter concluded her tribute:
That Phyllis Schlafly is the mortal enemy of a movement that claims to promote women tells you all you need to know about the feminists.Indeed.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Here's an interesting story...
Wife's at a loss to find husband after he wins the lottery
A former beauty queen is suing her airline-mechanic husband, claiming he tried to hide his lottery jackpot from her.
Ha ha ha ha!
Now, without really knowing the personal circumstances of the actual story -- the story in the paper is quite slanted to give a favorable point of view to the woman (surprise, surprise) -- what do you wanna bet this lady has been anything else but a pleasant, loving wife?
Any happily married couple would have an ecstatic husband coming home to bring home the good news to his wife that they've hit the big time and all financial worries are over....instead, this guy makes some plans in secret to buy a new house and leave her.
Now you may wonder why I would guess that this is the case without any real evidence. I say, one only has to see what she has to say on the matter to get a little insight into the kind of woman she is, and why the lotto winner was so desperate to escape her...
Campbell said she needs her husband's lottery winnings to help pay bills and support herself.
'Right now, all I want is justice,'' she said. ``With time, I will file for divorce.''
Now she might actually be a very nice lady who is getting screwed over by a conniving husband...but I doubt it.
Happily married men in love with their wives are not going to do something like this. Somehow, I get the impression he felt trapped by a selfish, standard American Woman with an entitlement princess attitude, and he probably looked at hitting the lotto as his only chance to escape.
Get ready Mr. Campbell...when you are finally tracked down and summoned to court, your soon-to-be ex-wife is going to drag you into court where the gears of a female-favoring system is going to chew you up and spit you out.
Hopefully you played it smart and you fled the country and are now happily living in Mexico or some other country where the US Divorce/Family courts can't get you!
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Were American television was once subtly promoted a pro-American, pro-family reflection of the American experience, it is now absolutely saturated in the modern day, mainstream religion: secular, anti-American, feminist-liberal socialism.
American TV is nothing more than a virtual, 24-7 vagina-centric appeal to the female fantasy; a cynical, lowest-common denominator product; an estrogen-saturated broadcast designed to promote materialistic and shallow consumerism of the American female psyche. (And from what little I did manage to watch while on vacation, I can say with some confidence that UK TV is in the same state - if not worse!).
Even a few of the most liberal, feminist minded creatures in America - the pro-feminist, female media journalists are starting to recognize this fact; albeit they still don't see the big picture, some of them are still starting to be a little troubled by the more obvious manifestations.
Case in point:
On TV, men are the new weaker sex
This is the strange state of ABC's female-friendly Thursday night lineup: It has become a night of emasculated men and emasculating women. If the classic male pinup was the strong, silent, unattainable type, tonight's TV dream man is addled and fawning. And the empowered woman - once a happy departure from older stereotypes - has become not just self-sufficient, but kind of mean.
Uh...hello Ms. Joanna Weiss...this particular meme is not "new." It's been the overriding theme of the standard fare of American TV for decades now. Before the ascendancy of feminism in mainstream culture, the typical TV show usually depicted a competent, decent father figure that had the respect of his wife and family. But that particular character trait is all but gone...replaced by the ubiquitous depiction of the bumbling idiot who barely ties his own shoelaces without his super-competent, do-it-all-know-it-all wife/girlfriend/mother/daughter to tell him how he's screwing everything up.
In one sense, this is gender-bending stuff as old as Shakespeare, imagining what things might be like if men were more like women, and vice versa. But on ABC, role-reversal is pursued with such vigor that it feels like a social mission: a feverish, wholly off-putting attempt to break free of the boy-meets-girl formula.
Ha! Only now is it starting to feel like a social mission? It's been one all along! Ms. Weiss only begins to recognize the feminism-as-social-mission theme of modern American TV because it has been getting more and more blatant. Where it once a subtle, undercurrent of one or two emasculated male characters or super-capable females in a few commercials or one or two TV shows, these caricatures of feminist fantasy are now ubiquitous! And this indulgence in feminist folly is driving male viewers away from TV in droves.
Only now are women themselves beginning to realize how off putting this distorted portrayal of an entire gender is.
