Friday, March 30, 2007

The Travesty of 35 Years of Feminism in NCAA Athletics

It's a matter of record that the feminst movement has been attempting social engineering by implementing their ideas into policies enforced by law in American institutions like the military, and the public school systems. One of those efforts has been the passage of Title IX legislation 35 years ago. This anniversary coincides with the NCAA "March Madness" Basketball tournament. 35 years later, one can see that like just about all feminist promoted legislation, it's sold as a means of "helping" woman achieve equality - when in reality, it's simply another case of feminists passing laws that help women by hurting and discriminating against men.

National Review's Carrie Lukas writes about it today:

Many members of the organizations sponsoring the conference recoil from any suggestion that innate differences between the sexes contribute to disparate outcomes, whether on a basketball court or in the workplace. “Discrimination” is the only acceptable explanation when men out-participate or out-perform women, while women’s triumphs ironically are ignored.

It’s hard to imagine, for example, the gender-obsessed handwringers pondering why women outnumber men in so much of academia during their conference breakout session “Title IX: It’s Not Just for Athletics.” Speakers from “The Association for Gender Equity Leadership in Education” and “The National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity” will surely discuss achievement in the hard sciences (where men still outnumber women), but psychology and education (in which women earn about eight of ten bachelor’s degrees) undoubtedly will be overlooked. Few will lament the inherent “inequity” in women constituting 58 percent of college graduates.

Indeed, athletics is one of the few areas of schooling where men predominate. A survey of high school seniors found girls were more likely to participate in music and performing-arts activities, academic clubs, student council or government, and the newspaper or yearbook. The only extracurricular activity where boys out-participated girls was athletics.

Title IX enforcers seek to change this, but not just by encouraging more female participation in sports, which most everyone sees as laudable. Far from merely barring discrimination, activist administrators have interpreted Title IX as demanding equal outcomes. Colleges and universities must demonstrate “participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.” Not surprisingly, schools eager to avoid costly lawsuits often make the numbers add up by reducing sports opportunities for men.


Mrs. Lukas goes on to cite examples of various Universities across the country that have cut Male athletic programs just to avoid sanctioning from the NCAA just because of the unequal amount of female interest or participation in athletic programs.

This is sheer travesty. On a basic level, the majority of female college students are just not CHOOSING to participate in athletics...but to "ensure an equal outcome" the school has to cut other male athletic programs. This is nothing but sheer, naked Marxist Socialism!!!

"Equality" is always held up as the ultimate ideal by the Socialist minded liberals...but they NEVER fail to recognize that TRUE equality is ONLY achievable by reducing EVERYONE to the lowest common denominator.

Mrs. Lukas finishes with a statement for which I whole-heartedly agree:

Title IX was sold as a way to ensure everyone has the opportunity to live up to his or her potential, not as a means to decimate male athletics. It’s time to reform Title IX and its enforcement so that male and female sports can both thrive.


Women: The Angrier Sex

It's true: Women are showing there rage

(Hat tip: Dr. Helen)

"Heather Joshi, the study co-author, states, "Our study show that women report being angry far more often than men do."

IT is the research finding every man suspected, and every women will vehemently disagree with - women are the angrier sex.

New research that examined the responses of 22,000 people over 50 years has found that women are more likely to feel angry and persistently frustrated than men.

They also are more likely to act on their frustration in an unhealthy manner, choosing passive aggression over non-violent confrontation, psychologists say.

And Hell really has no fury like a woman scorned, as thirtysomething women with no partner are far more likely to report angry feelings than those with partners....

Dr Dryden, who runs a clinical practice in London, said his work with patients suggests women respond to anger in a less constructive manner than men.

He said: "Instead of using it as an opportunity for assertion, they tend not to deal with it directly, often becoming passively aggressive, talking behind people's backs, or taking feelings out on other people."
Who would of thought, eh?

