Friday, April 27, 2007
It's a great interview, and he makes a lot of points. Perhaps it takes a high profile Hollywood case such as this one to finally put the issues of parental alienation and the inequity and injustice for men in the Divorce industry to the fore of mainstream consciousness.
You can watch the interview here.
Based on this interview, I believe my initial reaction to the phone message was correct - that this is a case of Parental Alienation and that Alec had simply lost it due to frustrations caused by a vindictive and selfish witch of an ex-wife who is merely using her daughter as a pawn to hurt Alec.
As I said before, I am no fan of Alec Baldwin - especially since he's such a Democrat tool deidcated to promoting the marxist/socialist agenda. But I wonder if this whole issue is going to wake him up to the fact that the party he supports wholeheartedly is the very same party that is beholden to the lawyers who make an entire living breaking up families and alienating children from their loving fathers....and that the party he has wholeheartedly endorsed is the very same one that has promulgated the feminist agenda that has enacted the divorce and custody laws he now suffers tremondously from.
Good luck Mr. Baldwin. I'm sure the MRA movement will eagerly await your book on divorce and parental alienation.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Namely, I believe that we men who have knowledge of just how destructive feminism has been to families, children and society-at-large, have two rational choices to make in this day and age.
1) Avoid marriage or cohabitation...in terms of MRA - MGTOW;
or 2) Find a woman who is worthy of trust and understands how much power she has when a man marries and has children with her -- and won't abuse it for selfish reasons that result in broken homes and another generation of children scarred by the psychic damage from being raised without a constant, positive Father influence in their lives.
While I certainly understand, sympathize and support MGTOW...the logical conclusion to the MGTOW movement if it were to become as widespread as feminism has, is the SAME biological/evolutionary dead end as feminist cat ladies. It's surrendering the next generation to the marxo-femi-socialists agenda.
I think MGTOW is a perfectly acceptable response to the ubiquitous pervasiveness of the corruption of feminism...I do tend to notice that the most outspoken and eloquent MGTOW MRA's appear to be from the UK -- where feminism has taken root much more strongly and affected far more areas of everyone's lives. Yet, I think more men need to find a woman worthy of exercising option 2 if we are to ever have hope of reversing the mainstream status of the femi-centric mentality we currently live with.
New Zealand anti-feminist blogger, Julie, from Balance the Genders, recently made a comment on Rob Fedder's No Ma'am blog that helped me come to this realization:
Many of us blogging are not "Old School." We were not the ones seeing this coming. We are the ones living in, "What came."
Today is a different day. We are not seeing into the future and trying to open the eyes of "What will be" into males and females.
We are in it. We are the future meaning today is a different day.
This is absolutely correct...yet I never thought about it in this "frame of perception" until I read this. Great insight Julie.
I love this site and others that work out, "What happened" because the past holds our answer to the future. But because we are the future, we can't be the past. (Does that even make sense)
The old school feminists were so busy taking control at the top, they forgot to take control of the bottom being the people growing up. Now they realise where they failed they are educating the next generation.
This is so true. The hope lies in the fact that the truth is out there. We, as MRAs, have the advantage of pointing to the ill effects of what the feminsts have wrought as the effective means of educating the next generation on just why marriage and creating stable, nuclear families is so important.
But while they forgot the people the MRA did not. They did not have the power so they concentrated on our generation.
That means this day, being us, is their turn.
But right now, for those of us that know better, is the time for us to take OUR TURN.
This is balance and this is normal in history. It is up to us to balance what the last generation went 'Cuckoo' on.
How do we do it?
Well, we go back to basics. The "old school" MRA tell us we have no hope in affecting the media because they had no hope. But then they had no hope because in their day, the feminists had severe control over this. But today, the journalists are our age and the media and just as us they want truth. Just like us they have passion and they do what they love to do.
I personally too have heard all the "Can't do" but I questioned it and reached out to Human Rights Commission, Education Departments, Women's groups and so on only to get thanked for my input. These poeple see, really see and really want to change things. This is their passion.
Please don't give up on our generation. I am not hopeless,. you are not hopeless and neither is the most of us. This is our day.
You're right Julie. We must never surrender...because surrendering to the feminist agenda is to not lose society for ourselves..but to lose it for the next generation.
So...regarding the next generation - I found another source of inspiration from Outcast Superstar's blog, in which he cited a post from the "Don't Get Married" forum. The author of this post makes some GREAT points on how we should be training the next generation of Men to carefully choose a woman worthy of creating the next generation of anti-feminists:
So, no matter how insane it is to marry with current Ameriskanks and the legal system, men will marry.If you are one of them who must marry, at least try to be as intelligent about it as you can.First, examine the woman as best as you can. Let me repeat good signs and bad signs involving a particular woman.1. Don't marry a divorced woman.
The dog that has bit will bite again. Divorced women have a higher divorce rate then first marriage.2. Don't marry an unwed mother.
There are two types of unwed mothers. One is pure skank, and is an unwed mother because she skanked out. The other type, rather rare in the US, but relatively common in Mexico, simply made a stupid mistake, and trusted a Bad Man. The rare type is marriageable, but it is really tricky to sort them out with a high probability of error, so don't bother. Generally, though, unwed mothers are also more likely to be divorced.3. Don't marry the daughter of a divorced woman.
Not only is she probably accustomed to the state of being divorced because of her mother's divorce state, but really does not know how to be married. They also have a higher than normal divorce rate.4. Don't marry the daughter of an unwed mother.
They are also not accustomed to being around married people, so have a higher divorce rate than average.5. Look for a woman who has ever done anything for anyone.
Most US women never have. "It's all about me." and they aren't kidding. They will tell you at great length what you are supposed to do for them, but they have no intention of ever doing anything for you. Run!6. Look for a woman who shows signs of respecting external authority. There are only two systems of morality. Either internal morality, which means "if it feels good do it" or external, which usually means a religious based morality.
I do NOT mean a person who claims to be religious, because Christian women have a higher divorce rate than non-Christian women. You have to observe her, with the care one should use when selecting the woman to trust his life and all his assets with. Look for any signs of real morality, of following basic rules such as the Ten Commandments.There is a Catch-22 problem here. If she agrees to shack-up with you, she is bending her morality, and that is by definition a bad sign. I can't tell you how to resolve this Catch-22 conflict.7. Credit Card check.
If she had thousands of dollars of credit card debt, she is bad news. If she has a lot of debt, she should also flunk other stuff, but it is possible you are enamored of her mighty chest and might be foolish enough to overlook other tests, but a woman with a lot of debt will not only expect you to pay it off once but all the time. She is materialistic and greedy and way into instant gratification. Run!8. The driving Test.
This is a one-way valve. If the woman drives like a fiend, running red lights; driving way over the posted speed limit; generally ignoring the laws of physics, ask no further question, dump her ASAP and move on. Women who drive like that almost always get divorced. They recognize no external morality. They have no concern for the well-being of others. They will do exactly whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like it.I am told by someone else on this URL that it is possible for a woman to drive carefully, and still be a total junkyard. So, the driving test is a one-way valve. If she flunks, get rid of her. If she doesn't flunk, make sure she passes the other tests.9. Women perform in marriage based on their relationship with their fathers.