There's something unsatisfying about watching rich guys wallow in their powerlessness, perhaps because it puts us in the odd position of wondering who to root for: the venal women or the men they can so easily crush.
There's something unsatisfying you say? No kidding...American television is merely the reflection of the current, confused state of the American female mind. Women feel they are entitled to it all. They've been raised by an education system that tells them they can do anything a man can do...and that they should forsake getting married and raising children to pursue careers and compete with men to show that women are "equal."
And yet the phenomena of the dissatisfied, mid-life, unmarried feminist minded career woman lamenting that there are "no good men" to get married and take care of them happily ever after appears to be growing.
In contemplating the current state of Western pop-culture, the age old question: "Does art imitate life, or life imitate art?" has been rendered irrelevant...television most certainly reflects the attitudes and ideals of the modern American feminist-centric mindset, but it certainly would be an insane stretching of the imagination to call the present day programming "art."
Even the last bastion of celebrated masculine expression on television -- male dominated sports -- has been corrupted.
Sports like NFL football are popular because it features the tension of high quality competition that sets the stage for feats of achievement that rely on excellence and striving for the perfection of execution...the higher the risk of failure, the higher the level of competition, the greater the sense of accomplishment when victory is accomplished. This is what drives Men to strive for excellence.
Yet the NFL broadcasts on all channels still feel like they HAVE to give prominent face time to women to try and "attract the female demographic."
Women fans, just like men, stand up and cheer when their favored team scores a touchdown...I've never seen a women football fan stand up and shout "YOU GO GIRL" whenever a female sideline reporter corners a player to ask him how he feels about something. And the female pablum and celebri-tard interviews in middle of on-the-field action seems to be taking up more and more time in every NFL broadcast.
How long before we see the "first woman" playing in an NFL game...and the endless glorification of her "accomplishment?" My prediction? They'll have to change the rules first, so that men are not allowed to tackle her. Then we'll see how the genders really are equal on the gridiron!
Feminists have ruined television programming, and it's corrupting Sports. But at least there are still a few areas that are a last bastion of masculine portrayals left on TV. and were it not for NFL football and a couple of shows that fly against the conventional norms of feminist indoctrination (shows like House), I would never watch network TV at all.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
One of feminism's anchor issues was the absolute right of women to have control over their sex lives without judgment, and that they should not be criticized or discriminated against for "acting just like men" and being promiscuous.
The so-called "Free-love" 60's were supposed to unleash a golden age of freedom for women...the results are now in.
U.S. sets record in sexual disease cases
There is no such thing as "Free Love."
Isn't it great that the model of monogamous Patriarchy that oppressed American Women for so long is now being overthrown?!?!?!
Thursday, November 8, 2007
MIsForMalevolent asked if any MRA bloggers were interested in joining his blog and helping to contribute...so I've joined up to contribute occasionally.
Misandrope has blogged extensively about his personal experiences of going through the hell of divorce in the feminized court system of New Jersey, and his archives are quite instructive to others who may be going through a similar situation themselves.
I really enjoy his format and look to run with it a bit...he's got a great blog. I don't know of any "group blogs" in the MRM, so I think it would be a great idea of other bloggers would take up the offer and make an occasional contribution!
So folks, if you're interested, let's have some fun, pick a letter and post a topic!
My first entry over there: H is for Hero
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Much has been written about the lies feminists have propagated about domestic violence as of late in the MRM blogosphere. Carey Roberts, Glenn Sacks, Dr. Helen and a few other noteworthy MR advocates have attempted to shine the spotlight on the facts that women are often instigators and/or co-conspirators in domestic violence cases, and that women often instigate assault on their male partners just as much, if not more than men...yet the conventional wisdom (or the successful indoctrination of society by the feminists) is that men are always the perpetrators and that women are never culpable.
While I believe it is important to expose the lies of the feminists for all to see, and that such inequity in application of the laws are important to recognize, we men need to absolutely avoid the victim mentality of the feminists and try to create the same kind of institutional programs to try and "deal with this problem."
In short, I hope I NEVER live to see "Domestic Violence Centers for Men" become a widespread phenomenon.
Men don't need shelter from abusive women.
We need shelter from an abusive SYSTEM that doesn't hold Women responsible for their own actions.