And people get paid to study what any bloke with common sense figures out? It's still good to get this kind of research saved so that the next time you encounter a female that mindlessly drones out the various feminist memes that women are the "gentler" and "more peaceful" gender....or the old "IF women ran the world, there would be no war!"

Dr. Helen makes a good point here:

The researchers speculate that women's anger is prompted by feelings of powerlessness caused by "entrenched sexism in modern society." As opposed to what, less sexism in ancient society? When sexism was more prevalent, women were even more "ladylike." Today's women are encouraged to express anger in our "you go, girl" culture but instead of using anger constructively, women continue to take the mean-girl routes, talking behind people's backs, avoiding confrontation and personal responsibility for their anger by being anonymous and/or passive aggressive in their approach. What this leads to is probably... more anger.
I think Dr. Helen touches on it, but I don't think she understands the entire picture: when women were more "ladylike," it was during the period where orderly society was based on the Patriarchal Nuclear Family model in which shame was an important part of people regulating their social behavior.

But now that we've begun the reversion to Matriarchy, shame has been lost and women (and men) no longer feel the pressure to conform to societal norms to act "ladylike."

Chivalry is dead, and feminism killed it. Women are "equal" and free from the "oppression of Patriarchy."

Yet they are angrier than ever.

You'd think they'd be happier than since feminism has freed them from Patriarchal oppression, right?

RIGHT?!?!

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

All Anna, All the Time

The American mainstream media has just spent yesterday devoted to the closing chapter of one of the greatest orgies of oversaturated media stories since OJ Simpson hacked his wife to death...the death of America's greatest Gold Digger of all time, Anna Nicole Smith. Her autopsy report merely confirmed what most reasonable, common sense person thought when they first heard the news of her passing...drug overdose.

Well Duh.


Now many people constantly criticize the American media for it's sensationalist, over-saturated stories on pop culture and the cult of celebrity...but the reason why they do so is because their is a STRONG demand for such mindless dreck masquerading as "news."

In short, TV has been feminized, and such coverage of usually mildly interesting yet not really important celeb-info-tainment stories like Anna Nicole Smith is just one aspect of the feminization of American Television.

So are we REALLY surprised that the media found a ratings bonanza in the All Anna, All the Time coverage we've endured since America's foremost gold-digger overdosed on a cocktail of painkillers and anti-depressants? It's not as if the news story was actually SHOCKING.

The ratings have been sky-high, because even though Anna Nicole has been the source of gold digger jokes and snide remarks by comedians and late-night TV talkshow hosts for the past decade or so, Anna Nicole represented what millions of me-first American Matriarch's aspire too as the ultimate "independant" woman: find the gullible, 90 year old billionaire, marry him, and wait out the few years until he kicks the bucket and voila: INDEPENDANCE!

So while millions of women laughed at the jokes told about her, and millions of others said nasty, snide remarks about her to deny their jealousy of the opportunity she had to live out the "dream," the fascination with her death was real, because American matriarchy-minded-me-first skanks and hos were deep down, in their heart of hearts, mourning the loss of their ultimate role model.

Sadly, the overall lesson to be learned from the fiasco known as Anna Nicole Smith's life - that abundant materialism like the kind Anna married, is no guarantee for a happy life - is lost on the majority of American women who aspire to achieve the same "success."

Discover the Networks

Here's a helpful guide that contains a lot of information about feminists, it's history and the major personalities of the movement...all written with a particular viewpoint, one critical of their feminist-lefitst-socialist agenda, rather than the typically hagiographic puff pieces you find in traditional mainstream media sources.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org: A Guide to the Political Left

Although it's not focused on feminists overall, it does have some good info about the feminist movement, as most of us know that just about all feminist groups and individuals are really just Marxist/Socialist leftwingers.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org - Individual Feminists

This section profiles individuals who profess a commitment to advancing the rights of women, but whose practical agendas are radical and politically left.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org - Feminist Groups

This section examines groups that profess a commitment to advancing the rights of women, but whose practical agendas are in fact radical and politically left. Some of the groups profiled here identify their principal issue as abortion rights, which is a moral issue that is not a hallmark of left or right. The pro-abortion groups listed here identify themselves as feminist organizations in the radical meaning of the term. They all embrace leftwing agendas that go well beyond the abortion issue, supporting race and gender preferences in the workplace and academia; quota hirings and promotions; socialized medicine ; federally financed and regulated day care; and "comparable worth" regulations that amount to government-imposed wage fixing.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org - Leftwing Gender Bigots

This section contains quotes that expose leading feminists as the hate-filled leftwing bigots that they are.