From their fathers, they learn how to understand men and to enjoy being around them, without expecting them to think and act like women. If she passes the other tests, and also is very, very close to her father, your chances of divorce because of her skank-ness are very low.10. If she expects a diamond costing three or four months pay, thank her profusely for exposing her skankness, and give her the boot.
Ditto for an expensive wedding. In the 80's a divorce attorney wrote a book documenting the inverse relationship between cost of wedding and length of marriage. The more it cost, the quicker the divorce.
These 10 points are EXACTLY what we need to teach the next generation of men about choosing a woman who is most likely to be "the one" to nurture a marriage and a family and ensure a reasonable chance of success in raising a generation prepared to deal with a society that has been decimated by the feminist revolution we currently live in.
Now on to the final test (there is only one for men to use for themselves):
1. Is hunting or fishing or riding your motorcycle or playing video games more important to you than your wife will be?
If so, break the engagement, it's not worth it. Don't even think of marrying someone if your hobbies are more important to you. When you marry, your wife is the most important thing to you. Not because she is a demanding skank, but because that's the way marriage is.
As important as it is to choose the right woman, if you are not willing to at least "ease up" on your hobbies to a certain degree, you should definitely become another member of MGTOW.
Now, after all this, if you still decide you have found a woman who is worth the risks posed by the Divorce industry culture that gives her all of the power to wreck the family, you must apply yourself to making your marriage work. Just because she has most of the power to destroy your marriage and family does not mean you don't have any power yourself in sabotaging your own family...
As this poster Outcast quotes points out, what men need to do once they do get married, is to TAKE CONTROL.
Since it is not easy to explain what is meant by taking charge, and all sorts of weird men have all sorts of mentally unhealthy views of taking charge, let me start by explaining first what I don't mean.
I don't mean a pistol, a chair, and a whip, ala lion tamer.
Maybe 20 years ago, I knew a young Mexican woman married to a much older male skank. Every time we met them, he made a point to tell her if she ever misbehaved, he'd send her back to poverty. What a S O B! She didn't need to hear it more than once. And, when he said it, she looked sick. If I ever encountered her with a steak knife rammed into his chest and it was hung up on gristle, I'd have helped her push it. Marriage based on fear is not marriage.
The very foundation of success of the feminist effort to become the mainstream mentality was to attack the very basis of Patriarchy - by telling woman that having a man "take control" is "oppressive" by conflating relational control with Mental or Physical abuse. Mental and physical abuse are just as destructive as the feminist paradigm of selfishness...and is NOT what "relational control" means.
When I was a boy, my mother told me, "Son, when you are married, and your wife is in a bad mood, buy her flowers and take her out to eat." Good job, Mom-skank, thanks for destroying my first marriage with your fucked up fantasies, you fiend!
And right there is the crux of all the problems manifest in children raised by single mothers in today's Matriarchal mentality. Raising their sons to believe they need to cater to women's emotional fluctuations while raising daughters to believe that what they want and need (a man to protect and provide for her and her family with competent leadership) and what they think they want (a man that caters to her emotional state) are two totally different things that create cognitive dissonance and results in the crazy behavior so many modern women are prone to in this day and age of Matriarchal chaos.
I can tell you, though, that is what most men do. As long as Cupcake is in a good mood, they run around doing all their hobbies and having a great time, with little attention paid to their wives. Until she gets on her ear, then they panic this way and that, doing all sorts of things to make her feel all better.I call this, "Giving your dog a bone when he bites you." You have an operant conditioning program, teaching your wife the way to get warm fuzzies is to be a bitch.
As in most cases, men should normally be doing exactly the opposite of what they are told to do. Treat your wife like a queen, then when she's a bitch, stop all the warm fuzzies, and she will grovel to get them back.
I've been married for 10 years this June (one reason why I'm not a MGTOW blogger - I couldn't. I've been married before I was even consciously aware of the current state of our feminist warped society. Luckily, without consciously realizing it, I chose a woman who passes 9 of the 10 points of the tests listed above - which is why I believe we will be making 10 years soon.)
However, it has only been through recent readings of a plethora of MRA sights, as well as perusing through the pages of another blog I found quite informative and helpful - the Reality Method and a few columns from Ross In Range - that I've finally come to realize that I too had been catering to my wife's emotional state. But in the last few months, I've begun to apply what I've learned from all this reading, and I must say, my marriage is at the best state it's ever been...even better than our "honeymoon" period! To repeat the basic point: Treat your wife like a queen, then when she's a bitch, stop all the warm fuzzies, and she will grovel to get them back. From my own anectdotal experience, I found this principle to be 100% correct!!!!
So, when she is in a good mood, go for walks hand in hand. Buy her flowers and tell her when you saw those flowers, you felt sorry for them because they were going to die without seeing true beauty, so you decided to let them see her.
Rub her feet! At least three or four times a week. When you are doing this, it's as hard for her to be angry with you as it is hard for you to be angry while she's shoveling your ashes. There are two kinds of women. Some women only want their skin rubbed. My Real Daughter lies there moaning and gasping with delight when I rub her feet, and it is just a very soft rubbing of the skin. My Biological Daughter likes her feet and legs kneaded like making yeast bread with all your strength. Few women don't like foot rubs. And, it does soften them up for other fun activities!
Yep. This too works most of the time.
Do things with her, in some cases whatever she likes to do, except shopping; that is asking too much unless you get to sit by the door and watch girls walking by. Go to the spring flower show at the municipal parks. Take her for long drives to see the autumn colors. Walk at night and look at the stars.
Yes, these type of activities offer "experiences" that are much more memorable than going out and spending money on the same old restaurants and movie theatres.
Take her to chick flicks. Rent her choice of DVD's at least half the time.
Now here is where I take exception. Chick flicks are for chicks. That's what she has girlfriend's for.
One thing more. Most of what I know about men and women and marriage, I learned from counseling men. This is one I blundered on by myself. The first fifteen years of my marriage weren't too hot, except for the kids. I don't remember how I figured this out.
And this is where MRA blogs are VITAL to the effort of rearing the next generation of anti-feminists!
The next point is also crucial to marital success:
But, you want to control your wife's association with you.
Think about men you know. Joe's always happy. "Hey, buddy, how's your hammer hangin'? Let's have a beer!" You can't think of Joe in any other way.Bill is a grouch. Always whining about something. Never fixes anything. Just likes to whine. And, you can't think of Bill without thinking of his whining.Your wife will have a similar view of you, based on what she normally sees.
This is absolutely true. If you are a grouchy, miserable fuck, always complaining and grumbling, you are setting the tone for your relationship and how she percieves and reacts to you...EVEN IF YOU NEVER DIRECT THAT BEHAVIOR DIRECTLY AT HER. The poster elaborates:
When I was married 15 years, I started a campaign. When my wife came in the room, I said, "What a great wife! Mwaa, mwaa." Not smacking sounds, the words as spelled.