We need to fight the popular culture and media that degrades men, fathers, fatherhood and the "you go girl" mindset that gives it's tacit stamp of approval for women to physically assault men.
We need an end to television shows and advertisements that portray a blow to men's genitalia as high comedy.
Another needed change would be in favor of a complete change in the application of police procedure in domestic violence cases.
As is the case today, a woman can assault a man (frequently with an object or weapon to inflict damage,) and a man can simply shove her or forcibly disarm her to protect himself and he is the only one that gets arrested and charged...even if the man has evident physical damage and the woman only has tears streaming down her face as visual evidence when the cops show up.
I say in any domestic violence case where the police are called, they should simply arrest BOTH parties involved and charge them BOTH with domestic violence. Than, both should be administered lie detector tests to determine who instigated the first act of physical contact.
In this way, woman would no longer have the automatic assumption of innocence (imagine that, equality under the law, regardless of gender!), nor would they have the incentives to try and create false "events" of domestic abuse to use as a tool to divorce their husbands. Instigating violence would get her arrested and put into the same system he does. Furthermore, we need to make the penalties for false claims of domestic abuse to be punished just as harshly as actual abuse. As it stands right now, women have all the incentives to make up false claims and no penalties for lying to manipulate the system.
Finally, I think the most important change that needs to be implemented is to stop the practice of voiding men's Constitutional rights on the simple accusation of domestic violence from a woman. Just because a woman claims abuse does not mean a man should be forcibly kicked out of his home (especially if he can demonstrate that he bears the majority of the burden for paying the mortgage or rent), or his second amendment rights by surrendering his legally owned firearms to the State on a simple TRO taken out by a female. We are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty...yet the feminists have managed to enact laws that ignore this constitutional principle and given women the tools to disenfranchise men from their legal property and right to life.
Men don't need shelters from abusive Women.
We need the reform of a system and society that encourages Women to be abusive in the first place.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
There's been an abundance of articles in the past week or so detailing the popularity of pre-teen girl "sexy" Halloween costumes. They often question if this is a good or bad thing...
...if you have to ask, you're a moron to begin with.
What this really is, is the modern equivalent to the training bra for young girls who are going to come of age in the modern Matriarchy. After all, they are only trying to emulate their role models...
The only difference is, the type of 12 or 13 year old girl that would wear these slutty costumes are also the type who more than likely are being raised by a single mother, and his headed for early teen single motherhood herself, and end up looking like this:
...rather than this:
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
I had a great two weeks, driving through the Scottish Highlands, visiting the Dalwhinnie and Talisker distilleries, visiting castles and ending the trip with a day at the Guiness Storehouse/Brewery in Dublin.
Great experiences all around...but I must say, I had an eye for evidence of just how bad the matriarchal nanny state has gotten in Britain, and I do believe MRA folks like Fred X, Eternal Bachelor and Captain Zarmband, an Irishmen Against Feminsm et al are not exaggerating.
Just watching UK TV was eye opening to how femi-centric the mass media is. And PSA ads plastered all over Buses and public transportation stations about men who abuse women and children were everywhere. Dublin was especially bad...they apparently have a campaign right now about men who drink too much, and every one of them depict a pretty, but stern looking women with a serious look on her face with the caption "I've had enough!"
The television shows were something else as well. I watched a show at Inverness called "Love in Britain" and it was an unbelievable show...it followed the love lives of several women throughout their lives in the UK and Australia. Just about all of these women behaved like hussies and tramps in their youths, had illegitimate children from multiple men, and were portrayed as sympathetic victims of male predators and no-good womanizers.
UK television really is feminized more blatantly than American TV. I almost couldn't believe it, but it's true.
Anyhow, I still had a great time and am glad to be back! Time to check out the MRA blogosphere to see if I missed much while I was away!
Friday, October 12, 2007
I'm heading to the UK for two weeks of vacation tomorrow, so I will not be blogging at all until I get back. I plan on visiting a few Scotch distilleries and the Guiness Brewery...I may need some rehab when I get back!
To all four or you that read this blog regularly, thanks for your readership! :) I'll be back on October 30th!
Here's an example of feminists jumping upon an unproven theory and promoting another "Informational Cascade" that ended up needlessly costing the lives of women...