Discover the Networks is the brainchild of former leftist and founder of FrontpageMagazine, David Horowitz.



Friday, March 23, 2007

"Feministicide" or Death by Matriarchy

I wish to bring attention to University of Hawaii Professor R.J. Rummel's blog, Democratic Peace.

He coined the term "Democide" which means:

"The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder".

For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be considered democide. Democide can also include deaths arising from "intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life"; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide.
With that in mind, Rummel has devoted a large amount of time researching Democide, and has determined that the greatest cause of Democide in the 20th century was committed by Governments founded on Marxism...or Communism.

By my count (here) for 1900-1987, totalitarian regimes murdered about 138 million (communist regimes about 110 million out of 169 million overall for all governments. Electoral or procedural democracies murdered 2 million (149 thousand domestic, mainly due to the Spanish Civil War); liberal democracies murdered none of their citizens.

Some, mainly on the left, argue that my figures for communist systems are way too high, while being too low for democracies, especially like the United States. Okay, cut in half all my estimates for communist systems, and double those for democracies. That leaves the communist murdering 55 million versus 4 million for the democracies (almost all wartime democide against enemy civilians). We can even go further and do this again, and the conclusion remains the same--nondemocratic socialism is one of the great threats to human life. In other words, as far as democide is concerned, the major danger, by far, is from the nondemocratic far left.

Be clear, regimes on the right, such as the absolute monarchies and non-socialist fascists like Chiang's Nationalist government of China (10 million murdered) and Japan's WWII military government (6 million), also committed major democide, but overall much less than the Marxists. Truly, we can say of communism, it is death by Marxism.

Economically, Marxism has by and large failed...but only after millions upon millions of human beings lost their lives in the process. But where it has failed economically, it has certainly achieved total success in it's cultural invasion of the West.

Socialism is now a given in Western politics, and this was accomplished through feminism.

When one is aware of the communist underpinnings of feminst ideology, looking at our current state of affairs in the West and the continual advancement of the marxist agenda of the liberal Democrats in the US and the Pro-Socialist governments of Europe, one can only conclude that right now Rummel's Democide tally of Communism is going to be changing in the not-too-distant future - once the Patriarchy is totally dismantled and socialism takes complete dominance in Western society.

Now there's a study I'd like to see carried out by those with the time and resources to do so...let's see what is the total tally of a term I propose we call "Feministicide" which literally would mean "Death by Matriarchy."

The Feministicide tally would be the total number of deaths caused since the 1965 (the arguable starting point for feminist's cultural subversion in the West) by abortions, all of the murders committed by males raised in single parent homes, the suicides of all roleless males raised in the ghetto matriarch's as described by Amneus in his books The Garbage Generation and The Case for Father's Custody.

Though it won't probably reach the proportion of Rummel's research in Democide, I bet the figures would still be pretty high.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

The Solution to the Damage Feminists Have Caused

Thanks to Rob Fedders from No Ma'am for giving me the link to Amneus' follow up to The Garbage Generation, a much more detailed book and one that actually offers a solution to the crisis of marriage dissolution and the rising crime and social ills begat by the Feminist Matriarchy: The Case for Father's Custody.

