Jennifer Macey: Australian Broadcasting Corporation caught lying again..

What can one expect from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), a blatantly sexist organization filled with male-hating feminists determined to once again smear all men while promoting the privileged princesses as the only human being on this planet capable of conscious thought and behavior..

Some realism..

NHTSA data suggests that if only men drove:
Traffic accidents would decrease only 22%.

Only 9,159 lives would be saved each year.

Only 330,000 lives would be saved over the next 30 years.

Only $44 billion per year would be saved in crash repair costs.

Their data suggests that if only women drove:
There would be 23,879 more traffic fatalities each year.

There would be 7,674 more women killed each year.

Women better drivers than men: RTA

Jennifer Macey for AM, ABC
January 30, 2010, 12:20 pm

The article is the usual feminised drivel to irrelevant to promote here..

Check out the obvious stats released by the American National Highway Safety Administration. Let the games begin..


Wang and Knipling (1994) reported that age and sex frequencies varied according to whether the number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT, a variable called Crash Involvement Rate) or the number of licensed drivers (Crash Involvement Likelihood) was measured.
For both sexes, the age group with the highest involvement rate was 15-19. The age group with the lowest rate for males was 55-64 and 25-54 for females.
Female Crash Involvement Rates were higher than those of males in every age group, while the Crash Involvement Likelihood was higher for males than females across all age groups.
This counter-intuitive ratio can be explained by the fact that a given number of females drive fewer miles than the same number of men, but they become involved in a comparable number of crashes. (For example, if 10 females get involved in 2 crashes and 10 males get involved in 4 crashes, male likelihood would be higher, not taking into account how far each driver drove.

However, if the 10 females drove a total of 1,000 miles with 2 crashes and the 10 males drove 10,000 miles with 4 crashes, the females would have more crashes per mile than the males. Their rate per mile would be higher, but their involvement per driver would be lower.)
A comparison of involvement rates and involvement likelihoods by age and sex shows that older women have a low likelihood but a high rate, meaning that older women drive fewer miles but are disproportionately involved in crashes per mile.

But why let the good olde feminist's lies stand in the way of fact but they continually promote this drivel without any protest or verification..

How about this bit of ignored information..

Getting lippy behind the wheel

Author: Nigel Hawkes
Women making up as they drive cause 450,000 accidents a year, according to today's Daily Express.
It seems unlikely. There are about 3.6 million accidents a year in Britain, so this would mean that an eighth of them were caused by this imprudent habit.
The source for the story is Diamond Insurers, which specializes in insuring women drivers, and issues lots of “surveys” which seduce journalists. It questioned 4,000 women, and found that almost a fifth admitted to applying foundation, mascara or lipstick on the move. If true, that would mean 2.7 million women drivers in the UK do it or have done it.

The story goes on: “More than 3 per cent of those, or 450,000, confessed they had also crashed their cars as a result.” Actually, 3 per cent of 2.7 million is 81,000, not 450,000.
Let’s assume, charitably, that the Express meant 3 per cent of all women motorists, which could easily amount to 450,000. But could they possibly all have done it in the same year? It’s clear the question asked must have been: “Have you ever had an accident as a result of making up on the move?”
Perhaps the journalist responsible was touching up her lippy as she wrote the story.

Check out this male-hater on the ABC site and give it your corrected opinion as while it has no resistance it will continue to spread these lies and falsehoods..

Women Drivers: Hidden Health Risk To Men

Women drive only 30% of miles driven but are in 37% of the fatal accidents

Scientific Evidence that Men and Women are Designed Differently

How drunk does a man have to be to drive as dangerously as a sober woman?

Answer: seven drinks

Clues that NHTSA is too much of an advocacy organization to trust their conclusions
The dramatic difference between men and women in hand/eye coordination suggests that women drive far fewer miles than NHTSA estimates.

Women pilots have a crash rate four times higher than men pilots.

Women truckers have a crash rate six times higher than men truckers.

NHTSA data suggests that women drivers are only 70% more likely than men drivers to have a fatal accident.

NHTSA data suggests that a man who drinks and drives increases his probability of having an accident by 4% and ignores that sober women drivers have a probability of having an accident equivalent to that of men drivers with a BAC = 0.12.


NHTSA data suggests that if only men drove:
Traffic accidents would decrease only 22%.

Only 9,159 lives would be saved each year.

Only 330,000 lives would be saved over the next 30 years.

Only $44 billion per year would be saved in crash repair costs.

Their data suggests that if only women drove:
There would be 23,879 more traffic fatalities each year.

There would be 7,674 more women killed each year.

I would like to give you a link but typically the ABC have not even listed that article and Macey's email is unavailable..

If you find the male-haters email let me know and I will promote that right here..

ABC..

Hansen Nailed for US Climate Data Manipulation..

I got really suspicious when NASA, I mean NASA for crying out load, a once honorable, recognizable entity actually promoting lies, theories and mis-information..

I will never look at NASA in the same light, they use to be heroes..

Hansen Nailed for US Climate Data Manipulation
Friday, January 15, 2010
By Roger F. Gay

More fraud reported in global warming scam.

The leaked Climategate emails and data that’s sent shock waves through the warming camp lately dealt directly with a British climate data center. Data produced at the NASA Goddard Space Center at Columbia University by James Hansen has been shown to suffer from similar manipulations.

Hansen is a global warming extremist and close advisor to Al Gore, who captured international attention for speeches in which he’s called for Nuremberg style trials against oil executives and “deniers” who criticize his work. When questioned by Bush administration officials, he made news when a leftist Washington law firm sued for “whistle blower” status. His claim was that the Bush administration was trying to suppress the truth about catastrophic man-made global warming.

Computer programmer E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo looked into the analysis underlying Hansen’s global warming claims. Not surprisingly, they discovered that Hansen’s results were fraudulent, the result of “tricks” similar to those used in Britain.

In particular, Smith and D’Aleo discovered that; of some 6,000 weather stations, Hansen cherry-picked about 1,000 that gave higher temperatures and ignored the rest. Since this still resulted in evidence of cooling, he applied a mathematical formula to “hide the decline.” The fake results consistently showed warming in support of his political and financial interests.

Video coverage by KUSI News, San Diego.

Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate..

And didn't the feminists proudly, obviously ranting, crowing about it. You know that " Men are dying" and were they not besides themselves with glee in expressing it. Several of the feminasties in the Times in England have been waxing lyrical on how the female DNA is SO superior that the world will see us extinct in a mere 25,000 years..

Are they embarrassed ?
Are they ashamed for promulgating that premise ?
Are they finally going to print a retraction ?

Dream on..

"The Y chromosome clearly has the strength and tenacity to fight back," said Hawley,  

It's not anything they want to hear or even acknowledge. Cowards..

Like the global warmists fraternity, they will never admit they were wrong or even acknowledge they screwed up, lied..

Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate
Posted 15 Hours Ago at 07:17 AM by BobV01
Tags y chromosome

· By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer– Wed Jan 13, 4:28 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Women may think of men as primitive, but new research indicates that the Y chromosome — the thing that makes a man male — is evolving far faster than the rest of the human genetic code.
A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp's, according to a study appearing online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
These changes occurred in the last 6 million years or so, relatively recently when it comes to evolution.
"The Y chromosome appears to be the most rapidly evolving of the human chromosomes," said study co-author Dr. David Page, director of the prestigious Whitehead Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology at MIT. "It's an almost ongoing churning of gene reconstruction. It's like a house that's constantly being rebuilt."
Before men get too impressed with themselves, lead author Jennifer Hughes offers some words of caution: Just because the Y chromosome, which determines gender, is evolving at a speedy rate it doesn't necessarily mean men themselves are more evolved.
Researchers took the most detailed examination of the Y chromosome, which females do not have, of both humans and chimps and found entire sections dramatically different. There were even entire genes on the human Y chromosome that weren't on the chimp, said Hughes, also of the Whitehead Institute.
The two-year research took twice as long as expected because of the evolutionary changes found, Hughes said.
There is a bit of a proviso to the comparison to other chromosomes. While all human and chimp chromosomes have been mapped, only two chimp chromosomes have been examined in great detail: Y and chromosome 21. Yet, there's still enough known to make the claim that the Y is the speediest evolver, Hughes and Page said.
Until recently the Y chromosome was considered the Rodney Dangerfield of genetics, especially because it had fewer genes than other chromosomes. A few years ago some researchers even suggested that the Y chromosome was shrinking so that in 50,000 years it would just disappear — and so would men.
"The story is not as cut and dried as many would have liked to predict," Hughes said. "It's kind of fun to say that men are going to die out, but the science is proving — now that we've got data — that that's not true at all."
Page agreed. "The Y chromosome has many more tricks up its sleeve than it was given credit for," he said.
There are a couple of reasons Page and Hughes cite for Y being such an evolutionary powerhouse. One is that it stands alone and isn't part of a pair like 44 other chromosomes. So when there are mutations there's no matching chromosome to recombine and essentially cover up the change, Hughes said. Because women have two X chromosomes, the X chromosome doesn't have this situation.
Another reason has to do with the nature of mating. When female chimps are in heat, they mate frequently and with many partners, so there is an evolutionary pressure on the male to produce the most and best sperm to propagate his genes, Page said.
To test this out, Hughes said she hopes to soon examine the Y chromosomes of a rhesus macaque, which is fairly promiscuous, and the marmoset, which is more monogamous than early humans probably were.
Outside scientists praised the study.
"Wow," said R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City. "That result is astounding."
"The Y chromosome clearly has the strength and tenacity to fight back," said Hawley, who wasn't part of the research. "I certainly think the Y chromosome has taken a bad rap for a long time with people doing maps showing areas for channel surfing."

Marc Rudov Leads Fourth Annual Valentine's Day Boycott..

Ahh!!

Cow-towing to the female wish as Valentine's Day draws near..

( I want you to send me cards, flowers so I can brag to my workmates on how much of a nag I am, want diamonds, want a restaurant date, demand special attention)..

How about all you guys wait for the female to organize, purchase presents, dress up just to surprise you for a change..

Will you live that long ?

Then again, it could be a long night before the privileged princesses ever head in that direction. It's all about them, dontchano..

Marc Rudov Leads Fourth Annual Valentine's Day Boycott

Globally Known Author & Radio/TV Personality Available for Media Appearances

LOS GATOS, CA--(Marketwire - January 12, 2010) - Marc H. Rudov, globally known author, relationship coach, speaker, and radio/TV personality, announces today his availability for media appearances to discuss and promote his fourth annual boycott of Valentine's Day. Details about this boycott are at http://thenononsenseman.com/femme-fi...alentines-day/.

Says Mr. Rudov: "Valentine's Day is the most unromantic day of the year. True romance is spontaneous, unexpected, voluntary, and mutual -- all nonexistent on Valentine's Day. Advertisers treat men like spineless eunuchs, exhorting them to buy women teddy bears, pajamas, flowers, and diamonds -- or sleep on the couch. Meanwhile, our hypocritical society doesn't pressure women to indulge men -- on February 14th or ever. Do men fight back? No. They drink beer, watch football, sulk, and live in fear of their wives and girlfriends. So, I urge all real men to reject this nonsense and, instead, join my boycott of Valentine's Day."

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known author, relationship coach, speaker, and radio/TV personality. He's the author of "Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™," "The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™," and over 120 articles on dating, sex, marriage, divorce, gender politics, and men's rights. Currently, he's writing his third book, designed especially for women.

Rudov has appeared on radio and TV programs around the world, from "The Howard Stern Show" to "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel, has been quoted in many publications, including the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, and is the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men's "Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness in the Media." For more information about Marc Rudov, go to http://TheNononsenseMan.com.

The NoNonsense Man® is a registered trademark of Marc H. Rudov.

Feminist Desperation as their Hate Movement Faces it's Last Gasp..

I just love it when feminists get really desperate as they know their male-hate doctrine is dying and will eventually be the recipient of loathing and well deserved derision from the general public..

Feminists will finally be recognized for what they really are..

Fill in your own description..