Here's an article about the book "Overtreated:"
...concerning the aggressive treatment for breast cancer, Brownlee concludes (p. 141):
...insurers unwittingly made the treatment a feminist cause by refusing to pay for it. Breast cancer advocacy groups...threw their weight behind the embattled women...When transplanters like Peters testified in court that the procedure was established practice, when in fact it was not, they stoked the perception among patients that high-dose chemo offered a shot at cure.
Hope Rugo stopped performing transplants on breast cancer patients in 1999...she said, "We believed in it passionately. Now I think about all the women who died during transplant, who would have lived much longer without it."
Doctors and hospitals did not wait for clinical trial results before embracing what turned out to be an ineffective, painful, and debilitating procedure.
It's so easy to manipulate these foolish activist feminists into believing unproven theories as facts, and getting them to lobby for "solutions" that make problems worse than they were before they got involved.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
About 3 months ago, I embarked on a lifestyle change in an effort to lose some stubborn weight that I just couldn't seem to shake from by beer belly and love handles. I began researching the available literature of body builders and nutritionists and found out that my problem was two-fold: I thought I was eating healthy, and I thought I was exercising properly to burn fat.
I quickly learned that all of my pre-conceived notions about nutrition and exercise were all wrong.
I learned that the "conventional wisdom" of weight loss being a simple equation of burn more calories than you consume was also wrong.
What is more important is not how much you eat...but WHAT you eat is most important of all. In short, I discovered that my weight problems had everything to do with consuming refined sugars, simple carbohydrates and not enough protein and good fat in my diet. I had fallen for the conventional wisdom that in order to lose fat, I had to avoid eating fat. I bought only the leanest cuts of meat. I used lean Turkey meat in place of hamburger. I bought only non-fat or low-fat dairy products, and a whole host of other fat-free/reduced fat food products. Yet I could NEVER lose even one pound despite eating like this for years.
As soon as I discovered personal trainer and nutritionist Mike Furci and his advice on foods to eat, and foods to avoid. Found in those articles were references to the Weston A. Price Foundation. From all this readings, I quickly learned just how wrong the conventional wisdom on "healthy eating" was, and I changed my diet accordingly. I now eat as much proteins and healthy fats as I want, plenty of fibrous vegetables and some fruits, and have cut out just about all refined sugars and simple carbs (bread, pasta & white rice).
I have now lost 22 lbs. and counting, and for the first time in 4 years, I feel like I'm in top shape again.
In summary, I learned that whenever you assume you know something because "everybody knows it" (aka "conventional wisdom"), you should never take such beliefs and assumptions at face value because you could be misinformed due to "The Informational Cascade."
Yesterday's New York Times had an article talking about exactly what I've already learned myself - that eating good fat is good for you, and how the conventional wisdom is proving to be wrong. The article is a good one, because it describes the process in which an "Informational Cascade" is generated, and how it leads to all sort of erroneous ideas in society, and how those ideas end up becoming legislation that cause more harm than good.
From Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus
Dr. Koop was expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.
We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.
If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.
Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.
Cascades are especially common in medicine as doctors take their cues from others, leading them to overdiagnose some faddish ailments (called bandwagon diseases) and overprescribe certain treatments (like the tonsillectomies once popular for children). Unable to keep up with the volume of research, doctors look for guidance from an expert — or at least someone who sounds confident.
In the case of fatty foods, that confident voice belonged to Ancel Keys, a prominent diet researcher a half-century ago (the K-rations in World War II were said to be named after him). He became convinced in the 1950s that Americans were suffering from a new epidemic of heart disease because they were eating more fat than their ancestors.
The article goes on to detail just how wrong Ancel Keys was, and how his research was shoddy, biased and flawed. Yet this one man with an agenda was able to influence the entire cultural paradigm in terms of what the average Western person believes about saturated fats in the diet.
He started an informational cascade and it's effects are far reaching.
When one takes a step back and looks at Western Society today, and look at the basis for much of what passes as "conventional wisdom" of the day, I'm quite sure we can find a lot of instances of "informational cascade" causing generations of people to take action on ideas they think are right, but are in fact either unproven, highly questionable or outright false.
