Friday, August 24, 2007

Female Predators in our Public Schools

It's commonly accepted in American society that most predators and statutory rapists are usually men, and that somehow women are the "fairer" sex.

Yet the number of female "teachers" in our public school teachers is quite staggering when you actually see just how many cases have occurred recently across the country -

The following list comes from WND:

Sextra Credit
The big list: Female teachers with students
Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus

Now, without putting much thought to the topic, I would guess that most people who first hear about the issue would hazard a guess that the majority of these female predators are hideously ugly hags and cows that are sexually desperate because no man their own age would touch them with a 10 foot pole.

It certainly appears that way for some of the following...

Oooooh those, poor little boys that were taken advantage of by these hideous cows....just seeing their pictures and reading the descriptions of their crimes makes me nauseas.

But than we have cases like these...

Amy McElhenny, 25:
Charged with having a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old male student, the 25-year-old Hebron High School Spanish teacher and former Miss Texas contestant will not be serving any jail time after a Denton County, Texas, grand jury refused to issue an indictment in September 2006.

Angela Comer, 26:
Middle-school teacher from Tompkinsville, Ky., fled with her alleged lover, her 14-year-old male student, before being tracked down in Mexico where she reportedly planned to marry the boy.

Carrie McCandless, 29:
The former Colorado social-studies teacher, who also happens to be married to the principal, was charged in November 2006 with having had sexual contact with a 17-year-old male student during an overnight school camping trip.

And of of the most famous cases:

Debra LaFave, 25:
Tampa, Fla., area teacher received no jail time despite having sex with her 14-year-old male student in a classroom and her Hillsborough County home.

I guess some fairly attractive women can also be sexual predators of young boys as well.

There are a lot more stories of female predators in our public schools found at that WND page...but there is a common thread amongst almost all of these stories: just about all of these women that were caught in sexual "relationships" with their students recieved little to no jail time for their crimes.

Even when a judge points out the apparent double standard between how female sexual predators are treated versus male predators, the judge STILL gives these ladies light or no the following case:

Cameo Patch, 29:
Substitute teacher at Tooele High School in Tooele, Utah, arrested for allegedly performing oral sex on a 17-year-old male student. The sexual activity was allegedly consensual, and reportedly took place off school grounds after the pair had exchanged phone numbers in a restaurant.

"In November 2006, Patch was sentenced to no jail time, despite comments from the judge that a man would have likely gone to prison."

The feminist movement claims to be about equality for the sexes.... about some equality in the sentences for convicted molesters and statutory rapists?!?!

Feminist Myopia

Read this following myopic viewpoint from this whining feminut:

Are Men More Intelligent Than Women?

A professor in Canada has recently released the findings of a “scientific” survey which claims men are more intelligent than women. According to the test results of 100,000 participants men scored 3.63 IQ points higher than women across all levels including family economics.

Although these findings are controversial they could also be the breakthrough that the fairer sex has been seeking for generations. If the male is now considered to be more capable than the female in family economics then maybe the 21st century will bring about a complete role reversal whereby the woman will go to work and earn the main income whilst the man maintains the home. He will be able to display his newly discovered expertise by juggling the housekeeping money to pay all the bills, doing the shopping, the housework, getting the kids ready for school each morning, preparing a family meal in the evening, getting the kids ready for bed and then washing up and tidying before finally finding the time to sit and relax for a while to watch his favourite television programme. Even then there will still be things to do so the man will need to multitask by watching the TV whilst ironing his wife’s clothes ready for her to wear for work in the morning, sewing the tears in the children’s school uniforms that will only need doing again after their next bout of exuberant playtime and subconsciously planning the following days family curriculum.

Whilst the man will be expected to manage the household right up to the last minute before crawling into bed for a welcome rest the woman has also had her share to do as well. On her return home from an eight hour day at work, kicking off her shoes and flopping onto the sofa she may have to endure the inconvenience of getting up again to go to the fridge to retrieve a beer and even open it herself because the man is too busy cooking the dinner in between repeatedly separating the kids who are arguing over who’s turn it is on the Xbox.