Riveting reading...I'm still about 2/3rds of the way and I came across a paragraph that perfectly encapsulates that timeline of radical changes feminism has wrought:

There was another—albeit brief—feminine paradise during “the best years,” the postwar years of family values, the patriarchal years of 1945-65, when “never had so many people, anywhere, been so well off,” when there were likewise feminine figures and symbols everywhere. Women were placed on pedestals. These years created the Baby Boom and doubled the American industrial plant in two decades—accomplishments of an “essentially peaceful character,”22 and of a patriarchal character.

The disruptive feminism which followed, and reacted against this patriarchal prosperity, terminated the Baby Boom, exchanging it for a below-replacement level birthrate, thirty percent illegitimate, and with a sixty percent divorce rate—and millions of fatherless children. The feminist revolution convinced women that family values are not central to all aspects of life for women, but that women can establish their sexual autonomy by male-style achievement in the world of work.

The result has been swarms of females taking over male jobs—and expecting Affirmative Action benefits and special favors for their sex, lest they be discriminated against, lest they be supposed to need husbands. Result: income redistribution on a massive scale, male rolelessness and demoralization on a massive scale—and female unchastity on a massive scale, entrenched and now presumed to be a right—“the sexual revolution has transformed not only our behavior, but our deepest understanding of sex and its meaning in our lives,” to quote the dust wrapper of Re-Making Love.

The paradigm shift has been made, the damage has been done. Do we in the West go along with the continued descent into Matrilineal chaos or will we ever find the will to re-discover the civilizing influence of Patriarchy again?

Amneus ceratinly makes a strong case on HOW this can be done: Automatic, default custody of children to the Father in Divorce.

Monday, March 19, 2007

The Politics of Sex

Having attained awareness of the ongoing revolution of our times - the Matriarchy's usurping of the Patriarchy to subvert civilization - I've been avidly researching and reading everything I can find online whenever I get the time.

One of the author's I've discovered is the former Reagan Supreme Court Nominee, Retired Justice Robert Bork. He is a phenomenal writer and in his book "Slouching Towards Gomorroah" he nails radical feminism to a "T." This is one book I will be ordering when I have the spare $.

From Chapter 11, The Politics of Sex, excerpted by Fathers For Life.org

Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual" because "science is a male rape of female nature"; Beethoven's Ninth Symphony expresses the "throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release." (1) These and other ludicrous pronouncements may incline sensible people to dismiss today's feminism as a mildly amusing but utterly inconsequential fit of hysterics. That would be a mistake.

Indeed it would be...as I can attest to the fact that I and my peers are/were largely unaware of just how radical the effect feminism has had on society and culture in the past 40 to 50 years. I can recall my mindset was the general consesus of most of my generation: that namely it is a generally positive thing, and that the fringe kooks are just humorous lesbos that have taken their attitudes a bit too far - but that overall feminism is a good thing even though 95% of American women would not really describe themselves as 'feminists'. This is instructive as to how the destructive, anti-Patriarchical attitudes and actions of the feminist movement have become today's paradigm. In the section entitled "Feminism Past and Present, " Bork writes:

Many people suppose that feminism today is a continuation of the reform movement of the past. They occasionally notice a ranting Bella Abzug or an icy Gloria Steinem but imagine them to be merely the froth of extremism on an otherwise sensible movement. That is not the case; the extremists are the movement.


Now that I have become aware, I see the cultural rot begat by this poisonous ideology everywhere - yet I am also dismayed that the popular image of feminism as a "sensible" movement endures.

Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is meeting with considerable success. Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature.
Looking at the marriage statistics, demographics on reproductive rates, the epidemic of divorce, the rising average age of marriage and an entire generation of children enstranged from their Fathers, I would say that Bork's description of "considerable success" may in fact unfortunately be understating how much success radical feminism has achieved.