And this is exactly why I'm posting about this topic on this MRA/Anti-Feminist blog...because afterall, we in the MRA Blogosphere are basically focused on debunking the meme's and falsehoods the feminist movements have worked to turn into conventional wisdom. We are in effect waging an uphill battle against the Informational Cascades of Feminist lies and propaganda.
And when we look at this, it is quite the cascade indeed!
- Males commit all domestic violence.
- Women are oppressed by Patriarchy everyday.
- Father's are not necessary to raise children.
- No-Fault divorce is good for society.
- Most Divorced Fathers Are Deadbeat Dads.
- Women make $ .72 to the Men's $1.00 because of discrimination.
- There are not enough Female CEO's because of the "Glass Ceiling."
- Domestic Violence incidents spike after the Superbowl and other Sporting Events.
- It's in the best interest of children if the Women gets custody in a divorce.
Can you think of any others?
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Sally: We are just going to be friends, OK?Taken from the first page of the Ladder Theory website, this classic scene from the romantic comedy movie, When Harry Met Sally, illustrates one of the biggest differences between males and females and the way in which we view each other through the prism of the ages old mating ritual.
Harry: Great, friends. It's the best thing...You realize, of course, that we can never be friends.
Sally: Why not?
Harry: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape, or form - is that men and women can't be friends, because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: You only think you do.
Sally: You're saying I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry: No, what I'm saying is they all want to have sex with you.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: How do you know?
Harry: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally: So you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive.
Harry: No, you pretty much want to nail them, too.
Sally: What if they don't want to have sex with you?
Harry: Doesn't matter, because the sex thing is already out there, so the friendship is ultimately doomed, and that is the end of the story.
The ladder theory offers a pretty accurate metaphor and one everyone man and woman who is interested in truly learning how the opposite sex actually thinks. First, the author starts with the initial rating system for which Men and Women view potential future partners:
Now, once a man and a woman rates a person they first meet, they place them upon their mental ladder...however, the ladder metaphor is different for men and women:
So it should be self-evident, if you are following this at all, that the people you want to have sex with the most will be at the top of the ladder. Descending down to the bottom of the ladder we pass the following people:
1. The people we really want, who may even be out of our league, are on top.
2. Then come the people we like.
3. Moving further down we pass the people who we would fuck if we were intoxicated and would admit to doing it later.
4. At the bottom are the people we would fuck drunk, and would lie about doing it later.
Clinging to the bottom are the girls that are wolf ugly. These are women so ugly you would chew your own arm off to get away rather than fuck them. Usually fake teeth, or the loss of several hundred pounds can move a woman up from wolf ugly.
Now let's take a look at what the typical woman's ladder looks like:
The first thing to notice here is that a woman has not one ,but two ladders. This is becasue in addition the normal ladder, a woman also has a friends ladder. The friends ladder is where a woman puts guys that she considers "just friends". More to the point where she puts guys who don't get to have sex with her.
The problem arises because a woman never lets a guy know which ladder he is on. Obviously there is a huge difference, or gap between these two ladders. It is in this gap that kisses of death are delivered and intellectual whores are made. All a man can do is "go for it" and make a move on a girl; ask her out, try to kiss her, write her a love note or whatever. If he's on the good ladder fine. If he is on the friends ladder this is a case of ladder jumping. The man is trying to jump the gap from the friends ladder to the real ladder. The girl has two choices at this point: she can let him on the ladder and all is well, or, more likely, she can kick him in the head, and off the ladder. If you look you'll see that below the ladder is the Abyss(what was it Nietzsche said about a man being on a rope stretched over an Abyss?....well it's worse than he thought; there is no rope.) So the man falls into the Abyss. The Abyss isn't really as bad as it sounds. Mostly it's a period of self-loathing, embarrassment, and of course utter awkwardness with the girl in question if they are talking at all.
Excellent insight and in my opinion, an accurate metaphor.
It's a rather long website, but you really should read the whole thing.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Jury believes claims, orders organization to pay $11.6 millionAssociated Press
NEW YORK -- In an end to a salacious three-week trial, a jury ordered the owners of the New York Knicks to pay $11.6 million to a former team executive who endured crude insults and unwanted advances from coach Isiah Thomas.