I received the following from Jeremy Swanson a Canadian FRA, and have no reason to doubt Mr. Swnason's veracity.:
All activists and supporters. Canadian national US National and all International Activists. Whether you are on Facebook or not please remember that a certain "Blake Parker" is not a real person, but an "Anonymum" creation. If you have 'him' on your friend list, or are communicating via email you have an Anonymum stalker right in your immediate circle. "He/she (probably a female)" is a "friend" to "Ben Harper" also an Anonymum on Facebook. "Anonymums" out of Australia are allied with various groups and all are linked to one particularly vicious militant fringe lunatic by the name of Claudine Dombrowski of Topeka Kansas.

Other related groups and individuals lnked together are "Mz Petunia Pigg" (AKA Randi James) http://twitter. com/MzPetuniaPig g FR naked (Fathers Rights Naked) "Angelfury"(AKA Claudine Dombrowski) http://www.AngelFur y.org, Glenns Cult. http://glennscult. blogspot. com and Justice 4 Mothers http://justice4moth ers.wordpress. com/ and Anonymums http://anonymums. blogspot. com/
Be very wary of all of these people and groups. They are 'not your friends'. They are into disruptiion, slander and sabotage. People I do urge you to cut off and disconnect from contact if you are connected in any way with these people. And please warn others.

These are a group of radical feminists who stalk father's rights activists and harrass them online as well as infiltrate among you and the groups you work with and then saboatage our efforts from within. Please take this very seriously. Cut them out of your links as quickly as you can and please warn others on your own lists.

From: Jeremy Swanson swanson@storm.ca

Avatar: Another effort by Hollywood to indoctrinate..

I may be cynical and probably for good reason but I do have a major issue these days with anything coming out of Hollywood.
Admittedly, I have noticed the odd photo of Clinton (the former head)coming up on movies and other democrat figures showing up on movies as well as other scallywags (questionable humans) rearing their ugly heads like Che, Castro and other nefarious cretins in the way of background picture or voiced opinions demonstrating clearly that Hollywood is no longer considered to be entertainment but they are concentrating on indoctrinating the general public with their socialist messages..

Criminal when you think about it. You pay them to indoctrinate you !!..

There is irony for you..

Here is a good example of their plan and their strategy..

After all, we are just fodder to these people..

Flattered on my holiday
Andrew Bolt – Saturday, January 09, 10 (10:27 am)

Alice Thomson of The Times, in reviewing James Cameron’s Avatar, has a way with words that’s pleasantly familiar. In bold are the most familiar of all:

Andrew Bolt: MOST people will date the death of the great global warming scare not from the Copenhagen fiasco - boring! - but from Avatar.
Alice Thomson: Yet the £130 million spent on this environmental junket for 115 world leaders appears to have come to nothing… Green is no longer minty cool, it’s sludge-brown boring

Bolt: Cameron...has created a virtual new planet called Pandora, on which humans 150 years from now have formed a small settlement. They are there to mine a mineral so rare that it’s called Unobtainium (groan).. But meeting such perfect beings, living such low-emission green lives, Sully realises instead how vile his own species is… “There is no green” on their “dying world” because “they have killed their mother”. Now we land-raping humans plan to wreck Pandora, too, with our “shock-and-awe" bombings…


Thomson: The Na’vi ... may live 150 years in the future, but their message to humans is clear. You have no vegetation left on 22nd-century Earth. You have messed up your planet and wasted your resources, now don’t come and destroy ours… When humans are sent to exploit their mineral wealth (called Unobtainium, of course) with a campaign of shock and awe bombings, they fall in love with the Na’vis low-emission lives...

Bolt: The Na’vi live in trees, at one with nature. They worship Mother Earth and, like Gaians today, talk meaningfully of “a network of energy that flows through all living things”. They drink water that’s pooled in giant leaves, and chant around a tree that whispers of their ancestors… For all their talk of the connectedness of nature, the Na’vi still kill animals for food - although not before saying how sorry they are…

Thomson: These creatures, who inhabit the distant moon Pandora, live in branches and worship Mother Earth. They drink water that is pooled in giant leaves, chant around trees that whisper of their ancestors and use pterodactyls for transport (although they do still eat meat, apologetically).

Bolt: Sully, the hero, not only chooses to fight on the side of the aliens but to actually become an alien, too. He rejects not just humans but his own humanity.

Thomson: ....the hero chooses to become an alien and reject selfish humanity.

Bolt: And, of course, the Na’vi reject all technology that’s more advanced than a bow and arrow…

Thomson: The Na’vi may be armed only with bows and arrows...

Bolt: If Tim Flannery, Al Gore and all the other Copenhagen delegates could at least agree to design a new kind of people, they’d wind up with something much like these 3m-tall gracelings.

Thomson: The script could have been written by Al Gore.

Bolt: All of this preaching comes straight from what’s left of Cameron’s heart after five marriages and a professional reputation of on-set meanness. Avatar, he’s said, tackles “our impact on the natural environment, wherever we go strip mining and putting up shopping malls”, and it warns “we’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycle on life on earth”.

Thomson: The director sounds a bit ridiculous when he says: “We’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on Earth,” ... but Cameron is clearly a believer who is not in it just for the box-office receipts.

I’ve always wanted to write for The Times. But back to my holiday.

The Met Office gives us the warmist weather..

The global warming fanatics behave exactly as feminists have done for the last 40 years. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Feminists have been lying about Men, boys and anything that would ensure that only women come up shiny faced and blameless..

It's such an incredible con, so ludicrous that even the sheeple have swallowed it whole..

But as now, feminists have been exposed as liars and so this "warming" hysteria has been demonstrated as being just the same..

I wonder if the same people are involved ?

It's amazing how much people will lie when the funds keep pouring in..

The Met Office gives us the warmist weather
The UK's official weather forecasters are determined that winters should be mild, in the face of the frozen facts, says Christopher Booker


By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:12PM GMT 02 Jan 2010

The Met Office forecast an unusually mild winter, but snow fell on Britain to usher in 2010 Photo: SCOTT HEPPELL/AP

Shortly after midnight on Friday morning, as 200,000 merrymakers were departing from the Thames after enjoying a spectacular fireworks show in sub-zero temperatures, flakes of snow began to fall on Whitehall. In light of the Met Office's prediction that this would be a "mild" winter, with temperatures above average, it seemed an apt way to start the New Year. But hasn't the time come for us to stop treating the serial inaccuracy of Met Office forecasts as just a joke and see it for what it is – a national scandal?