America has seen women's movements before, reform movements seeking for women the political and cultural privileges held by men. They represented what best-selling author and professor of philosophy Christina Hoff Sommers calls "equity feminism" to distinguish them from "gender feminism", the radical variety. She identifies herself as an equity feminist. (4) It would be better, I think, to drop the word "feminism" altogether since the movement no longer has a constructive role to play; its work is done. There are no artificial barriers left to women's achievement. That fact does not mollify the radicals in the slightest. Revolutions, it is commonly observed, often break out not when circumstances are next to intolerable but when conditions begin rapidly to improve. There are now more female than male students in universities, and women are entering business, the professions, and the academy in large numbers. Yet this seems only to fuel the rage of the feminists.
Indeed, Midge Decter thinks improvement is precisely the problem. She asks "why there should have been an explosion of angry demand on the part of women who as a group were the freest, healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived, and most comfortably situated people the world had yet laid eyes on." (5) She answers that "It is a freedom that frightens her [today's woman] and disorients her and burdens her terribly ... The appeal to her of the women's movement is that in her fear and disorientation, the movement offers her the momentary escape contained in the idea that she is not free at all; that she is, on the contrary, the victim of an age-old conspiracy that everything troubling to her has been imposed on her by others." Decter has a profound point. A woman who formerly had a constricted range of choices "must now decide everything essential to her." Whether to be serious about a career, whether to marry, whether to divorce, whether to bear children. Everything is in her hands "to a degree possibly unprecedented in the history of mankind, a degree experienced by her as bordering on the intolerable." The responsibility is too much, the choices too many.

The radical feminist movement not only explains that any dissatisfaction she may experience is the fault of others, namely men, but also comforts her with a sense of solidarity and common purpose in the way that some men find the battalion a welcome relief from the freedom of civilian life. There is probably more to it than that, however. Radical feminism is not merely a way of discovering that a woman is not free. It is also a cause that creates an orientation and a meaning in her life that unstructured freedom destroys. Radical feminism is thus similar to causes such as the identity politics of the racial and ethnic programs on campuses.
Bork introduces an interesting concept here as to why feminism can be such an attractive ideology for the young women of today: radical feminism is a mental crutch for women of today's society set adrift from the Patriarchy by the Feminist Matriarch Revolution. Much like the old, hard-liner communists in the early 90's of Eastern Europe who longed for the rigid structure of communist totalitarianism once the Soviet Empire collapsed, many radical feminists simply cannot handle the responsibility of so much freedom...because along with freedom comes consequence. Rather than deal with the consequences of their choices, feminists point the finger of blame at scapegoat class to avoid looking at their own inadequacies and failures...in this case, the entire Male gender. Now where in history have we seen that particular facet of scape-goat blaming behavior before?

I think Rush Limbaugh's coining of the term "FemiNazi" may be a more apropos term than I first thought.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

"Boys Are Stupid" - Hawaii Style

Part of the reason why I wanted to start my own blog was to share my perspective on the corrosive spread of the Matriarchy that has touched almost every corner of the Western World - and I've discovered by reading other MRA blogs from around the world that Hawaii is no different than any other place in the West.

Hawaii has been "Blue" for over 40 years - which means that the Union/Democrat Party machine has enjoyed almost absolute political power since the late 1950's, and of course, in American politics, when the liberal Democrats have such a stranglehold on any particular State's political power, the liberal socialist agenda gets implemented to a greater degree than you normally see in America's "Red" states (the States that have a Conservative/Republican majority).

Hawaii was also one of the States that was first to institute no-fault divorce, and we also have one of the highest per capita level of welfare recipients (single-mothers), and we were also the state that provides subsidization for Planned Parenthood - which in practice is a "non-profit" organization that bascially provides free abortions without parental consent for teenage girls. While other states are fighting over the issue of parental consent, Hawaii has quietly been subsidizing the practice for years now. I personally knew of several girls while I was going to High School who did exactly that - some of them multiple times.

In short, Hawaii is extremely feminized.

So look at the kind of feminist dreck a newspaper columnist writes in our primary daily here, the Honolulu Advertiser: Making Fun of Boys Totally Fair

I never thought I'd say that there's a downside to not being oppressed.

No, I don't want to be stripped of my job, my salary, my degree, my right to vote or any freedoms I enjoy.