The jury of four women and three men found Thomas and Madison Square Garden sexually harassed Anucha Browne Sanders, but it decided only MSG and chairman James Dolan should pay for harassing and firing Browne Sanders from her $260,000-a-year job out of spite.
The result: The Garden owes $6 million for condoning a hostile work environment and $2.6 million for retaliation. Dolan owes $3 million. Though Thomas is off the hook for any damages, he leaves the case with a tarnished image.
Outside court, a beaming Browne Sanders insisted her victory was more about sending a message than the money.
"What I did here, I did for every working woman in America," she said. "And that includes everyone who gets up and goes to work in the morning, everyone working in a corporate environment."
This is absolute horseshit. She didn't do this for every women in america...she did it for her own bank account and the account of her ambulance-chasing shysters.
The worst of it is, even if Isaiah Thomas did in fact "harass" her, how in holy hell is that worth millions of dollars? So a woman's "feelings" are worth multi-millions now? And why does MSG have to pay for the actions of Thomas?
So if a McDonald's Manager tells his cashier that she has nice tits, she can now turn around and sue McDonald's Corporation for millions of dollars?
Why should ANY corporation hire ANY woman in America, when they can be sued into bankruptcy simply because an employee might possibly "harass" a co-worker by hitting on her or making a rude comment to her?
Monday, October 1, 2007
After listening to this for a bit, I decided to check out the American Thinker website and Selwyn Dukes archives...and though he writes on a wide variety of socio/economic/political topics, he has a few articles that address the folly of feminism and it's deleterious effects on society.
His latest column begins:
Huck Finn must be spinning in his literary grave. Just recently a Colorado Springs, Co., elementary school banned tag during recess, joining other schools that have prohibited this childhood pastime. Upon hearing this, I thought about the movement to ban cops and robbers, musical chairs, steal the bacon, and the kill-joys' most frequent target and this writer's favorite childhood school game, dodge ball. Then there's the more inane still, such as the decision by the Massachusetts Youth Soccer Association to prohibit keeping score in kids' tournament play.Certainly...the pattern of feminists who are either communist collaborationists or useful idiots acting as foot soldiers in the War on Patriarchy.There are many ways to describe this trend. One might say it's a result of the left's antipathy toward competition, the increasing litigiousness of the day, or the inordinate concern with self-esteem and hurt feelings. Then, if I am to speak only of my feelings, the word stupid comes to mind. Really, though, regardless of whether the motivations are good or ill or the reasoning sound or not, at the end of the day I find a conclusion inescapable. Slowly, incrementally, perversely, boyhood is being banned.
Make no mistake, the aforementioned examples are not isolated social accidents but part of a pattern.
One of the most effective strategies the collaborationists and useful idiots have employed is the infiltration and subsequent take over of academia. By churning out class after class of students indoctrinated in feminist propaganda and lies, generations of teachers have taken over public education in every corner of the nation, and with it, their instilled and reinforced misandry from years of "higher" education steeped in feminist ideology.
We now see the results for ourselves.
We should also realize that education has increasingly become a feminine domain. While in 1982 there were 1.4 female teachers for every male, now the figure is 2.1. This is not to imply that the fairer sex can't have a sound teaching philosophy, but the fact is that far too many young women today are in the grip of feminist dogma. Moreover, the type of women who become teachers is also an issue; for instance, let us consider graduates with degrees in Women's Studies. Such people are mostly women, and since there aren't many careers available to those with such illustrious qualifications, many of these ideologues decide to teach.And the problem with such individuals is that -- just as an Afrocentrist views matters through the prism of race and a Jihadist through that of believers versus infidels -- they tend to see everything as a battle of the sexes. In their minds, the ever-present "patriarchy" will only be vanquished and women liberated (of course, they will never see this as having been achieved) once boys are sufficiently reprogrammed.
Put into context, I'm finding the phrase "Feminazi" more and more relevant and accurate in describing the zealous fanaticism of the misandrist matriarchs that are constantly working to subvert our society.
The liberals in question see masculine symbols and behavior and feel an aversion, in much the same way a person with a fear of heights may get a queasy feeling upon seeing airplanes or tall buildings. So, unwilling to confront their prejudices, they manufacture excuses. Dodge ball is dangerous, cops and robbers is violent, musical chairs is exclusive, tag terrorizes. If only they would be intellectually honest and reveal their true feelings: Boys are bad.