The reason the Met Office so persistently gets its seasonal forecasts wrong is that it has been hi-jacked from the role for which we pay it nearly £200 million a year, to become one of the world's major propaganda engines for the belief in man-made global warming. Over the past three years, it has become a laughing stock for forecasts which are invariably wrong in the same direction.

Related Articles
Why is Whitehall so determined to appease Iran?
Happy New Year to the inch and the ounce
Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder
More hot air from Met Office
Global cooling hits Al Gore's home
Paint your house white to stay cool, says government advice

The year 2007, it predicted, would be "the warmest ever" – just before global tempratures plunged by more than the entire net warming of the 20th century, Three years running it predicted warmer than average winters – as large parts of the northern hemisphere endured record cold and snowfalls. Last year's "barbecue summer" was the third time running that predictions of a summer drier and warmer than average prefaced weeks of rain and cold. Last week the Met Office was again predicting that 2010 will be the "warmest year" on record, while Europe and the US look to be facing further weeks of intense cold.

What is not generally realised is that the UK Met Office has been, since 1990, at the very centre of the campaign to convince the world that it faces catastrophe through global warming. (Its website now proclaims it to be "the Met Office for Weather and Climate Change".) Its then-director, Dr John Houghton, was the single most influential figure in setting up the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the chief driver of climate alarmism. Its Hadley Centre for Climate Change, along with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), was put in charge of the most prestigious of the four official global temperature records. In line with IPCC theory, its computers were programmed to predict that, as CO2 levels rose, temperatures would inevitably follow. From 1990 to 2007, the Department of the Environment gave the Met Office no less than £146 million for its "climate predictions programme".

But in the past three years, with the Met Office chaired by Robert Napier, a former global warming activist and previously head of WWF UK, its pretensions have been exposed as never before. The "Climategate" leak of documents from the CRU, along with further revelations from Russian scientists, have shown the CRU/Met Office alliance systematically manipulating temperature data, past and present, to show the world growing warmer than the evidence justified. And those same computers used to predict temperatures 100 years ahead for the IPCC have also been used to produce those weather forecasts that prove so consistently wrong.

Scientific method has gone out of the window, to support a theory that looks more questionable than ever. The whole set-up – Met Office, Hadley Centre, the CRU, the IPCC – looks hopelessly compromised. It is a state of affairs so bizarre that it cries out for political intervention. Yet our politicians, from Gordon Brown and David Cameron down, are so in thrall to this new religion that they cannot see evidence staring them in the face – that the show has gone off the rails. How many more winters and summers will it take before sanity finally breaks in to put an end to this scandal?

The “Men Tax” in Israel..

Oh yes, to be a privileged female apparently goes a long way on this Planet. Not only do you receive special attention, have your own health departments, be a recipient to those special laws that demand only a female is employed because you are so deprived, but now we have that extra bonus for your selfish sex, just to prop up those extra benefits you already receive and guess who pays for your selfish arse ?

Any takers ?

The “Men Tax” in Israel: A gender-based flat rate 300$ annual men tax

By Men's Activism News | Thu, Jan 14 2010, 08:55 AM

Article here. Excerpt:

Making men special special gender-based income tax has been part of the feminist agenda for a long time now. However, in Israel a gender-based men tax is already a reality that is well integrated within the income tax system.
...
...if you are a woman, you will get an additional 0.5 credit points just because you are a woman. It doesn't matter if you have children or not. You just have to be a woman. This additional 0.5 credit point worth about 300$* every year.
...
The worst thing about it is that the Israeli government doesn't even try to hide it or excuse it in some way. The Men Tax is proudly mentioned in the official website of the finance ministry. Search for "Tax Credits" and you will see it there. An Official Men Tax!'

---
Ed. note: A trailing $ indicates the denomination for shekel, or more precisely, the Israeli New Shekel.

US woman 'tried to trade child for gun..

Now you know I do not like pointing out the obvious but someone has to do it. As usual the article is small, lacking detail as well as any useful information. About typical for the media living out their "Women do no wrong" fantasy..

We ofcourse wait with baited breath whether or not she will be wrist-slapped or given therapy as there must be someone else who coerced this abhorrent behavior..

US woman 'tried to trade child for gun'

Authorities in the US have arrested a woman who allegedly tried to trade her two-year-old daughter for a gun.

Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies went to the home of 33-year-old Tanya Nareau on Tuesday after receiving a tip about the swap.

At Nareau's home, a family friend who had the child confirmed to deputies that Nareau gave the girl to him for a gun.

Deputies say Nareau felt that the friend would do a better job of raising the child.

They say Nareau also claimed she could not buy a weapon because she's prohibited from doing so by law.

Authorities say Nareau has been taken into custody. She has been charged with the unlawful sale of a child and solicitation to possess a weapon by a prohibited person.

It wasn't clear whether Nareau had a lawyer.

Jail Time for French Women who Berate Husbands..

You may be able to remember me commenting on the irrelevance and the ludicrous affect feminists promulgated onto the general public via their hate-doctrine as well as their trivial examples based on questionable stats as well and their twisted University based biased drivel promoted on the odd occasion.Bear in mind that it has not been ignored by others outside of the feminist epicentre (America, who finds it difficult to actually admit that feminism is a HATE-Doctrine but installed it in the WHITE HOUSE, Thanks OBAMA)but meanwhile we have the French G'Mint finally making a issue out of that..

Gee......"gen vraiment"..

And once we put an end to the spate of psychological violence, we can move on to other pressing problems like raised eyebrows, annoying grimaces, and unsympathetic stares.

What is the world coming to when women cannot even send a man to jail for staring at her..

The shame..

Jail Time for French Women who Berate Husbands
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
By Carey Roberts

Record cold temperatures are beginning to take their toll on average citizens around the world. In bone-chilled France, frustrated housewives have taken to venting their spleens at their husbands — and for good reason.

For decades, effete French men have indulged themselves with aerosol hair spray for their over-groomed hairpieces, contributing, as we all know, to the thinning of the ozone layer and melting of the polar ice caps.

Now the debonair men are taking the heat.