When I came in the room, I said, "What a great wife! Mwaa, mwaa."At first, she was angry. Then, she started laughing when I said it. Then, she began to take it as normal, which means my goal was reached. When she thought of me, she simply could not help but think of my face saying, "What a great wife! Mwaa, mwaa."December 29, 1995, I fell on my face in our Mexico City home, and was in a coma for 6 days. She was told I might be an idiot IF I survived. When I finally regained consciousness, I had tubes in my mouth and couldn't talk. I looked at her, and moved my lips, "Mwaa, mwaa." She started laughing and crying at the same time. She knew it was really me. (Turned out to be encephalitis)So, what is the purpose of this? It gives you control. Most men have nothing to do but suffer when their wives act like fiends. When you are doing all this stuff, and your wife is a jerk, and you cut off the warm fuzzies, she really starts to suffer and will do anything to get them back. You have something to take away from her when she's a jerk, and that's good.
This is where you get "Gender Balance." Because when it comes to common sense, everyone knows women control the major need we men have to be happy: sex. The only way to have success in a relationship, is to achieve balance by creating something she needs from you.
Most husbands don't have control; they don't have the wife addicted to warm fuzzies, so when a seducer at work gives them warm fuzzies, they think they have found their true love -- and you are toast.
This was how I was for the first 9 years of marriage, and we've had many, many ups and downs, conflicts and problems related to this. It was only through my raised awareness through reading MRAs and MGTOW that I finally learned about what I've been doing wrong all along. My children will be raised as anti-feminists, and they will have the positive examples of how a man and woman relate in a positive manner so they too can grow up and help propagate the next generation of AWARENESS.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Leykis brought on a guest for his show to discuss the latest news and the guest proceeded to point out the obvious flaws and claims of the AAUW's hypothesis and conclusions. This guest was Dr. Warren Farrell, and I was impressed with his story and his arguments about how the Gender Wage Gap is all about the choices women have the opportunity to make with regards to career, rather than the continued claims of the feminists that it is due to male discrimination.
The basic premise of the AAUW report is this:
The pay gap between female and male college graduates cannot be fully accounted for by factors known to affect wages, such as experience (including work hours), training, education, and personal characteristics. Gender pay discrimination can be overt or it can be subtle. It is difficult to document because someone’s gender is usually easily identified by name, voice, or appearance. The only way to discover discrimination is to eliminate the other possible explanations. In this analysis the portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation. These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which
remains a serious problem for women in the work force.
Dr. Farrell quite forcefully refuted this on Leykis' radio show and has written more than a few articles on it. Here's the gist of his position from a New York Times Op Ed he wrote:
In short, Dr. Farrell was once on the board for NOW and was a firm believer in the feminist propaganda that the gender wage gap was due solely to male discrimination...but common sense and logical reasoning actually brought him to question the feminist assumption that simply accepting discrimination as a catchall explanation for the gap. After ruminating on the different factors involved, Farrell came to the inescapable conclusion that the discrimination explanation simply didn't add up.
Nothing disturbs working women more than the statistics often mentioned on Labor Day showing that they are paid only 76 cents to men's dollar for the same work. If that were the whole story, it should disturb all of us; like many men, I have two daughters and a wife in the work force.
When I was on the board of the National Organization for Women in New York City, I blamed discrimination for that gap. Then I asked myself, "If an employer has to pay a man one dollar for the same work a woman would do for 76 cents, why would anyone hire a man?"
Perhaps, I thought, male bosses undervalue women. But I discovered that in 2000, women without bosses - who own their own businesses - earned only 49 percent of male business owners. Why? When the Rochester Institute of Technology surveyed business owners with M.B.A.'s from one top business school, they found that money was the primary motivator for only 29 percent of the women, versus 76 percent of the men. Women put a premium on autonomy, flexibility (25- to 35-hour weeks and proximity to home), fulfillment and safety.
After years of research, I discovered 25 differences in the work-life choices of men and women. All 25 lead to men earning more money, but to women having better lives.
High pay, as it turns out, is about tradeoffs. Men's tradeoffs include working more hours (women work more around the home); taking more dangerous, dirtier and outdoor jobs (garbage collecting, construction, trucking); relocating and traveling; and training for technical jobs with less people contact (like engineering).
Is the pay gap, then, about the different choices of men and women? Not quite. It's about parents' choices. Women who have never been married and are childless earn 117 percent of their childless male counterparts. (This comparison controls for education, hours worked and age.) Their decisions are more like married men's, and never-married men's decisions are more like women's in general (careers in arts, no weekend work, etc.)
Does this imply that mothers sacrifice careers? Not really. Surveys of men and women in their 20's find that both sexes (70 percent of men, and 63 percent of women) would sacrifice pay for more family time. The next generation's discussion will be about who gets to be the primary parent.
Don't women, though, earn less than men in the same job? Yes and no. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics lumps together all medical doctors. Men are more likely to be surgeons (versus general practitioners) and work in private practice for hours that are longer and less predictable, and for more years. In brief, the same job is not the same. Are these women's choices? When I taught at a medical school, I saw that even my first-year female students eyed specialties with fewer and more predictable hours.
But don't female executives also make less than male executives? Yes. Discrimination? Let's look. The men are more frequently executives of national and international firms with more personnel and revenues, and responsible for bottom-line sales, marketing and finances, not human resources or public relations. They have more experience, relocate and travel overseas more, and so on.
Comparing men and women with the "same jobs," then, is to compare apples and oranges. However, when all 25 choices are the same, the great news for women is that then the women make more than the men. Is there discrimination against women? Yes, like the old boys' network. And sometimes discrimination against women becomes discrimination against men: in hazardous fields, women suffer fewer hazards. For example, more than 500 marines have died in the war in Iraq. All but two were men. In other fields, men are virtually excluded - try getting hired as a male dental hygienist, nursery school teacher, cocktail waiter.
There are 80 jobs in which women earn more than men - positions like financial analyst, speech-language pathologist, radiation therapist, library worker, biological technician, motion picture projectionist. Female sales engineers make 143 percent of their male counterparts; female statisticians earn 135 percent.
I want my daughters to know that people who work 44 hours a week make, on average, more than twice the pay of someone working 34 hours a week. And that pharmacists now earn almost as much as doctors. But only by abandoning our focus on discrimination against women can we discover these opportunities for women.
He has since gone on to write a book about the topic called "Why Men Earn More" and he has broken it down to 25 differences in the work-life choices of men and women as the primary cause for the Gender Wage Gap...none of which have anything to do with discrimination. He has even gone so far as to write an article to point out 11 tips on How Women Can Earn More.
His overview for that article really says all that needs to be said about the so-called Gender Wage Gap "Problem."