Perhaps this is why these social engineers will see a bevy of boisterous boys and want to douse their masculinity with Ritalin.
Read the whole thing...it's great to find another good source of MRA-related reading like this article written by Selwyn Duke. Also be sure and check out his articles like Extolling the Female Toungue, Abortion, Authority and Responsibility, The Dehumanizing of Men, and a part of his essay, The Tragedy of Natalee Holloway, all touch upon many of the same issues we find in the MRA Blogosphere.
Then there's the feminism factor. Because of politically—correct feminist imperatives, girls now know more about sex but less about the opposite sex. There was a time when girls were told that boys were vastly different from them, possessing stronger libidos and bodies. Girls were taught to avoid placing themselves in compromising situations; they were armed with the facts upon which good judgement rested and safety depended.
Now, though, such counsel is sacrilege. Girls' minds are filled with notions of the sameness of the sexes, with its corollary that they can go where their sisters of yore feared to tread. Why, God forbid that we should tell them that, like it or not, they are the more vulnerable sex, and that this fact of life should inform their thinking.
Not that I'm laboring under the illusion that modern girls are all sugar and spice and everything nice. Owing to feminism, which liberated the fairer sex from common—sense, morality, restraint, and chastity, quasi—harlotry now infects much of contemporary womanhood. A lady close to my heart said it best: 'Forty years ago you knew who the bad girls were; now you know who the good girls are.' And now we have a whole generation of girls—gone—wild.
Friday, September 28, 2007
At that time, I did a little more searching for other writings by Amneus, and found references to an article called "The War Against Patriarchy." However, whenever I tried to find it, any links or references I found for it never connected to the article itself.
After awhile, I forgot about it.
However, reading Rob Fedder's No Ma'am blog and his review of "The Case for Father Custody" the other day, I remembered that I never found that article, so I did another search for it today, and voila!
After reading it, I'm sure glad I found it! It offers the perfect synopsis of the main arguments he expounds upon in greater detail in The Garbage Generation and The Case For Father Custody. It can be read relatively quickly (compared to the two previously mentioned books -- it is a long article) and contains the main points, and is a great "introductory" reading to share with other people who are ignorant of what the MRA movement is all about.
I won't excerpt too much here...because if you haven't by now, you should definitely read the whole thing. Nevertheless, here's one cut that sums up the entire basis for Amneus' arguments:
The woman's primary contribution to the marriage is her willingness to share her reproductive life with a man and thereby enable him to have a family. The woman's willingness to make this offer and the man's willingness to make the complementary offer to love, honor, protect and provide for the resulting family are what make civilization and social stability possible. The condition of the ghettos shows what happens when the marriage contract becomes meaningless or irrelevant. The new law makes the woman's offer to share her reproductive life meaningless by declaring that she may renege on her offer at any time she chooses. It makes her a moral minor who cannot enter into a stable and enforceable contract upon which a man--and society--can depend. Granting the woman the right to renege on her contract makes the contract worthless and deprives the woman of most of her bargaining power in the marriage marketplace. It is hard to imagine anything more damaging to society--or to women.
Of course, those of us who are aware of the consequences like social chaos, generational poverty and increased crime and social pathology, correctly look at the state of affairs and realize that what Amneus writes is truth.
Then never forget that the feminists look at the casualties of the war against patriarchy -- the millions of divorces, broken homes, emotionally scarred children, alienated fathers, rampant promiscuousness, millions of aborted fetuses and a society coarsened and cheapened with rampant sexualization of our mothers, sisters and daughters -- and they call it "progress."
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Today, I finally got around to doing something I intended to do after having read her column and Outcast's reviews...I went to Nancy's archives at the News With Views site and checked out her past columns where I found some pretty intense and thought provoking columns!
I think it's safe to say Nancy is quite furious with feminism.
Not recklessly emotional, or out-of-control...but brimming with righteous indignation at feminists and what they have done to the modern American Female mindset. Witness her literary lashing as she seeks to disabuse feminists of the notion that the feminist movement is responsible for making women free...