Thankfully, the epidemic of shrieking wives has not escaped the attention of the ever-vigilant French Parliament, which is now considering a ban on the practice. The law would apply to both married and cohabiting couples.

Support reaches to the highest political levels. Announcing the proposed law last week, French premier Francois Fillon explained, “The creation of this offence will allow us to deal with the most insidious situations – situations that leave no visible scars, but which leave victims torn up inside.”

Repeat perpetrators of “psychological violence” would be subject to electronic tagging, Fillon warned.

Under the new politeness regime, any use of power and control tactics will be subject to state intervention. Garden-variety nagging will be passé. Honey-do lists will be illégal. And women will think twice before inquiring about amorous liaisons, since false allegations of infidelity will also be barred.

Soon-to-be-illegal put-downs also include “Vous avez le cervau d’un sandwich au fromage” (You have the brain of a cheese sandwich) and “T’as une tête a faire sauter les plaques d’egouts” (You’ve got a face that would blow off manhole covers).

Many were delighted with the prospect of re-engineering the prickly French personality. The French gendarme, weary from tracking down elusive tax cheats and al-Qaeda operatives, was buoyed by the news. And middle-aged men mired in stale marriages now have a respectable way out.

The new proposal has its skeptics, of course.

Psychologist Anne Giraud worries that “Squabbling couples will allege all kinds of things about each other, but they won’t necessarily be true.” Psychiatrist Marie-France Hirigoyen is likewise “cautious” because the law could be easily misused.

Sociologist Piere Bonnet frets, “Next they will be making rudeness a crime, and the police and courts will be overrun with work.” Many wonder how a procureur, lacking hard evidence of abuse, would prosecute an accused scofflaw.

And some recall when actress Brigitte Bardot was fined $6,000 for violating the French hate-crimes law when she made impolitic statements about the looming influence of radical Islam.

Thanks to the new law, millions of French women will end up spending time behind bars. But it will be for their own good. And once we put an end to the spate of psychological violence, we can move on to other pressing problems like raised eyebrows, annoying grimaces, and unsympathetic stares.

Barbara Kay: The end of the gender wars..

Talk about stating the bleedin obvious. Obama determined that when he installed the male-haters in the White House and gave everyone the opportunity to focus on those sexist bigots and finally demand that they justify their male-hating and sexist behaviour..

I'll get the shovel and may need some volenteers as that hole may be some size..

Barbara Kay: The end of the gender wars

December 30, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor

Barbara Kay

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...x#ixzz0bkeaZm4q
The National Post is now on Facebook.

Something odd occurred in the two days following the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre earlier this month. Commentaries by both Margaret Wente of The Globe and Mail and Jonathan Kay of the Post were sharply critical of the emotive and irrational linkage of the Massacre with the phenomenon of domestic violence against women. Neither pundit is known to be anti-feminist in general, but both columns recommended we desacralize the Polytechnique killings, accept them for the freak tragedy they were and stop guilt-tripping all men for Marc Lépine’s unique paranoiac fixations.

Ranting about the unwholesome social ends to which the Massacre has been put used to be my lonely job every Dec. 6. Finding myself in such good company was a happy surprise and, I think, an iconoclastic cultural moment: Let us recognize that female victimhood is not intrinsically more tragic than male victimhood, these columns seemed to say.

Commonsensical Canadians are losing patience with the angry, blame-all-males school of feminism. It’s no accident that the feminist Toronto Women’s Bookstore, for years a bustling cynosure of the cultural zeitgeist, is in danger of closing down. Or that once overflowing women’s studies classes are emptying out, or morphing into “gender studies” to attract more students (a trap, really: Gender studies are also gynocentric, offering a more subtle version of heterosexual male-bashing than women’s studies).

Rob Kenedy, an assistant professor in the sociology department of York University with a specialty in the men’s rights movement, was unique amongst sociologues in teaching a course in the 1990s about men and their particular tribulations and needs. In a telephone interview he recalled his surprise when more young women signed up than men: “Women are far more interested in learning about men and masculinity than men are.”

Because the numbers in universities are so skewed to the distaff — in a current obligatory sociology course, his own tutorial is comprised of 25 women and two men — Kenedy predicts sociology departments will have to open up (positive) masculinity courses to satisfy the burgeoning curiosity of women about what makes men tick.

Kenedy is convinced, as I am, that we are exiting the gender wars. Feminism is increasingly “out of fashion” and recent years have seen “a crumbling of the [feminist] foundation.” Culturally sanctioned misandry is beginning to cause discomfort. Women today, he says, want equality without stridency, a return to feminism’s first principles.

Positive acknowledgment of masculinity began with the public honour paid to courageous fallen firefighters of 9/11. For Canadians it is more linked to public mourning around the deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan. From the outset of her tenure in 1999, governor general Adrienne Clarkson embraced her patronage of the military — integrated, but still the last cultural bastion of indisputably masculine virtues — with inspirational acts of solidarity with our troops, and Michaëlle Jean has continued the tradition with enthusiasm.

In the past decade, we have started noticing that boys exist as something other than future violent men in need of pre-emptive anger management (the main thrust of the White Ribbon Campaign in schools). We have been made aware — uncomfortably, graphically — that boys also suffer sexual and physical abuse from both men and women. Continuing revelations of boys’ victimization in church-run residential schools and highly publicized pedophilia amongst some priests, sports coaches and parents cannot be ignored.

The recent publication of commissioner G. Normand Glaude’s statement on the long-running Cornwall Public Inquiry into pedophile rings contains a litany of shameful deficits in our legal and social institutions that have facilitated ongoing abuse of boys because they are not equipped — and for ideological reasons have lacked interest in equipping themselves — to deal with boys’ and men’s psychological responses to abuse. That will change.

My predictions — call them hopes if you prefer — for the next decade:

* We will see the return of the traditional family unit as a phenomenon worthy of concern and respect. The needs of children will come first;

* Equal parenting will become the default custody arrangement as the optimal situation for children; the resultant decline in adversarial legal battles will diminish false allegations of abuse by women and punitive support-withholding by men, both of which punish children more than parents;

* The specific needs of boys and men will be accorded the same pedagogical, social and legal rights and respect as girls: We will see funding for shelters for abused men and children, or ungendered family shelters for whoever needs it;

* Domestic violence will be acknowledged as a serious but bilateral problem that is unacceptable, whether perpetrated by men or women. But we will also acknowledge that systemic misogyny of the kind made manifest in honour crimes against women is a culturally-derived phenomenon that is alien to Canadian values, and that it is wrong to assign collective guilt for such crimes to Canadian men.