Dinner is served up at the dining table but the woman wants hers on the coffee table in the living room so she can still watch the football on the television. The match is vital, everything depends on the result; it could mean relegation to a lower division for her supported team! Like most other women who are fanatical about their football team she supports a Premier League side based three hundred miles away from where she actually lives. The man cannot understand the reasoning behind her over enthusiastic support of Liverpool when they live on the Isle of Wight.

Dad and the kids eat like civilised people in the dining room whilst mum lounges on the sofa with her dinner just about within arms reach on the coffee table. Whilst her eyes are firmly fixed to the TV she attempts to load a fork and guide it to her mouth but drops the lot on the carpet as she jumps up shouting profanities at the referee for failing to award Liverpool a penalty after a gust of wind made one of their players fall over.

Dinner is over and half of hers is on the floor where it will stay until dad can make the time to come and clear it up and take away her empty plate. She is too tired to do anything; she has been to work all day making important decisions so in her opinion she has done her fair share. At five ‘o’clock on Friday she finished her work period; great, no more work until Monday morning!

Her husband is exhausted but she cannot understand why, after all, he’s just been at home all the time doing whatever he wants to do while she has had to work a 35 hour week. It’s ten ‘o’clock and he announces he is going to bed for an early night. Her eyes immediately light up at the thought of an early night; to a woman an early night means sex and she sulks childishly when her advances are spurned because the man complains he is tired and has a headache.

Notice in her attempts at being clever by reversing the sexes, she goes into lengthy detail about just how onerous and difficult it is for the "husband" doing the traditional housewife role, while the "wife" is a sports obsessed slob acting like the "husband" is simply a domestic slave to make sure dinner is ready, cleans up after "her" while catering to "her" every whim, while STILL managing to cope with child rearing and domestic chores. This is feminist myopia on plain view for all to see...barely a mention of the often difficult and dangerous work a provider may endure to support the family.

Oh the inhumanity and oppression.

One could easily reverse this cheap, transparent tactic:

After sending the kids off to school, the "husband " loads the breakfast dishes into the dishwasher, throws the laundry into the washing machine and vacuum's the house with the state of the art Kirby his "wife" just bought for him. This takes about an hour or so, after which he sits down with a cup of coffee and enjoys an hour of his favorite Soap Opera. After this, he gets on the phone and gossips for an hour with his "boyfriends" before planning to meet up with them at the Starbucks at the shopping mall.

After a few hours of shopping and gossiping, the "househusbands" all leave the mall to pick up the kids from school and head home to ensure the homework gets done and dinner is ready for the "Wife" when she gets home from her day of hard, manual labor in the coal mines that leave "her" completely exhausted, risking "her" life to put food on the table and to make the minimum payments on "His" credit cards that are all maxed out to support "his" shoe and jeans collection that stuff their closets to overfull.

But when "she" gets home, her duties are not over...the minute she walks in after a mind-numbing day of sheer physical labor in horrid conditions, he greets her at the door with immediate nagging about why the yard work hasn't been done yet, the garbage needs to be taken out and "HER" kids were misbehaving again.

All she wants to do after such a long hard day at the mines is take a shower, eat some dinner and watch the game with a beer or two before dropping to sleep from exhaustion from earning a living for her family from the sweat of her brow...but "he" never lets up with the nagging and it drives her so crazy, she leaves her dinner to get cold and her beer to get warm, and she misses the last quarter of her favorite teams playoff game so she can finally take the trash out and mow the lawn with the last rays of sunlight left...just so he'll finally stop nagging her to death.

Than, after finishing her cold dinner and warm beer, she has the NERVE to expect sex! Doesn't she know how tired he is from taking care of the kids and cleaning the house!?!??! (That's not even mentioning how tiring it is to walk around the mall with his boyfriends for a couple of hours, maxing out the credit cards for new clothes and the absolutely VITAL nicnacs and trinkets that adorn the house).