Power is not about earning money; power is about controlling one's life based on one's values and priorities. Pay is not about power; pay is often about giving up power to get the power of pay. Power and pay are about trade-offs. If you're getting paid less than a man, before you assume discrimination, look at the 25 things men are more likely to do to get paid more. Women tend to trade income for fulfillment, flexibility, family, and safety. Rather than focusing your binoculars on discrimination, focus them on opportunities, such as the more than 80 fields that pay women more than men, or the 39 large fields that pay women at least 5% more than men. Based on my research for Why Men Earn More, I believe that while men earn more for different work, women today earn more for the same work--when they work in the exact same job for the same type and size of firm, same number of hours, travel and relocate equally, produce equally, have equal years of experience, and so on. You do not live in a world in which men have stacked the deck against you. Both sexes discriminate for and against both sexes.Good to see this former NOW Board member actually speaking the truth: all things being equal, the true Gender Wage Gap comes from affirmative action quota requirements actually make Women the higher paid gender for the same amount of work.
So the only way we can truly end gender discrimination is to end affirmative action that creates incentives for companies to pay women more than men for the same skills, experience, and work.
Does anyone truly believe the feminists want to end that?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Now, first of all, I won't defend Alec Baldwin for calling his daughter crude names, he is absolutely wrong for doing so. He's supposed to be the adult here -- and it's obvious he simply has problems controlling his own emotions and anger. And I cannot actually believe I'm defending him in this post, since I don't like Mr. Baldwin at all because he is a fascist left wing blowhard Democrat partisan hack that I cannot stand whenever he weighs in on any political issue of the day,
If you look at much of the commentary on this story, you'll see that most of it is basically condemning Alec Baldwin and advocating that he lose all parental visitation rights.
I think that it's rather obvious that Kim Basinger has turned her kid against her Father...and no matter how bad Alec Baldwin has behaved in yelling at his dauther, he makes a good point through his publicist:
A friend of Alec Baldwin's just contacted TMZ to say that the actor called Ireland last week and apologized for his outburst. The friend added that Ireland is the most important thing in the world to Alec and that he is frustrated because over the last six years, Kim has "tried everything" to alienate Ireland from him.So Kim has been actively trying to alienate Ireland from her Father, and after a certain point, Mr. Baldwin lost it. Yet the media wide consensus is that Baldwin is now an unfit parent for "threatening" his daughter.
UPDATE: Alec Baldwin's spokesperson released the following statement to the TV show "EXTRA": "In the best interest of the child, Alec will do what the mother is pathologically incapable of doing ... keeping his mouth shut and obeying the court order. The mother and her lawyer leaked this sealed material in violation of a court order. Although Alec acknowledges that he should have used different language in parenting his child, everyone who knows him privately knows what he has been put through for the past six years."
I find that last point particularly disgusting for the simple fact that "threatening" IS a part of parenting. His "threat" was that he was going to "straighten her ass out."
Now if any parent were to be stripped of parental rights for "threatening" their child with discipline or consequences, the law would basically be making any and all parenting illegal. The feminist idea that Father's are not only unnecessary, but "dangerous" because of the potential for violence is becoming quite pervasive - and the attitude that Mr. Baldwin is "dangerous" for yelling that he is going to "Straigten her ass out" is disgustingly misandrist.
Now tell me, can anyone HONESTLY believe that Mr. Baldwin would actually physically abuse his daughter? Because what I hear is a very frustrated Father who simply reached a breaking point because he's so helpless in the face of a manipulative ex-wife who is using her daughter as a pawn to get back at him for a divorce. I personally think Kim Basinger has done something FAR WORSE to her daughter by releasing this recording to the public than any angry words Alec left on Ireland's voicemail.
BTW - if it indeed is true that Kim Basinger violated a court order by releasing this recording, anybody wanna bet me she will face absolutely NO CONSEQUENCES WHATSOEVER....while Baldwin may actually lose visitation rights!
Monday, April 16, 2007
To put it simply - with an MRA mindset, it's quite easy to see any issue, any topic or any current event, and apply the ole "feminism is too blame" reasoning to it. I think it is important that we should all recognize that this kind of mindset can lead to mistakes and errors in judgement that may hinder ones credibility or compromise your objectivity.
Now, lest I be mistaken, I do need to reiterate the point that I do believe the feminist mindset has become pervasive and ubiquitous, so simply pointing out the many different variations and manifestations of the consequences of the societies paradigm shift from Patriarchy to Femininst Matriarchy does not make one a monomaniac. Indeed, much of feminists ideas are deeply ingrained into us, as we are now moving into the 3rd generation of Western society since the Matriarchal revolution of the 60's. There are many, many areas of our modern lives that have been affected by this, and one could spend a lot of time correctly pointing them out (and indeed, most MRA blogs do). But I still think that we bloggers need to be careful when we find yet another instance of feminism to point out, critique, criticize or deride...can we REALLY blame a certain event or instance on the pervasive corruption of feminist influence - or are we so focused on it as an issue that we start to see it EVERYWHERE....even where an objective viewpoint clearly can see it does not?
We need to be aware of the dangers of falling into a monomaniacal mode of thinking, simply because monomania is a primary attribute of modern day feminists...i.e. they see everything and everyone and every action as yet another manifestation of "Patriarchal Oppression." We need to avoid such specious and flawed analytical predilections to avoid becoming like the feminist useful idiots that are quite adept at repeating the propaganda points they've been indoctrinated with, but simply CAN'T engage in a discussion with opposing viewpoints and disagreement.
Monomaniacs thoroughly beholden to the idea that feminism is the explanation and answer to everything, and if a reason or explanation should run counter to their programmed indoctrination, the response is to avoid, ignore, change the subject and/or censor the dissenting argument. Case in point, feminist blogger Scorpio Risen detailed in the preceding blog post - who simply could not or would not answer my counter-points.
She blames the pressure women have to shave their legs to conform to social norms as "Patriarchal Oppression." When I challenged her assumption that in fact the social pressure she is raging against has nothing to do with "Patriarchal Oppression" and everything to do with females competing to attract males as a natural state of mating in the human species, she did not even address that counter point, but simply evaded answering me directly and focused on a different tangent that was largely irrelevant to the main point I made.
Thus, her monomania tendencies with regards to feminism manifests itself for all to see. Patriarchal Oppression is her Moby Dick, and she is the Captain Ahab, seeing the great white whale wherever she looks.
Of course, as I am trying to point out here, she is merely a single example of the monomaniacal mindset of modern feminists. I think the tendencies are better illustrated by taking a more mainstream article written by an obviously feminist minded editorialist from the Gainseville, FL newspaper
Sexism is Keeping Women "in their place" in politics
Let the Fisking begin...
There will never be less "sexism" in our society in your eyes, because you feminists must ALWAYS blame someone or something for your own shortcomings.
As a basically optimistic person, and in view of the recent increased number of female leaders, I naively had begun to think that there is less sexism in our society. I have realized how naive and overly optimistic I am in view of several recent events.