I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it's OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys.

Glad to see you've recognized that you are no longer "oppressed." Ooops, wait a minute - not only are you no longer oppressed, but you think girls, by virtue of their gender, are superior to your 9 year old son? Poor little boy...you don't even know you're a mangina in training.

The T-shirts became an issue when my son Corwin begged me to buy his dad an "I beat your mom at Mario Kart" shirt as a testament to my poor video game skills.

Ha, ha, ha.

I struck back and suggested we buy his sister a shirt that said "Boys are stupid."

Ahh, I see. Instead of teaching your boy that one shouldn't wear shirts that denigrate people we supposedly cherish and respect in your life, you "strike back" at your Son with your thoughtless, deeply ingrained misandry.

In general, I support a girl's right to offend any member of the opposite sex who happens to cross her path. In fact, I'd much rather see a little girl wearing a shirt that mocks boys than one that turns them on.

That's not a conversation I'm willing to have with a 9-year-old, though, so I used the equality argument instead.

The problem is that even smart boys like Corwin sometimes have a hard time seeing the big picture.

Women have made big strides in the past few decades, but men still dominate when it comes to high-level and highly-paid positions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


So instead of telling your son what you truly believe, "...I think it's OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys," you lie and 'used the equality argument.'

The problem is that even smart women like yourself sometimes have a hard time seeing the big picture - that instead of accepting the meme that the paucity of high-level women in high-paid positions is due to Women having the options and flexibility in todays society to either work or stay at home and have a man (or the welfare state) subsidize that choice...while Men generally don't have that choice. We just have to work until we retire and/or die.

Maybe tomorrow's women will be propelled further faster if they obliterate the inferiority complex that apparently persists in some girls, especially when it comes to subjects like math and science. This "boys are stupid" thinking could lead to the obvious conclusion: Girls are smart.

People who need to denigrate, insult and put others down usually do so because they have their own inferiorities and insecurities they are trying to hide. Besides, your obvious conclusion has already been debunked...didn't you get the memo? It's official: Men are smarter than Women.

In Corwin's eyes, I'm the primary authority figure. He could be sitting six feet away from his dad and he'll still get up to find me in another room to open a container, help him with his homework or answer a question, except, of course, if it deals with video games.

My second-in-command is his bossy little sister, whose powerful personality forces all of us to bend to her whims and wiles.

Aiyaiyaiyaieeeeee...the boy IS doomed to be a pushover mangina for sure...

It's not fair, he says, because everyone knows that boys are smarter than girls.
I take it back...there's hope for this boy afterall!


Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Song for Jody

"Ain't no use in going back
Jody's got your Cadillac

Ain't no use in calling home
Jody's got your girl and gone

Ain't no use in feeling blue
Jody's got your sister too

Took away my faded jeans
Now I'm wearing Army greens"

- "work songs" some troops in Iraq sing while doing PT (physical training).

This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil...

'Jody' - Blogging Baghdad, the Untold Story

So yesterday, due to a project going on longer than I expected, I missed my 4:20 bus I normally catch from my office here in Downtown Honolulu back to my home in the middle of the island...so I caught a ride with a female co-worker and her daughter, who works in the same building as we do and live in the same town I do.

My co-worker is in her 50's and her daughter is 22. While riding home, daughter recieves a call on her cell phone and proceeds to talk to a friend of hers that is apparently in the middle of a divorce.

Come to find out after the call was over, daughter's friend married a soldier last year, and he got deployed to Iraq. While the poor guy is over in the sand box putting his ass on the line for the country, Mrs. Newlywed almost immediately began to go out night clubbing and banging a whole succession of "Jodies." My co-worker's daughter tells me how they went out and had a good old time partying it up - but when the soldier came back for his first R&R, he found out about her cheating ways and pretty much demanded a divorce almost immediately.

So he got a lawyer and served her papers right before heading back to Iraq to finish his current tour of duty...and Mrs. DirtyHo is already going back to the clubs with my co-worker's daughter and their peer group, getting men to buy them drinks, dressing like sluts, and looking for the next "Jody."