See...aren't cheap, rhetorical essays so much fun!??!

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Why Should the US Model Itself After Europe's Socialist Systems?

The liberals, so-called "progressives" and Democrats in American politics are the primary supporters of the implementation of feminism. All one needs to do is visit the fever swamps of leftist thought to see that this is true...sights like Democrat Underground, Pandagon and Daily Kos are overflowing with feminist propaganda and misandry.

What one can also see is frequent references to the so-called "superior" model of European socialist states, and that we need to move the United States in their direction in terms of social and economic policies.

What these useful idiots don't realize is that looking to such Euorpean "utopias" is quite instructive as to why their thoughts, ideas, platform and agenda are the means to destroying society, one family at a time...

From the Ludwig Von Mises Institute,
What Has Government Done to Our Families?

In turning to Sweden, we find a classic case of bureaucratic manipulation to destroy the state's principal rival as a focus of loyalty: the family...

...The rise of the welfare state can be written as the steady transfer of the "dependency" function from the family to the state; from persons tied together by blood, marriage or adoption to persons tied to public employees.

This is socialism is distilled: Government taking over the traditional dependency function of the nuclear family. Hmmm, where have we heard this before? Perhaps it was a certain politician who is a radical feminist masquerading as a moderate Democrat? One who wrote a book entitled "It Takes A Village?"

The process began in Sweden in the mid-19th century, through bureaucratic projects that began dismantling the bonds between parents and their children.

The article than goes on to outline the steps the Swedish Government has taken to accomplish this dismantling of the bonds between parents and their children...what's frightening is that when one reads how the Swedish Government went about this process, one realizes that those same measures have already been implemented here in America!

In classic pattern, the first assertion of state control over children came in the 1840s, with the passage of a mandatory school attendance law.

The next step came in 1912, with legislation that effectively banned child labor in factories, and to some degree on farms. Again, the implicit assumption was that state welfare officials were better judges of the use of children's time, and more compassionate toward children than parents were or could be.


The final step came at about the same time, when the Swedish government implemented a program of old-age or retirement pensions that quickly became universal. The underlying act here was the socializing of another dependency function, this time, the dependency of the "very old" and the "weak" on mature adults. For eons, the care of the elderly had been a family matter. Henceforward, it would be the state's concern.

Taking all of these reforms together, the net effect was to socialize the economic value of children. The natural economy of the household, and the value that children had brought their parents—be it as workers in the family enterprise or as an 'insurance policy' for old age—was stripped away. Parents were still left with the costs of raising the children, but the economic gain they would eventually represent had been seized by "society," meaning the bureaucratic state.

The predictable result of this change, as an economist of the "Gary Becker School" would tell you, would be a diminished demand for children, and this is exactly what occurred in Sweden. Starting in the late 1800s, Swedish fertility went into free-fall and by 1935, Sweden had the lowest birthrate in the world, below the zero-growth level where a generation just managed to replace itself.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The Swedish model of socialism...the system the Left in America wants to move us towards, is a recipe for cultural and national suicide. Plummeting birth rates, disintegrating families and a burgeoning welfare state that becomes increasingly bankrupt as the diminished younger generation no longer generates enough taxes to pay for the elder generations entitlements.

To all the leftists, socialists, democrats and feminists in this country that continually insist that we need to model our country like Europe...I say to you: if it's so bad here, and so great there, why are you still here?

Friday, August 17, 2007

Gender Limited Jobs in the NFL

Another stupid woman takes the opportunity to play the victim with shrieking cries of "Sexism!" against the Pittsburgh Steelers for not allowing female hotel security officers to patrol the floors the Steelers were on, because some of the players stroll around naked after showers and such.


The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that a female police officer and her supervisor have filed internal complaints after the officer was passed over for extra work at the Steelers' hotel due to her gender.

The officer who made the room assignments didn't want a female patrolling the team's floor because some of the players "walk down the hallway with no clothes on."