For example, earlier this week I read a lengthy newspaper article that focused primarily on the color of scarves worn by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during her recent trip to the Middle East.Of course, she makes no mention of who the writer of this article was...but I'd bet anything it was either a woman, a gay man or a metrosexual mangina that wrote the article focused on what Nancy was wearing. Real men would consider such details to be superfluous and completely unneccessary to a political story. And the reason why women journalists are writing about what women politicians and leaders are wearing is because women readers care about such things. But because newspaper editors and women journalists recognize that women readers want to know such details, this feminist looks at the reporting and immediately blames it on "sexism" (aka 'Patriarchal Oppression').
In this article there were few comments about Speaker Pelosi's ideas and observations about her meetings with various political leaders. This particular information would appear to be important in view of the fact that she is third in succession to the presidency.
In addition, I was struck by the lack of coverage about the color of ties worn by the congressmen who accompanied Speaker Pelosi.
Just like Scorpio Risen blaming the competitive pressure amongst women to attract men on the same.
Another example of on-going sexism is the news coverage of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why is she typically referred to as "Hillary" rather than Senator Clinton? Referring to a woman in a powerful position by her first name definitely is sexist.The WSJ's Best of the Web Today had the best response to this:
Phyllis M. Meek, who apparently is an administrator at the University of Florida, doesn't think women in politics get enough respect. Here's one of her complaints, outlined in a Gainesville Sun op-ed piece:
Another example of on-going sexism is the news coverage of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why is she typically referred to as "Hillary" rather than Senator Clinton? Referring to a woman in a powerful position by her first name definitely is sexist. . . .
Referring to Sen. Clinton as "Hillary" is a not so subtle way of diminishing her importance as a very competent and intelligent elected female U. S. senator.
We went to Mrs. Clinton's campaign Web site, where the banner atop the homepage reads "Hillary for President." Links on the site include "Join Team Hillary," "The Vilsacks Endorse Hillary," and, our favorite, "Women for Hillary." Apparently the conspiracy to keep women down is so vast that Hillary--sorry, Mrs. Clinton--herself is in on it.
Let's continue with Mz. Meek's monomaniacal diatribe...
It is important to remember that sexism is a means by which to reinforce the basic belief that not only are women inferior to men, but just as important is the accompanying belief that women inherently are less valuable than men.It is important to remember that sexism is a means for feminists to constantly point to red herrings and logical fallacies and claim victimhood status for which the State needs to be petitioned to address the grievances to benefit women at the expense of men.
It thus is not surprising that powerful women are "kept in their place" by emphasizing aspects of their physical appearance rather than their intellectual abilities. Referring to Sen. Clinton as "Hillary" is a not so subtle way of diminishing her importance as a very competent and intelligent elected female U. S. senator.Again, most of us men could give a crap what a woman leader is wearing. Reporters and articles that spend any kind of extended focus on how women politicians are dressed are virtually garunteed to be written by women reporters aiming to appeal to women readership.
Why are people, particularly men, so threatened by intelligent and talented women? Is this due to the well established idea that such women are being "uppity" and do not know their "appropriate" role?This argument is one of the largest fallacies oft repeated by feminists, ad naseum. Yes, men are "threatened" by "intelligent and talented women." But it's not the threat you and all your indoctrinated sisters think it is. Men are not afraid of a woman competitor in business or politics. The real threat manifests itself in the growing trends of "intelligent and talented women" remaining unmarried or divorced.
We don't want to marry you (or remain married to you) because you in fact do NOT know your appropriate role as the nurturer and caregiver of a family. You care more for nurturing your career and personal ambition, and the results often mean screwing a man over in divorce court.
Men are not afraid of competition when they are competent and confident in their own abilities on a fair, level playing field. Where we ARE threatened, is trying to compete with women on a playing field tilted heavily in their favor - i.e. divorce and family courts. Getting married to a career woman (i.e. "intelligent and talented,") is like your average joe, recreational golfer agreeing to play Tiger Woods 18 holes without any kind of handicap.
The problems here - Men "threatened" by "intelligent and talented" women is not an issue of "Sexism."
In view of the current caliber of United States political leaders, it certainly is obvious that strong, capable, and intelligent women such as Speaker Pelosi and Senator Clinton are needed in key leadership positions.What does gender have to do with what is needed in key leadership positions? And aren't Hillary and Nancy current political leaders right now? This argument is so intellectually retarded when one simply takes it to it's logical conclusion: We need Hillary for President Because she is strong, capable, intelligent...AND SHE HAS A VAGINA!
I personally would not have a problem voting for a woman for President - but only if I gauged her experience, talent and abilities as the best qualified for the job amongst the available candidates, regardless of her gender.
How can anyone deny that they particularly would be an improvement over the current occupants of the White House and the executive branch of the government?
As bad as President Bush has been to a Libertarian like myself's point of view, I fail to see how a President Hillary would be any kind of improvement at all. If your goal is to continue to screw up the country and our society by implementing more feminism, liberalism and nanny state socialism in more areas of our lives, than yes, she'd be an improvement.
But when it comes to referring to her by her first name, or female (or gay) reporters writing stories focused on Nancy's and Hillary's fashion and accessories - I don't see how you get to point at such stories as further evidence of patriarchal oppression.
Friday, April 13, 2007
I stumbled across her rant about Society's "Patriarchal Oppression" that "expects" women to shave their legs, and got into it a bit with her. Before I get into the specifics, I will say that Amy does deserve some credit for allowing dissenting opinion on her blog, and that even though it's obvious she's quite the angry young female prone to vulgar invective, she has thus far been pretty cordial in response to my challenge to her rant.
The following is my reply to her last response to me, with her arguments in italics:
Personally, I could give less of a fuck about making myself attractive for males.
Than why are you angry at all and feel the need to rage about the conventions of society that are basically in place because females are primarily concerned with making themselves as attractive and desirable as possible? And if you really don't care, than are you a lesbian? And if you are a lesbian, are not at least concerned about making yourself attractive to other lesbians?
Hawaiian Libertarian, you probably won't be surprised, but I disagree with you. "Femininity is the specific traits women have for expressing their DIFFERENCE from the male gender." That's not true. Femininity and masculinity are not about both genders expressing their differences, they are the guidelines imposed, and drip-fed as ideology, from an early age, exaggerating any natural differences, and to maintain the patriarchal status quo.
Your indoctrination in feminist denials of the differences between the sexes couched in post-modernist gobbledy gook is complete.
Males and Females are different in many, many different ways. The differences in gender are merely the evolution of the species designed to complement each other to providing a well balanced environment for raising the next generation of the species.
If the mindset of society was more liberal to choosing to shave or not to shave, rather than simply expecting women to be shaved, then I suspect less women would shave, and more men would be less judgemental.
Here's a newsflash: Men will NEVER be "less" judgemental.
Neither will women.
Judgementalism is a trait that is inherent in us as a species. Even if NO women in the west were to shave ever again, and we men accepted and even learned to prefer it (as it is in some European countries), we would simply be judgmental about some other aspect of the female physical appearance in determining whether or not we would want to pursue any particual female. "She has beautiful leg hair, but her ass is still too fat and her boobs sag."
Judgementalism is how we ALL discriminate whether or not a person would be suitable for mating.