If the pendulum in the gender wars really is swinging back to the middle, it should become received wisdom that men and women are genetically hard-wired for different strengths, weaknesses and psychological needs.

So, having agreed that intact families are by far the greatest predictors of success for children than anything else, we will jettison the power struggle paradigm feminism has been pushing for decades. We will move toward a collaborative model in which men and women are equal in value but, guided by nature and common sense, separate in their parental roles and influence. The result will be a happier, more productive generation of Canadian children.

As a good-faith start to this paradigm shift — and this really will restore some dignity to gender relations — let’s retire the Montreal Massacre from public life and return mourning rituals for the Polytechnique victims to the families of the victims. As a logical extension, the systemically sexist White Ribbon Campaign should be mothballed and replaced by a gender-neutral educational program against all forms of violence, informed by evidence-based, non-ideological studies.

Am I dreaming in technicolour? Let me know in 2020. Happy New Year to all my readers.

National Post

bkay@videotron.ca

Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil..

Feminism has finally reached it goal by finally allowing people without screaming them down, to assess this hate-group and decide what it really is, make up their own minds on it's affect, it destructive nature and ofcourse it's blatant sexism and anti-male bias attitude..

This blog came into existence as soon as I realised that that force needed to be curtailed and eventually buried in the graveyard of history for the scourge it really is..

Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil
Feminism is the radical notion that women are men
Published on August 2, 2009
by Satoshi Kanazawa

Although it is not Susan Pinker’s intention in writing it, reading her excellent book The Sexual Paradox: Troubled Boys, Gifted Girls and the Real Difference Between the Sexes cannot help but further reinforce my view that modern feminism in the 21st century is simultaneously illogical, unnecessary, and evil.

First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different. Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.


Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.

The feminist insistence that women behave like men and make as much money as men do may not be the sole reason for women’s rising levels of dissatisfaction with life; a greater incidence of divorce and single motherhood may also contribute to it. At any event, the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny. Men’s happiness has not declined in the last 35 years, because there has not been masculinism; nobody has insisted on the radical notion that men are women, although, as Christina Hoff Sommers documents, this may be happening in our current war against boys. For anyone who is looking for an effective antidote to modern feminism, I highly recommend Danielle Crittenden’s 1999 book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Women.

Link..

Duke University: Dimmer Ladies Go To Duke?..

I have already stated my opinion on that sexist, biased and male-hating Duke University in previous blog entries and here we have more coal for that fire..

Duke University is a great example on how corrupt, biased and demented any University will sink to when feminists have total control..

I tend to agree with Amy that you would have to question your sanity if you attended such a retarded establishment as Duke University has now brazenly become..

Dimmer Ladies Go To Duke?
Sunday, January 3, 2010
By Amy Alkon

Dimmer Ladies Go To Duke?
According to two really vile-thinking feminists there, Duke women are easily talked into bed by smartypants men there. A sign that women should be told to smarten up? Nope. An excuse to criminalize being male!

Naturally, these feminists assume that women don't want to have sex with the men who make moves on them. (Hey, you wymyn...lots of us enjoy that sort of thing...seek it out, even!)

Now, in light of the hell the Duke lacrosse players went through after they were falsely accused of rape, you'd think Duke would be a little bit careful in this arena. Quite the contrary, writes Stuart Taylor Jr. in National Journal. Taylor sees a disregard of due process and a bias against white males, not just at Duke, but across academia:
The two stated reasons for the revised sexual-misconduct rules, as reported in the student newspaper, The Chronicle, almost advertise that they were driven by politically correct ideology more than by any surge in sexual assaults.

"The first was... fear of litigation, as expressed by Duke General Counsel Pamela Bernard," as Johnson wrote in his blog, Durham-in-Wonderland. "Yet the policy Duke has developed seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. The second factor was a development that those in the reality-based community might consider to be a good thing: Over a three-year period, reported cases of sexual misconduct on college campuses as a whole and at Duke specifically (slightly) declined."

But for many in academia, Johnson explains, "these figures must mean something else -- that a plethora of rapes are going unreported." Indeed, Sheila Broderick, a Duke Women's Center staff member, told The Chronicle without evidence that Duke had a "rape culture." And Ada Gregory, director of the Duke Women's Center, said that "higher IQ" males, such as those at Duke, could be "highly manipulative and coercive."

The revised policy requires involving the Women's Center in the disciplinary process for all known allegations of sexual misconduct and empowers the Office of Student Conduct to investigate even if the accuser does not want to proceed.

Duke's rules define sexual misconduct so broadly and vaguely as to include any sexual activity without explicit "verbal or nonverbal" consent, which must be so "clear" as to dispel "real or perceived power differentials between individuals [that] may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion" (emphasis added).

The disciplinary rules deny the accused any right to have an attorney at the hearing panel or to confront his accuser. The rules also give her -- but not him -- the right to be treated with "sensitivity"; to make opening and closing statements; and to receive copies of investigative documents.

The revised policy, among other things, shows that Duke is still in the grip of the same biases, indifference to evidence, and de facto presumption of guilt that led so many professors and administrators to smear innocent lacrosse players as rapists (and as racists) for many months in 2006 and 2007. The centerpiece was the full-page ad taken out by the "Group of 88" professors, as critics call them, in The Chronicle on April 6, 2006, about three weeks after the woman claimed rape.

This ad stopped just short of explicitly branding the lacrosse players as rapists. But it treated almost as a given the truth of the stripper's claims of a brutal gang rape by three team members amid a hail of racist slurs. It praised protesters who had put lacrosse players' photos on "wanted" posters. It associated "what happened to this young woman" with "racism and sexism." It suggested that the lacrosse players were getting privileged treatment because they are white -- which was the opposite of the truth.


My advice? Don't be sending your children to Duke -- or any college or university where there's a poisonous attitude toward men and the belief that all women are helpless victims.

Link..