Cynthia Ferretti and her supervisor complained after the East Liberty station received a request from officer Kevin Head for volunteers for the off-duty assignment. Head allegedly included the gender limitation as the only stipulation for the gig.

"They just couldn't work the floors where the guys were with no clothes on," said Head. "I don't know why everybody's blowing this out of proportion. Really, I didn't even think they took it like they took it. I had two posts that required the men to be on the floor."

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said that the team did not request that the guards assigned to player floors be men only.

I've only got one thing to say on this scenario: imagine if the gender's were reversed, and a male security guard sued the Miss America Paegent because they wouldn't let him patrol the lady's dressing room...would anybody take his complaint seriously?

Gender equality?

My ass.

The feminists claim they want equality, but it's obvious for all to see that what they really want is preferential treatment for the female gender on just about every issue they seek to address.

Feminism would love nothing more than to destroy the NFL...the ultimate masculinity driven organization. It is one of the last institutions in this country where feminists have not been able to infiltrate and corrupt simply because there is probably not a woman alive in this world that could handle playing any non-kicking position at the NFL level.

As feminism continues to try and influence every sphere of modern life in the Western Hemisphere, it will be organizations like the NFL that will at least preserve some bastion of acceptable masculine expression left in society.

So what exactly am I getting at here?

MRA: it is your DUTY to support the NFL, and do all that you can to watch football during football season!!!!!! :)

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

The System THRIVES on Destroying Families

One of my favorite MRA columnists, Carey Roberts, has written a new piece that basically connects the dots between feminism, the government, and the destructive effects it has had on families and on society by extension.

Specifically, he addresses the horrendous situation that Child Support Programs in each State are firmly entrenched into a system where it thrives on destroying families, and keeping Father's away from their children so that it can continue to receive Federal funding...

From: "Newark Triple-Murder Reveals Need for Fathers,"

The wellspring of the problem can be traced to the advent of no-fault divorce, relaxed sexual mores that gave rise to out-of-wedlock births, and the legacy of Great Society programs that diminished father's roles.

And a recent report by political scientist Stephen Baskerville reveals powerful incentives have now become rooted in the system. [] These inducements stymie reform and place families at risk.

The problem starts at the top with the Office for Child Support Enforcement, the federal bureaucracy that awards grants to states that propel the gears of their child support enforcement machinery.

Remember we're talking about a squeezing-blood-out-of-a-turnip problem — few low-income dads have the skills or job opportunities to make their child support payments. So revoking their fishing licenses and throwing them in jail becomes an exercise in social do-gooding that is more symbol than substance.

If our child support collection effort was working, the revenues collected from obligated parents should exceed the program's expenses. But they don't. According to a 2003 report from the House Ways and Means Committee, taxpayers actually lost $2.7 billion in 2002.

The OCSE sweetens the deal by dangling juicy incentives that are tied to the level of child support dollars collected. For example in 2002, child support programs brought $640 million to California and $228 million to Ohio.

It's those incentives that have made the system so destructive to families.

If fathers are awarded 50% custody of their children, they owe little or nothing in child support. If no child support dollars are channeling through the system, then the federal money dries up.
This creates an inducement for states to keep children away from their fathers as much as possible.
This is how the system is rigged...and it's overall effects on society are PLAIN for all to see.

City Journal commentator Steven Malanga reveals the social pathology that lies behind those murders: "An astonishing 60 percent of the city's kids are growing up without fathers ... Studies have also found that about 70 percent of the long-term prisoners in our jails, those who have committed the most violent crimes, grew up without fathers." []

Yet the madness of family destroying laws continue onward, sucking in more and more men and their innocent children every year into a soul-destroying system that continues to corrupt society.

When will the madness ever end?

And people wonder why I'm an outspoken Libertarian that opposes just about every facet of Government involvement in all the areas of life it does not belong.

Where is it written in the US Constitution that the Federal Government has ANY business being involved in child support?

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

I'm 32% Feminist?