If more men quit working and collected welfare and got fat and lazy, do you really think you and the rest of the females in the West would be "less judgemental" about dating/marrying/hooking up with said loser? Somehow, I don't think so.
You mention competition amongst women for male suitors. You do have a point there; women aren't particularly expected to be competitive, except for trying to attract males.
You are too focused and worried about what society "expects" women to do. Much of the expecation is what you women put onto yourselves for your own reasons.
Are you really suggesting that we are not superior to other animals? And therefore, our social patterns must follow suit? And by the way, genders are socially constructed, whereas sex is biological, so perhaps you should ensure your terms are correct ;).
I'm not suggesting that at all. I merely do not deny that the biological imperative that exists in all of us to procreate to ensure the survival of our species is non-existant or nullified simply because we are capable of abstract thought -- the trait that does make us superior to all other animal species on the planet.
Just because we can think beyond instinctual impulse does not mean such instincts don't exist, nor does it mean they do not play a powerful role in influencing our thoughts and our actions.
No matter what your feminist influences tell you, I will never agree to this idea that genders are socially constructed, as if they are some seperate entity from sex. I've observed too much innate differences with my own eyes to believe this notion.
We are different from each other because we both have different reproductive organs and varying levels of hormones that influence and control our responses to stimuli. That is why women are more prone to crying at emotionally intense situations while men are more prone to clamming up and "avoiding" or "not talking about it." You women actually feel better from "talking it out" while we men just get a sick feeling in our stomach when you tell us "we need to talk about us!"
Patriarchy IS an artificial construct. But it's NOT a system solely designed for men to oppress women for their own benefit.
It's a trade off system between men and women in which women agree to share their reproductive lives with men in exchange for men supporting them. It's a system that evolved to control female sexual desires and limit it to a lifetime monogomous arrangement, giving the male relative reassurement that the children of their marriage are his.
In exchange, he will than be motiviated to work hard and support his family, secure in the knowledge of the paternity of his children. It is a social contract.
Women's liberation movement and feminisim is all about rejecting that social contract. You feminists look at the deal and say, "I don't need you men to support me, so I will NOT allow you to control my sexuality."
When you reject the artificial model of Patriarchy, you get what we now see in modern society. An epidemic divorce rate and millions of single mothers raising men who are no longer motivated to become providers for their families that they would have become under the influence of the Patriarchal model of society.
Hence, women now outnumber men in college, and boys are failing and dropping out of high school in record, unprecedented numbers.
Why bother working hard to achieve career success when a woman doesn't need me for nothing but my sperm to whelp her children and extract child support from me while alienating my kids from me and denying me any parental rights and responsibilities?
Modern, feminist women who have the mentality you demonstrate on your blog want nothing to do with the Patriarchal contract. Fine.
So you're free as you want to be. You have the pill, you have the freedom to abortion, and you no longer have societal wide condemnation for "living in sin" or even sleeping around with multiple partners. You can even have kids from different fathers and cut them out of the kids lives, take child support from them and recieve welfare support...and yet you still rage against "Patriarchal oppression?"
You already have the means to reject Patriarchy and not suffer the consequences of ostrasization and extreme poverty of women who once did when Patriarchy was the dominant model of relations between the genders.
Walk around in your mini-skirt with hairy legs and guys will most likely avoid hitting on you - which is what you want, right?
But notice who gives you the nasty looks, snide comments and snickers behind your back about your hairy legs...your fellow sisters.
That's not "Patriarchal oppression." That's peer pressure from your fellow females - all wrapped up in playing the competitive game of attracting potential mates.
Whether society abides by Patriarchy or Matriarchy, the biological imperative to breed will still compel women to attract men, and you will still have SOME kind of social norms or "rules of the game" when it comes to competing for potential mates.
If not hairy legs, there will be some other aspect of your physical appearance that other women will find some means of differentiating themselves from the competition in the game of mate attraction.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
To wit - Don Imus makes an offhand, bigoted comment about the Rutgers Women's Basketball team and the race hustler pimp media whores, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, go ballistic and threated all kinds of boycotts and demonstrations unless Imus is immediately fired. Imus is now unemployed from both his TV Simulcast on MSNBC AND from his CBS radio show.
Now Imus deserves whatever punishment he gets...but to see these two extortionist race hustling hypocrites lead the charge is almost more than one can stomach. What penalty did Al Sharpton pay for ruining the life of Officer Pagones in the Tawana Brawley debacle? Where's the apology from Jesse Jackson for branding the Duke Lacrosse players as racist rapists - when all charges have just been dropped? When did Jesse Jackson apologize to Jews for calling New York "hymie town?"
So Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can pariticipate in a number of defamatory and sladerous actions and the media never calls them on it. Indeed, they are still reverentially referred to as "Reverends" and are the first blacks consulted whenever any kind of potential racial issue or controversy regarding blacks in America becomes a news item. "Reverend" Jackson had an extra-marital affair with an assistant, and gave her a bunch of tax-exempt, charitable money from his Rainbow-Push extortion organization to maintain her and the bastard child he sired with her...but he's still the revered "Reverend."
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the two most prominent examples of how Blacks are now a "protected class" in the US. They can say or do just about anything morally objectionable, and they are given a free pass and are never questioned. Worse yet, they are granted the legitmized authority by the media to be the spokespersons for what is racially and morally objectionable.
Speaking of the Duke Lacrosse False Rape Accusation story...
However, Cooper said no charges will be brought against the accuser, saying she “may actually believe” the many different stories she told. “We believe it is in the best interest of justice not to bring charges,” he said.
Here we have a double whammy...Crystal Gail Mangum, the false accuser...is black, AND female. So she basically gets away with ruining the lives of three college men simply because she is of the protected class (black female is a double dose of immunity in todays PC climate), she will pay NO penalty whatsoever.
Is this what "equal justice under the law" is supposed to mean?
And the double-standards of the press are simply abominable. While much of the MSM posted pictures of all three men who were falsely accused, they STILL do not use Crystal Mangum's name in reports (like in the MSNBC article I just linked to that only refers to her as "the woman,") let alone show us her picture.
At least John Podhoretz of the NYPost does what the rest of the MSM SHOULD be doing...
Finally, lets take a look at what's going on across the pond...Tony Blair has recently said that much of the problems with a recent spate of murders in the UK is due to "black culture."
That's what the headlines say...but if you read further, we find that Blair correctly points to the real problem with "black culture." And it appears to be the same issue that plagues "black culture" in the US as well: Black males raised in homes without Fathers.
Despite the fact that Tony Blair has spoken the truth, he's been inundated with complaints and insults for daring to point that out.
Blair hits the nail right on the head here...yet the typical talking heads and so-called spokespersons for the "black community" all rush in to castigate Blair and ignore or invalidate the point Blair made. These black "leaders" NEED to have white, Patriarchal racism as the boogeymen so that they can maintain and wield their power and influence...because the real solution here is NOTHING they can do about - because the problem with "black culture" in the US and the UK is NOT economic deprivation..it's FATHER deprivation.
The Rev Nims Obunge, chief executive of the Peace Alliance, one of the main organisations working against gang crime, denounced the prime minister.