Dr.Tara: You Are Not a Princess!..

Here we have it in black and white. Women tuning their own is always a pleasant surprise but it just enhances what I have been stating on this blog right from the beginning.
Feminism has insured that the majority of women suffer from the "Princess" complex as we can see, read and witness daily..

So Tara has produced a list for your personal benefit. A check list if you like just so you can tick them off as you realise that maybe you do really suffer from those narcissistic tendency..

You Are Not a Princess! 25 Points for Women and Men to Consider
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
By Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

I’ve been writing my own blog, A Shrink for Men, for almost a year now. In that time, I’ve noticed many double standards and gender inequities that seem to be culturally acceptable in relationships. Here are some of my observations for women to consider in terms of their own behavior and for men to consider in terms of their own enlightenment when it comes to women and relationships. [*Please note: The following points don't apply to all women.]

Hey ladies, and you know who you are:

1. You are not a princess. You do not deserve to be treated like royalty just by virtue of your sex. You deserve to be treated no better or worse than you treat others.

2. You are not any more “special” nor any more “entitled” than anyone else. You don’t deserve special privileges and nobody “owes” you anything by virtue of who you are or because of your gender.

3. You are just as “lucky” to have found your husband/boyfriend as he was to find you. Have you ever considered that there are times when you are lucky that he puts up with and tolerates you?

4. Men have feelings, too. They hurt just as much as you do when you criticize, reject, dismiss, ignore, make fun of, disrespect, invalidate and/or mock them. In fact, they may hurt more because they don’t have as many emotional outlets as you—especially if you tell him his feelings “don’t count” or to “be a man” when he expresses his feelings that you mistakenly claim he doesn’t have and/or is “wrong” for having. He has feelings and he has a right to them even when they’re not the same as yours and/or are expressed differently than you express yours.

5. If it’s okay for you to have male friends and maintain friendships with your exes, it’s also okay for your husband/boyfriend to have female friends and maintain friendships with his exes. It is not different for you because “you’re a woman.” It’s faulty logic to suppose women are inherently more trustworthy than men. This is called a double standard and it’s not okay. Otherwise, the culturally acceptable pronouncement, “Men are all dogs” should be met with “Women are all bitches” (i.e., female dogs) and should be equally culturally acceptable. For the record. I think both statements are unacceptable.

6. A father is just as important in a child’s life as a mother. Period. Just because you have a uterus doesn’t make you the better parent by default.

7. Children are not “hers” and “his” objects. The correct possessive pronoun is “ours.”

8. Your husband/boyfriend does not “owe” you. He shouldn’t be expected to financially support you and shower you with gifts unless you’re willing to reciprocate and equally support him without question or complaint. You’re neither his child nor his dependent. You’re supposed to be his equal partner.

9. Your husband’s/boyfriend’s desires, needs, wishes, feelings, likes and dislikes are just as important as yours. It’s not all about you all the time. You’re supposedly in a mutual and reciprocal relationship; not a service industry/client-vendor relationship.

10. If you’re not willing to make changes in yourself and your behavior, you’ve no right to demand that your husband/boyfriend do so. Nor is it reasonable to demand or expect your husband/boyfriend to make all the changes you want first before you’re willing to do your own work.

11. You are not a better human being by virtue of being a woman. You’re not a goddess. You’re not a sacred cow. You don’t “rule.” You’re a person, just like your husband/boyfriend is a person. You both deserve to be treated with equal dignity and respect when you act and treat each other with dignity and respect.

12. It’s a lie and a manipulation to say you “sacrificed” your career when you never really wanted to work in the first place. If you see your husband/boyfriend as your ticket to freedom from being a wage slave, be honest with yourself and your husband/boyfriend and most important of all, BE GRATEFUL. Having another person pay your way through life is not an inalienable right; it’s an enormous gift for which you should express gratitude on a regular basis. You might also want to consider the burden by placing on your husband/boyfriend by not carrying your own weight.

13. It is wrong to use your child(ren) to hurt, control or extort money from your husband/boyfriend/ex. In fact, it borders on child abuse. Children are not pawns or human shields to be used for your own selfish reasons. They’re people who will later grow to resent you for using them in this fashion and will likely develop psychological problems of their own as a result.

14. It is wrong to expect or demand that your ex continue to financially support you after the relationship ends. The children are entitled to support until they become adults at the age of 18. You’re already an adult and, as such, you’re capable of and should legally be expected to take care of yourself— unless you’re willing to continue to support your ex by doing his grocery shopping, cooking cleaning, errands, etc. If your obligations to your husband are finished after a divorce, so should be his obligations to you.

15. Your husband/boyfriend is not responsible for your happiness. It isn’t his job to make you happy; that’s your job. Just as he is responsible for his own happiness. He’s supposed to be your equal partner, not your emotional wet nurse.

16. The desire for sex in a committed, loving relationship is healthy and natural. Using sex to control, shame or hurt your husband/boyfriend by withholding affection or making sex transactional is unhealthy and wrong.

17. Your husband/boyfriend should be more important to you than your child(ren) just as you should be more important to your husband than the child(ren). In other words, you should be each others’ first priorities; children second. You don’t need a husband if your sole desire is to have children—unless you see the man as a source of income for yourself and the children. If you can’t support yourself, you probably shouldn’t be having children. Marriage is a bond between two grown adults; not a bond between parent and child (Marc Rudov, 2008). You vow to honor your spouse and put him or her before all others, this includes your children. Children eventually fly the coop. If you make them the focus and raison d’être of your marriage, don’t be surprised when you no longer have much of a marriage as the years pass.

18. You are only entitled to what you earn or produce. Men are neither beasts of burden nor “working boys” to be pimped out in the service of their partners or ex-partners. No one owes you a living. As an adult, you’re not entitled to be taken care of by another party unless you have documented cognitive or physical disabilities that prohibit you from working. Last time I checked, being a wife, ex-wife, girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, mistress, ex-mistress, mother and/or simply a woman wasn’t considered a disability.

19. It is just as ABUSIVE when a woman slaps, kicks, hits, spits, at, scratches, shoves, pushes, punches, pulls hair, uses a weapon, swings a golf club at or throws objects at a man. It isn’t funny, cute, justifiable or deserved. It is indefensible, inexcusable, criminal and just as prosecutable as when a man acts violently toward a woman. Period.