You Are 32% Feminist

No one would consider you a feminist. You believe women should hold on to traditional gender roles.
Well, that's not the world we're living in anymore. Time to wake up to the 21st century!

I don't think so!!! I would say I'm a 0% Feminist...though mildly amusing, the quiz, which I found via Vox Popoli, the wording of the questions are all "either or" propositions that are badly worded.

Here's the 10 questions along with the reasons for why I voted the way I did to arrive at the 30% rating...

  1. Women should be economically and socially independent. They shouldn't rely on men to take care of them.

    Strongly Disagree

    This gets to the very heart of the matter in which feminism has corrupted society and sparked the "gender war" we all endure. Under the old "oppression" of Patriarchy, men and women COMPLEMENTED each other by being dependent on each other when they married and created a family. Women did rely on men to take care of them financially, Men relied on women to take care of them by taking care of everything else like housekeeping and children rearing so he could focus on being the best breadwinner he could be.

    Women being economically and socially independent is the idea that women don't need men for anything...this is unnatural, and when one takes a step back and looks at it from an objective point of view, every single mammalian species that exists or has existed in this world consists of complementary genders that work together to produce, protect and raise the successive generations. Feminism seeks to push this idea that the human species is the exception to the rule that governs all other mammalian species on earth.

    And my answer doesn't preclude women from having a career either...I'm only concerned with the general attitude that our feminist corrupted culture has imbued Women with this idea that they don't need men. Men and Women need each other - that is the natural way of things. Going against this is unnatural.

  2. There is no such thing as a "man's job." It is wrong for men to be given preference for any job position, even if women traditionally aren't in that field.

    Strongly Disagree

    Feminists can get back to me on this question when women are subject to the draft, when they work in equal proportion to the hazardous jobs that men do, when they suffer the same casualty rate in those hazardous occupations, and when they no longer benefit from laws that give them maternity leave at the expense of the employer....because as an employer, and I had to choose between hiring a pregnant woman or a man, why should I be penalized for preferring the employee that is going to show up for work and produce versus the one that is going to take up to 3 months off, for which I have to cover all the expenses of keeping her job for her while she is not producing anything during that duration in return?

  3. Men and women should be held to the same sexual standards. If men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well.


    I believe men and women should be held to the same standards of judgment for their behavior, I really disagree with the wording of this particular question, which is why I chose Disagree rather than Strongly Disagree.

    If men can...women should be able to as well

    The biological fact of the matter is this: no amount of feminist propaganda changes the basic facts that when men are looking for a spouse to create children with, they want to be assured that the children produced are genetically HIS. When a women is promiscuous, men will not value her for her potential to be the mother to his children, because her past behavior indicates that children produced from their marriage may in fact put the issues of paternity into at the very least a questionable category. Women have no such worries, as they gestate and birth the child. No matter how slutty she is, she knows the children are hers. So once again, we have another instance of feminism getting enraged at the natural order of life in the human species.

  4. Women should take an equal role in dating. Women should ask out people they are interested in and take their turn in paying.


    The only reason I did not put Strongly Agree is because I think one of the areas in which feminists have really messed up women is this idea that women need to act like men in the dating game...although women should certainly pay their fair share if they want to demonstrate to the men they are dating that they are more interested in his company than his wallet.

    It is a masculine manner to be straightforward and pursue a woman that interests him, and this is what feminists seek to emulate when they tell women they should ask people out they are interested in...but any women in the "age of oppression" had no such worries. Proper ladies knew exactly how to use her femininity to encourage a man she was interested in to ask her out. It's the same mating ritual dance one can see numerous examples of in gender seeks to attract the attention of the other they are interested in. For humans, it is the female that tries to attract and the male that pursues. Feminists are trying to flip this natural order on it's head and make women the overt pursuers rather than to use their innate feminine traits to attract a man.

  5. Women should accept their bodies as they are. Women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals.

    Bah. This is another one of those whacko ideas feminists have that once again proves Rush Limbaugh's famous assertion that feminism is just about ugly women who are angry that they do not enjoy the perks beautiful women enjoy in society.