Her whole attitude while talking to her friend on the phone and the way she told me the story was basically from the whole "it's always the man's fault" perspective and that she was happy that her friend was going to finally be "free."

When I told my co-worker's daughter that I hoped her friend did not get one red cent of her Husband's benefits and pay because I thought that was pretty crappy of her to be cheating on her husband while he might actually come home in a box bleeding and dying for our Country, she didn't know what to say. After a few moments of silence, they changed the subject of conversation.

This conversation bothered me. I've been thinking about this all last night and today as well - so when I got into work today, I googled "Deployed Iraq soldiers cheating wives" and found the MSNBC report.

Too bad the military won't do something to help protect our soldiers from being screwed over while they are deployed...perhaps a law where a spouse cheating on a deployed soldier would lose all benefits, and forego any claims on alimony and marital property?

That would be too much to expect from our present day, feminized military administration and the zeitgeist of no-fault divorce in todays disgusting Matriarchy.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Aloha kakou! E Komo mai!

Aloha and welcome to my blog!

Although I've been reading a wide variety of blogs since 2000, it is only today that I finally felt inspired to join the cyber-rat race and create a blog of my own. The inspiration came from the discovery of the online MRA movement about two months ago, which eventually led me to reading the online book, "The Garbage Generation" by Daniel Amneus. While reading this book and perusing over a few of the MRA sites, I had an epiphany of sorts.

The topics and themes covered in Amneus' work and those found on MRA blogs was not something I was completely ignorant of - yet I never had the entire picture of the changes of Western society in the past 40 years come into focus so clearly in my minds eye. I have been aware of all the various issues -- the propaganda of the feminist movement, misandry in the pop culture, unfairness towards men in divorce law and family court, the corruption of the welfare state, and the ever growing beast of a strong, central government expanding through socialism -- for a really long time, but I have never read anything prior to The Garbage Generation that finally connected all the dots.

However, what really strikes me is that I have been a skeptic of conspiracy theories all of my adult life...yet the epiphany for which I experienced while digesting Amneus' treatise on the efforts of the useful idiots of feminism to overthrow the traditional structure of Western society from Patriarchy and revert to Matriarchy, it required believing that in fact the cultural contortions of the past 40+ years is the purposeful and deliberate results of the infiltration and subterfuge of Marxist ideology as discussed by MRA blogger, No Ma'am, in his blog post: The Communist Takeover of America.

It sounded crazy to me at first...but it was really reading through the various MRA blogs that came to actually believe that in fact the goals of the Communists during the cold war have in fact been actively pursued, and achieved success on a wide variety of fronts in Western culture...the destruction of the foundation of society - the nuclear family model of Patriarchy- is well underway and the evidence is undeniable.

My two short months of regularly surfing through MRA blogs from the UK, Canada, the US, Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand) have given me anecdotal testomonials and viewpoints that led me to the realization of just how ubiquitous the proliferation of feminism in the Western World has become. The commonality of experience from such a wide geographical dispersal of MRAs worldwide have settled the argument conclusively for myself...Feminism is the cultural WMD employed by the communist conspirators to destroy the West's traditional cultural norms and societal structures and supplant it with the soul destroying socialism.

With that in mind, I decided to enter the foray of MRA blogging for myself - to share in relating the common experiences and opinons about "feminist creep."

My brothers in MRA, understand that the Matriarchy has proliferated at the highest levels of social, cultural and governmental power from Western Europe all the way to my island home in the middle of the Pacific, and much of what you all write about, I too have experienced for myself or seen it played out while growing up in the 50th State of the USA.

I hope I can bring a unique perspective on the issues that make for compelling reading. And if you think I'm full of kukae (I'm sure you can figure out what that Hawiian word means from the context...), than feel free to comment on that as well. My goal is not to be liked, nor is it to be hated...only not to be boring.

A hui hou!