20. The same goes for emotional abuse. It is unacceptable.

21. It is neither “normal” nor “acceptable” adult female behavior to throw temper tantrums, withhold sex, cry, rage, pout, have disproportionate reactions to events or be unable to control emotions and behaviors. At the very least, these are signs of emotional lability and poor impulse control; at worst, these are indicators of serious pathology and quite possibly some kind of personality disorder.

22. It is not okay to divert money from your joint checking/savings account(s) or open credit cards in your husband’s/boyfriend’s name without his knowledge and explicit permission. The first instance is stealing and the second is considered identity theft and fraud. Signing your husband’s/boyfriend’s signature to financial and legal documents is forgery. All of these actions are illegal.

23. It is irresponsible to live beyond your means and abusive to expect your husband/boyfriend to foot the bill or go into debt to cover your expenses. If you can’t responsibly use a credit/debit card then, much like a child, you shouldn’t have one.

24. It is never acceptable or permissible to threaten to deny your husband/boyfriend/ex access to the children you share. It is not okay to make up abuse allegations because you’re feeling angry, hurt or out of control. This is an act of slander (spoken) or libel (written) and if you swear to it in court, it’s also an act of perjury.

25. It is not fair to commit to or marry a man and then try to change him. If you don’t accept him as he is, just like you expect him to accept you and your faults, then you have no business being with him. Everyone has a right to feel accepted for who he or she is in a relationship. If he’s “not good enough” for you from the get go; keep looking and cut him loose so he can be with a woman who appreciates him.

All of these observations seem self-evident to me, which leads me to ponder, how did we get here?

by Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD

Link..

Phyllis Schafly: Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves..

As I have in the past, I have no problem copying and pasting fine articles that I find on other blogs, especially this. RV has done fabulous work on this and it deserves your attention. It's a long one, but heh !!

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves: by Phyllis Schlafly

November 2009

SATURDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Feminists Are Still Unhappy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Feminist Attack on Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Marriage: One Man, One Woman

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

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

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


Government's Role in Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Link.. 

Mary J. Blige beats the crap out of husband: Main Stream Media, NOTHING..

Once again I have to point out the failure of the lame-stream media cow-towing to feminist agitprop..

So when are those people finally going to realise that women are violent. What will it or what does it take for those automatons to tell the truth ?

Do you want to be a journalist knowing full well that you will be edited, corrected to ensure that the feminised version is supreme and will ensure that you spend the rest of your insignificant life lying about the obvious..

Where did I read that journalist were held in the respect department lower that garbage collectors ?

Mary J. Blige beats up her husband - deafening silence from MSM and DV advocates
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2009-12-29 17:56.

Is anyone else hearing so much as a peep out of the MSM or so-called DV advocacy groups about this story? Not a word.

Well maybe I am just all fired up on coffee and OTC cold meds today but as far as I am concerned, this is not just going to slip by in the usual stream of news stories that bombards us daily. This is if nothing else THE example of the decade of how DV vs. men is utterly ignored by just about everyone who may (or may not) hear about it via the MSM or any other source. It's nymphotropism and cognitive dissonance in action x 1000. One day I imagine it will be a case-study that SOC101 students will be made to write essays about. (Well, a fellow can dream, can't he?)

The MSM reflects what they believe (and all too often, get right) their viewers or readers want to see in the content they serve up. If there is some inconvenient truth that needs telling, they need to be informed to get on the stick and start telling it or else start losing their advertisers or subscribers.

Let's start with TV contact information, then the (so-called) papers, then radio. Click 'Read more', as I will list contact information for as many MSM sources as I can think of. Also, I will write a sample letter for you to use. Let's roll on this, since if we cannot move on such an open, high-profile, and egregious example of the double-standards at work here, then we may as well hang it up.

BTW, I am not asking only US residents to act on this. The entertainment industry is world-wide. People like Mary J. Blige jet-set all over the place holding parties and premiers. People in other countries have as much purchase on this issue and right to point out her behavior and their own countries' MSMs' negligence to them as those of us in the US do.

Television:
ABC News
MSNBC News
CBS News
CNN News General
FOX News (pick "America's Newsroom")

On-line/"papers":
Drudge Report (scroll down to "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE" and submit link to any page with this story covered on it, such as the one on the NY Post)
USA Today (looks like Letters to the Editor is the best way to go there)
NY Times (hope springs eternal; anyway, they need to know we're watching)
LA Times
Boston Globe
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Dallas News
Minneapolis Star-Tribune (this is the letters to the editor form)
SF Gate/Chronicle
Washington Post
NOLA

Radio shows:
About.com has a good list of nationally-syndicated radio shows here. Call, call in, or email.

Feel free to add contact info in the comments for other news sources you think it would do us good to contact (and really, are there any that are not?)

----------

I will suggest text or commentary along these lines:

I am perplexed that a recent report such as the one about entertainer Mary J. Blige (a woman known to stand up for victims of domestic violence) beating up her husband in public at a recent record opening has not appeared in the news reporting on your (site/radio show/etc.). The NY Post seems be one of only a few sources covering this story (see http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/blige_hauls_off_on_husband_o32W7IKFja08UXzRipJiHI).

This fact is all the more perplexing given that there are plenty of examples, regularly reported, of DV by men against women in the media, but despite private and US government studies showing the relative equality of assault incidents among heterosexual couples crossing gender lines (see http://www.ncfm.org/chapters/la/dv_data.html), reports such as this one are un- or under-disseminated by mainstream media outlets. This creates a false impression regarding the nature and prevalence of domestic violence and hinders efforts to get a truly just measure of the problem, as well as a good chance at forging solutions that are effective.

Please do your part as a (paper/radio show/etc.) to help repudiate this inequity. As a (reader/listener), I ask that you cover this story immediately and solicit input from DV specialists who recognize the true nature of DV as an "equal-opportunity" problem. I would also like to say that I make my (reading/listening/etc.) decisions for news and information based on how well I feel the facts regarding the world are being reported by a given source, even if those facts seem to be "inconvenient truths" by some people's measure.

Sincerely,

[Name]
[Contact info]