From her column, The Dictatorship and Dialectic of Feminism
At the very top of my list of despicable leadership is the political feminist lobbying groups and organizations. Their use of dialectic manipulations of American women is diabolical. They polluted the very essence of liberation for women. For women to be liberated by feminism, they have to agree with all aspects and agendas of feminist doctrine and missions. If you disagree with them, you are believed to be flawed and damaged, ignorant, and enslaved.
Let me give the feminist political organizations a clue – American women ARE liberated, and we ARE liberated thanks to American men who recognized the value of liberated women in a sovereign REPUBLIC. For the feminist movement to claim that they freed American women is a lie. You were permitted to become feminists by virtue of righteous men. Let the men of this nation become too indignant or unrighteous, and see how long your self-proclaimed liberation lasts. Why don’t you ask the women of Afghanistan what happened to their liberation, which existed prior to the national radicalization of angry men with weapons?
I'll have to remember this choice nugget of wisdom the next time I read or hear another dimwitted, propaganda-addled feminist talk about how women are so oppressed in America by the so-called patriarchy...
Nancy continues her indictment:
American women are in dire straits. They have turned into cultural workhorses, both in homes and in the workplace, effectively performing 2 full-time jobs on a daily basis, and who are now forced to place their children into a daycare industry that damages the emotional security of their children. The feminist movement built the American daycare industry, which, in every state in the nation, is FULL OF MINIMUM WAGE FEMALE WORKERS, who perform the job of MOTHER to America’s children for MINIMUM WAGE.
Nancy would know, as the very basis for her point of view came from her own years spent as a daycare worker, raising the children of working mothers from all economic classes. It was this experience that gave her most of her material for her book, The Cultural Devestation of American Women.
Nancy than goes on to connect the dots and point to the underlying motive behind the modern day feminist movement
For decades, American women have been depressed, angry, unhappy, and exhausted due to the feminist demand that women leave the home to make money and to give up their children to social bureaucracies and corporations. Women are depressed, unhappy, and exhausted due to the mandates of the feminist movement, which first and foremost, is paid to forward population control - which in translation means the control over women, their bodies, and their choices. Feminism is simply another branch of dictatorship.It's no accident that everywhere feminism has gained enormous cultural and legal influence, the birth rates have plummeted.
Nancy finishes up this excellent piece with a dire warning for modern American Women, and a plea to American Men...and it is a call that we in the West should definitely heed:
We have unalienable rights. All of the above are the weapons to destroy these rights – globally. And to American women, read, read, read The Cultural Devastation of American Women. We have been brutally wronged in this nation by insidious control mechanisms. If you don’t or can’t understand the enemy, you are doomed to exhaustion, anger and depression, to divorce, and to children who will never know who you really are as human beings. We have been bitterly and brutally deceived and used.
And to American men I say this – stand up and fight for your rights, for your states and nation, and for your families. This is your primary and single most important Constitutional duty as American men. Please, please save our freedom.
But my have the times changed...here's a story from The Tennessean:
Court: engagement rings must go back to giver
By SHEILA BURKE
Don’t hock that engagement ring just yet.
If you don’t get married, you’re not entitled to keep the ring, the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Monday.
In a ruling that appears to be the first appellate decision of its kind in the state, the court said that if the wedding is canceled, the person who gave the engagement ring is entitled to get it back.
“In summary, we hold that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of marriage, and as such, is impliedly a conditional gift,” the unanimous opinion, written by Judge Charles D. Susano, said.
If the marriage doesn’t take place, “the engagement ring goes back to the one who gave it.”
The decision stems from a legal battle over an engagement ring that began in a Knox County court. The ruling involves a woman who is a reporter for WSMV in Nashville.
On Christmas Day 2005, Jason Crippen placed an engagement ring on Catharyn Campbell’s finger and proposed marriage.
After the couple broke up, Crippen asked for the ring back; Campbell would not give it to him.
I can't believe this guy actually had to go to court and pay through the nose to get his ex-fiance to return a ring when she no longer wanted to marry him.
Regardless, he should be glad they broke up now, instead of marrying this obvious gold digger...because she could have taken him for A LOT more than just a few grand for a diamond engagement ring.