    The other point to consider is this: wacky beauty ideals pushed by society are not caused by "men" or the so-called "Patriarchy." Where is it exactly that one can look to find the "wacky" beauty ideals? Women's magazines written by feminist women for women readers and modeling fashion shows designed and produced by women or gay men to sell clothes to women. Couple this with the celebrity culture for which most women are obsessed with so that they can live vicariously through the lives of people who have the beauty they wish they themselves had, and we get the so-called "unrealistic beauty ideals that oppress women."

    This feminist notion that women should just "accept themselves" is just another way for women to claim victim-hood for their own behavior. Eat right and exercise and you won't be an obese slob no sane man wants to touch with a 10 foot pole. Is it really unrealistic to expect that women AND men should work at keeping themselves in shape and healthy? Societal pressure to do this is a good thing, not "oppressive" as feminists claim.

  6. A woman should be able to marry and have kids with anyone she wants - including another woman.

    Strongly Disagree

    Marriage is the model of Patriarchy designed to create families with Parental roles that are complementary to raise healthy, well-balanced children. Marriage by definition is the union between a man and a woman. A woman "marrying" another woman is an oxymoron. Of course, this is exactly why feminists support same sex "marriage." Because they are morons.

  7. Women should have the right to choose any path in life - from being a stay at home mom to a Fortune 500 CEO.

    Strongly Agree

    This is probably the one answer that probably weighs substantially in giving me a 32% rating. Women AND Men should have the right to choose any path in life. Why is this a problem? This was never a problem before either. There were no laws that said women couldn't be a Fortune 500 CEO...they just by and large chose not to because of the social pressure and expectations that women should get married and raise a family.

  8. Women should be encouraged to pursue education as much as men are.

    Strongly Disagree

    Women should have the right to pursue education as much as they want, but the societal pressure that now dictates that women SHOULD pursue education as much as men has now lead to the chaos we now live in, and is a major factor in why all of the Western countries that have embraced feminism as the cultural and legal paradigm all now have declining birth rates. Instead of having multiple children when women are in their prime fertile years, they are in school working on a degree than jumping into their careers upon graduation. By the time they feel "ready" to have kids, they can at most have two or three kids before they are no longer fertile, and it is more likely that they will only have one, and that child will often be raised by strangers on minimum wage at daycare while career woman goes back to work to get the most out of her "education." From a Demographic perspective, the feminist zeitgeist of encouraging women to work on education and careers while in their prime reproductive years is cultural suicide.

  9. Women should have legal, easy access to all types of birth control - including the morning after pill


    Well I'm pro-life, as I just explained in the previous post, so there's no further explanation as to why I disagree with this supposition. The only reason why I only chose Disagree rather than Strongly Disagree is that I see a very important distinction between birth control and the morning-after abortion pill.

  10. You would support a woman for president (if you agreed with her politics).

    I most certainly would...but I don't see any women Libertarian candidates running for President, so I'm certainly not supporting any women in this next election.

All in all, this is yet another one of those stupid, vapid quizzes that are ubiquitous in women's magazines and women websites...but it is certainly revealing when one looks at the questions to see just how intellectually shallow and unnatural the feminist mindset really is.

Friday, August 3, 2007

Ruminating on the Topic of Abortion

I was ambivalent about the issue of legalized abortion for a long, long time. I've always been conflicted between the right to life argument and a person's right to control their own body. But after a lot of thought on this topic, I think I've finally decided I am pretty much a hard core, pro-lifer...but I'm certainly not some Fundamentalist either (i.e. I would never condone abortion clinic bombings or killing abortion doctors).

It is my view that abortion should be an issue resolved by the States and not by Supreme Court Fiat...and that the right thing for all 50 States to do would be to outlaw abortions with the exceptions for medical cases of life endangerment, or proven rape/incest cases.

I believe abortion is murder, and it is a barbaric act for which their is no acceptable excuse for it other than medical endangerment or rape/incest.