Mr Obunge, who attended the Downing Street summit chaired by Mr Blair in February, said he had been cited by the prime minister: "He makes it look like I said it's the black community doing it. What I said is it's making the black community more vulnerable and they need more support and funding for the work they're doing. ... He has taken what I said out of context. We came for support and he has failed and has come back with more police powers to use against our black children."
Keith Jarrett, chair of the National Black Police Association, whose members work with vulnerable youngsters, said: "Social deprivation and delinquency go hand in hand and we need to tackle both. It is curious that the prime minister does not mention deprivation in his speech."
Lee Jasper, adviser on policing to London's mayor, said: "For years we have said this is an issue the black community has to deal with. The PM is spectacularly ill-informed if he thinks otherwise.
"Every home secretary from [David] Blunkett onwards has been pressed on tackling the growing phenomenon of gun and gang crime in deprived black communities, and government has failed to respond to what has been a clear demand for additional resources to tackle youth alienation and disaffection".
The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.
Answering questions later Mr Blair said: "Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don't think it's the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.
"I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them."
Some people working with children knew at the age of five whether they were going to be in "real trouble" later, he said.
Mr Blair is known to believe the tendency for many black boys to be raised in families without a father leads to a lack of appropriate role models.
But since Black's have now become the protected class, NO CRITICISM can be made. No blame can be taken. It's always whitey's fault...or men's fault.
Until this "protection" ceases to keep "black culture" from recognizing, dealing with and taking responsibility for it's own problems and pathologies, and "racist society" can always be the scapegoat to blame, the black matriarchy will continue to populate the ghettoes with wild, young black male criminals and unwed teenage welfare moms to perpetuate a "black culture" that is increasingly criminal and deviant.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Bill Ties Climate to National Security"Global Warming" the movement (not the natural phenomenon) is simply the propaganda movement of the NWO of global socialists trying to limit the first world countries economic success and influence.
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | April 9, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The CIA and Pentagon would for the first time be required to assess the national security implications of climate change under proposed legislation intended to elevate global warming to a national defense issue.
The bipartisan proposal, which its sponsors expect to pass the Congress with wide support, calls for the director of national intelligence to conduct the first-ever "national intelligence estimate" on global warming.
The effort would include pinpointing the regions at highest risk of humanitarian suffering and assessing the likelihood of wars erupting over diminishing water and other resources.
The measure also would order the Pentagon to undertake a series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security, including "direct physical threats to the United States posed by extreme weather events such as hurricanes."
The growing attention to global warming as a national security issue could open new avenues of support for tougher efforts to limit greenhouse gases, according to specialists.
So while Al Gore flies around the world in his private jet, like chicken little clucking "The Sky is Warming! The Sky is Warming!" we get stories like this coming out...
From AgWeb.com :
Last year was record warm, this year record cold! April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic change from last years #1 warmest ever. Even after some late month moderation, April 2007 will likely keep the month in the top 7 coldest in history. The Southwest is the one exception, but even here temperatures will cool dramatically late in the week. And, the snow is not over!
Thursday, April 5, 2007
When I told him it was primarily due to the destruction of the nuclear family which was largely caused by LBJ's "The Great Society" welfare policies, he got mad (he is a hardcore, card-carrying union member leftist liberal Democrat) and tried to tell me that it was Senator Moynihan that was most concerned with the state of the Black nuclear family and that the "Great Society" was a success and that LBJ was the greatest civil rights President the US has ever had.
Because of this disagreement, I was inspired to do a bit of research and came across a great article on just this topic in the City-Journal archives.
The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies
Prompted by Moynihan’s still-unpublished study, [lyndon B.] Johnson delivered a speech at the Howard University commencement that called for “the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights.” The president began his speech with the era’s conventional civil rights language, condemning inequality and calling for more funding of medical care, training, and education for Negroes. But he also broke into new territory, analyzing the family problem with what strikes the contemporary ear as shocking candor. He announced: “Negro poverty is not white poverty.” He described “the breakdown of the Negro family structure,” which he said was “the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice and present prejudice.” “When the family collapses, it is the children that are usually damaged,” Johnson continued. “When it happens on a massive scale, the community itself is crippled.”Moynihan and LBJ were initially on the right track...but the Black leaders of the era and the feminist movement that actively promoted the destruction of the nuclear family as "Patriarchal Oppression" shouted down Moynihan's and LBJ's calls for strengthening the Black Families as the answer to the lower income poverty and ghetto pathology. Instead, they called such analysis "racist" and "sexist" and than went on to enact the "Great Society" welfare state that made black men unneccesary to support their families and completely dismantled the structure of the nuclear family, exacerbating the pathologies of poverty in the American ghettos.
Johnson was to call this his “greatest civil rights speech,” but he was just about the only one to see it that way. By that summer, the Moynihan report that was its inspiration was under attack from all sides. Civil servants in the “permanent government” at Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and at the Children’s Bureau muttered about the report’s “subtle racism.” Academics picked apart its statistics. Black leaders like Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) director Floyd McKissick scolded that, rather than the family, “[i]t’s the damn system that needs changing.”
Feminists, similarly fixated on overturning the “oppressive ideal of the nuclear family,” also welcomed this dubious scholarship. Convinced that marriage was the main arena of male privilege, feminists projected onto the struggling single mother an image of the “strong black woman” who had always had to work and who was “superior in terms of [her] ability to function healthily in the world,” as Toni Morrison put it. The lucky black single mother could also enjoy more equal relationships with men than her miserably married white sisters.
If black pride made it hard to grapple with the increasingly separate and unequal family, feminism made it impossible. Fretting about single-parent families was now not only racist but also sexist, an effort to deny women their independence, their sexuality, or both. As for the poverty of single mothers, that was simply more proof of patriarchal oppression. In 1978, University of Wisconsin researcher Diana Pearce introduced the useful term “feminization of poverty.” But for her and her many allies, the problem was not the crumbling of the nuclear family; it was the lack of government support for single women and the failure of business to pay women their due.
Thus the impetus to enact family destroying legislation that comprised the so-called "Great Society."
With the benefit of embarrassed hindsight, academics today sometimes try to wave away these notions as the justifiably angry, but ultimately harmless, speculations of political and academic activists. “The depth and influence of the radicalism of the late 1960s and early 1970s are often exaggerated,” historian Stephanie Coontz writes in her new book, Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. This is pure revisionism. The radical delegitimation of the family was so pervasive that even people at the center of power joined in. It made no difference that so many of these cheerleaders for single mothers had themselves spent their lives in traditional families and probably would rather have cut off an arm than seen their own unmarried daughters pushing strollers.
Ahhh...gotta love limousine liberalism - good enough for me but not for thee.
The misery of the poverty stricken ghettoes of Black America owes it's existence to feminists and their poisenous, anti-family policies of the 60's.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
"I could have gone down that path of lowering myself to everyone else's level ... and proven my innocence," she said, referring to the media coverage following her split with McCartney in May last year.