The feminist/pro-choice people no doubt find my position to be radical and an attempt to "take away a women's control over her own body."

I reject this line of reasoning on several grounds:

Women always have and always will have the choice to control their bodies.

They can decide who they have sex with.

They can decide which of the multiple forms of birth control they can use to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the ole, "What about those that were using birth control, but the control failed?"

I think as far as that goes, than a woman shouldn't be having sex with a man unless she is already prepared to deal with the potential consequences; i.e. if you don't know this guy well, or you know he's gonna skip town if you get pregnant, or he's an abusive drug addict or alcoholic, than you shouldn't be doing him in the first place, birth control or not. But hey, if you want to, go ahead, I'm not gonna try to get laws to stop you...but just be prepared to deal with the potential consequences for your choices.

If abortion were illegal across the board, most women would be a lot more careful and a lot more selective about who, where and when they sleep with, because they know the potential consequences would change their lives forever. That is how it used to be when abortion was largely illegal.

And I also reject the line of reasoning about back alley coat hanger abortions. Rape, murder and robbery happen all the time despite being illegal. The fact that they are happening is not a persuasive argument to legalize them either.

The entire argument of the feminists as far as I can tell really boils down to this: the feminist goal is to enable women to engage in any kind of sexual behavior they want to and not have to face the consequences for their behavior.

No-Fault divorce is the feminist aim to give women carte blanc to commit adultery and break their marriage contract without penalty.

Abortion is the feminist solution to give women the right to kill their baby rather than deal with issues of personal responsibility for their own choices and behavior.

In short, my view is that Feminism's primary goal is to remove any and all constraints on how a woman wants to act sexually.

But to be clear: As a Libertarian, I don't want to control women's sexuality by force of law at all.

But neither do I want to have laws as they are now that provide the means to remove, shield or protect people from experiencing the negative consequences for their own bad choices.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

MRA in Your Personal Life

I am of the opinion that being an MRA carries a responsibility to it that requires far more than logging on to the internet and raging on your blog about the unfairness, inequality and stupidity of feminists and their useful idiot manginas. Don't get me wrong, the proliferation of MRA blogs is vital in raising awareness, because it seems to be the only venue at this time in which MRA ideas can be discussed and disseminated to a wide audience, as almost all other mediums of communication have been corrupted by feminist groupthink and PC conventions. I myself lived a life of ignorance and just kind of went along with the general theme of feminism's ubiquity in the mainstream Western consciousness until I discovered MRA blogs.

What I'm trying to say is that Blogging about MRA, and reading other blogs daily (as I do,) is important, but it is ONLY the first step.

The next, more important one is this: each one of us that have attained awareness to just how corrupted society has become with the advent of feminist ideoloogy and it's pernicious influence on the relationship between the sexes, the justice system, the family courts and society's general attitudes and acceptance of misandry have a responsibility: we all have a personal duty to be ambassadors of men's rights in our real world lives.

This responsibility is one that really does not require much...but if we are ever going to take MRA beyond existing as a minority movement occupying a small niche in the blogosphere, it's gonna take what every grass roots movement needs to succeed: the successful transmission by word of mouth.

Because feminism has infested and corrupted just about every level of Western society, it is indeed a monumental task for us to take on...but as the old saying goes, every long journey begins with the first few steps.

But the most important thing to remember is this: no matter how hopeless it seems, we MRA have the ultimate weapon on our sides in combating the rising tide of feminist thought...the truth.

Truth is our ultimate weapon, and we need to wield it wherever and whenever it is prudent to do so. This means we need to speak up when we can to help raise awareness of the ignorant and to counter feminist myths that are repeated as facts, and to identify and counter the folly of misandry whenever we encounter it in the real world. This, I believe, is far more important than blogging.

We MRA need to be especially mindful when misandry and feminist thought surfaces in the words and actions of people closest to you; because these are the people that you will influence the most, ESPECIALLY if you are not overt, aggressive or confrontational about it. In fact, I believe you will be far more effective by applying humor and teasing when dealing with the subtle misandry of people you are close to.