"All I did was fall in love with somebody -- madly -- and give up my life for seven years, you know.... and then to be vilified for it? I'm actually quite shocked."
Notice the language here. That's code-speak for "You owe me millions of dollars (or Pounds as in her case) for MY SACRIFICE!"
What about Sir Paul? He sacrificed having seven years for which he could have had any other woman he wanted? Or does Ms. Mills think that for seven years she could have pursued her career to the point of success that would have equalled the wealth, status, stature and jet-set luxury she enjoyed while leeching off of Sir McCartney?What exactly did she "give up?"
Jerry Bowyer's article makes the point that:
The thing about wealth creation is that it requires certain virtues, like patience, thrift and diligence.And he closes with the corollary point of:
Scarcity is a tutor and when it is no longer there to restrain our appetites, only character remains.It's a pretty good read on the situation...but it pretty much beats around the bush over the topic of naming Anna for what she was - a gold digger.
Anna Nicolle's way is the way it's not supposed to be. Be born reasonably pretty and adopt a flexible attitude towards cosmetic surgery and public disrobement. Shake your tassels into the right face and viola, you're Mrs. Billionaire. Her husband poured his heart into oil; she poured silicone into her chest. He took almost a century getting there; she took less than a decade. He died in his nineties; she died in her thirties."The way it's not supposed to be" - in terms of how you build and successfully retain and live with wealth. But how Anna did it? For millions of women in the West, that is EXACTLY how it's "supposed to be." Why work, sacrifice, suffer through hard times and multiple failures before finally realizing success, when you can simply shake your silicone in an old man's face and end up rich beyond your wildest imaginations?
It's the "Get Rich Quick" entitlement mentality that has infected the West in epidemic proportions. Funny though...you almost never hear about such gold-diggers that end up happy and productive in life. A gold digger has a certain psychological make-up...one that justifies and rationalizes acting like a parasite. But I believe that deep down inside, women like Anna KNOW that they are acting like nothing more than a lowly parasite, and it gnaws at their soul, instilling a deep unhappiness for which they try and mask with rampant indulgences in hedonism.
If you go from the trailer park to unlimited wealth, chances are good that you will overdose on something - food, booze, or (in this unfortunate case) sleeping pills.
For some employees who work for bullies, acceptance might also be an option, says Gini Graham Scott, author of “A Survival Guide to Working with Bad Bosses: Dealing with Bullies, Idiots, Back-Stabbers, and Other Managers from Hell.”
There might be some companies, she says, where people are just more intense and emotional because of cultural differences. “If you're part of a culture and everyone yells at everyone you have to learn to accept that, or maybe the job is not right for you,” she explains.
And don’t take it personally. “I think some women can be more sensitive and personalize these things, where men can have a stiffer upper lip. They all yell at each other and then go out and have a drink,” Graham Scott adds.
You don't say?
I don't think it's a stretch to say that most of us in the West know people who come from broken homes and were alienated from their non-custodial parents (usually the father).
Usually, the children are turned against their father by a vindictive, selfish ex-wife who uses her children as a weapon to hurt her ex-husband, and also as a means of extorting money.
The worst part of it, is that most children who are being used in this way have no idea they are simply pawns in a sick game, and they truly believe their Fathers are heartless, uncaring pigs that have abandoned them because they don't love them. Many never realize that their mothers either drove their fathers out of the picture for her own selfish reasons, or that she took the children away and have brainwashed them.
But not every case of Parental Alienation works out that way. Sometimes, the Father IS a real deadbeat dad. But even in those cases, most Mothers fail to own up to their responsibility in choosing an irresponsible man to sire children with them.
They get to play the role of "victim" of a "typical male" and place all the blame on him - and they usually express this sentiment repeatedly to the innocent children - both consciously and subconsciously. This invariably harms her children regardless of their gender. It teaches that girls are never wrong, that it's ok to make bad decisions and be irresponsible because it's always "his" fault, while boys grow up hating their fathers and unknowingly hating themselves. What these selfish, angry women don't realize is that teaching a young boy to hate his father is teaching him to hate himself.
I say this because I personally know of people that have been scarred by such behavior. And than I also know of a few exceptions to this rule as well...
I have a close friend who did choose a "bad boy" as the father of her first two children. They lived together for a few years, and eventually got married...while he was a drug using, hard drinking philanderer that cheated on her consistently.
After she finally opened her eyes to the truth of what she married, and realized that she was NEVER going to be able to "fix" him, she left with the kids.
It is now 10 years later, and she remarried a "good guy." But what I really commend her for is her honesty with her children and the way she handled the post-divorce custody issues. She was aware of how Parental Alienation can negatively affect her children, and she strove to avoid doing it as best she could.
She never played games with visitation, and she never bothered him for child support or sent the courts after him. She consciously strove to avoid bad mouthing their father, and she let the kids visit their father whenever they wanted to...and when the kids themselves would see how their father acted - selfish, whacked out on drugs or drunk, bringing around his skank of the week and flaking out on plans for taking them places and doing things -- they would ask their mom why he would act that way.
It was only then that she would tell her children that all of the problems they were going through was her fault for choosing the wrong man to father them, and that she was really sorry that they had suffer for her own bad judgement in men, and that they should love and respect their step-father as the example of a good man.
In short, the boys were alienated from their father...not because she turned them against him, but because he turned them away from himself through his own behavior. But I'm happy to say that both those boys have grown up in a much more happy, stable environment with a stable, loving and supportive Step-Father who has adopted them and provided for them financially and served as a positive role model...while their biological father is still a 36 year old live-at-home with his mother, drug dealing, womanising loser.
If only more Women where as honest and responsible as my friend was, and would own up to their own mistakes and be much more critical in choosing men to make children with, than a Parental Alienation Awareness Day would not be necessary.
Monday, April 2, 2007
In it, he makes 7 points you should keep in mind when you are dealing with a female in your life who is chronically angry...
Number 7 is probably the most important consideration one should bear in mind when you are in the early stages of ANY kind of voluntary relationship with a person of either gender: a miserable person will make you miserable if you let them draw you into their miserable world.
- She is responsible for her feelings. You are responsible for your actions. These two things are not identical and in most circumstances are not even related.
- If she is angry no matter what you do, then her anger is unrelated to your actions and there is nothing you can do to resolve it.
- If she gets angry over crazy and petty things, she is using her anger to control you.
- Women despise men who allow themselves to be controlled.
- A no-win position is actually a can't-lose situation. If she puts you in a position where you cannot win regardless of what you do, then you are completely free to do whatever you want without taking her feelings into account at all. Enjoy the freedom.
- Life is too short to waste it with the angry. You're going to spending a lot of time in avoidance anyhow, so you'd do better to avoid the entire relationship from the start.
- If a woman is always angry with her work, her family or her friends, she will always be angry with you as soon as you become a part of her life.
If you do notice the other person in a new relationship is constantly angry, it would be best to remember Vox's tip No. 6. Once you've known a person long enough to evaluate their "anger" levels, cut the perpetually disgruntled from your life before you become just as miserable and angry they are.