With that in mind, it is the following scenarios for which we MRA need to be on the look out for as opportunities to strike a blow against feminist ideology wherever and whenever possible.

* Whenever you hear women in your life reflecting the general misandry of our culture -- you should speak up and correct those erroneous assumptions.
I was at a party a few weeks ago, and a few of the women in my peer group had gathered in a corner of the room to talk, and I overheard one of the ladies, who was my good friend's live-in girlfriend and mother to their daughter say "Oh David can babysit Lisa (there daughter) so we can go shopping." (Not their real names, of course).

I interjected politely that since he was Lisa's Dad, he wouldn't be babysitting, he would simply be raising his own daughter. All of the women gave me curious looks and a little uncomfortable giggles, but she did acknowledge that I was right. The point is I planted the seed of doubt in the common feminist attitude in all of these ladies minds...the next time they hear another woman refer to her children's father as a "babysitter" perhaps my point will stick in their mind.

* Whenever you are watching TV with family and/or friend's, and the typical misandrist theme manifests itself, say something, no matter how subtle or small.

This one especially applies to the common Hollywood fantasy of a single women defeating a larger, stronger man (or worse, yet a group of men) in hand to hand combat. I'll always say something like "Oh yeah...that was REALISTIC" while rolling my eyes.

If the typical "Dad is a buffoon, mom is superwomen to the rescue" theme appears, I found the best counter is "Good thing MY/Your Dad is not that dumb or incompetent, he would have handled that with no problem!"

Such subtle messages can be an effective counter that can possibly cause at least a little cognitive dissonance in the minds of women who generally think in the misandrist terms society has indoctrinated them too.

* Be aware of how women manipulate men, than DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO IT UNCHALLENGED. Especially when it is sisters, friend's, girlfriends or spouses. who use this tactic.

I know plenty of women that will often make off-hand remarks of how they are strong, independent and don't need men to do things...until a spider or centipede appears; and than they are screaming and running and asking the nearest male to take care of the nasty critter. That's the best time to playfully remind them as you are killing the bug "I thought you don't need a man to take care of you?"

Same goes for women who act helpless to get men to do some particularly dirty or heavy task. If a female family member or a female friend who I do like tries this tact to convince me to do such things, I'll often do them (if I genuinely like/love her) - but I will call them on their tactics first. I'll say something like "No need to act like a damsel in distress, just ask me straight!"

Unpleasant tasks that females don't want to do also represent the perfect opportunity to remind them of any of their misandrist statements they've made in the past. For instance, one of the most over-used phrases I hear from women in my life is some variation of the "There's too much testosterone in this room," comment. So when the opportunity arises, use their own comments against them.... "Yeah, alright, I guess there wasn't not enough testosterone in the room to take care of this until I got here."

* Whenever you do a favor or give a gift for a woman in your life, and she acts like she was entitled to it, immediately call her on it.

An exaggerated "YOUR WELCOME YOUR HIGHNESS" while bowing deeply to them gets that point across fairly well.

* Whenever you have women in your life complain, demean or degrade the men in their life, turn the tables on them.

It seems like getting together and grumbling about the men in their lives is one of American Women's favorite past times, and even the nicest, smartest, happiest and non-naggy/bitchy women I know of will indulge in it if they are amongst a group of women who are also doing it.

If I hear a relative or friend say something like "He's such a dummy" I'll instantly pipe up "Well who's the dummy that married/moved in with/had kids with him?"

In summary, feminism and misandry have infested and corrupted society on just about every level, and even women in our lives that we love will in fact reflect this frequently with little comments or actions on occasion. By not letting any opportunity go unchallenged, while not being off-putting and aggressive to the women that otherwise do respect and value your opinions, you can at the very least raise awareness in women who otherwise wouldn't give their thoughtless misandry and feminist-influenced attitudes a second thought.