The Problem With Women Is Too Much Self-Esteem..

This certainly is an issue as far as guys are concerned. We have a couple of generations of women who have constantly been informed that they are princesses, beautiful (if not on the inside) and they in their vanity and inflated ego have wallowed in and swallowed it to obesity..

The occasional entertainment I allow myself is to visit some of the dating sites just to confirm this affliction. And surprise!, there they are with there endless demands and stereotypical lists, xeroxed in unison..

Sample..

I am looking for a man that is funny, tall, smart, has money (variations apply), will make ME laugh (variation: I love to laugh), take ME out ( variation: I love to eat out), entertain Me (you pay the bill and perform tricks)..

But when it comes down to what she brings to the table, well, it's, nothing!..

You fit in with her lifestyle and that is it; because she is an "independent woman" and is "happy with her own company". (she just ruled you out)..

If that is the case, what are you doing on a website looking for potential partners?...........(Yea I know, but they just do not get it)..

The Problem With Women Is Too Much Self-Esteem
Link..
The mantra for the past two generations in America has been that women suffer from low self-esteem brought on by a multitude of negative influences such as teacher bias, misogyny, old boys’ networks, parenting favoritism, double standards, gender stereotyped toys, etc.

Le Chateau representatives are here to tell you the low female self-esteem industry has been one giant scam perpetrated on gullible liberals and cowed conservatives. Women — American women in particular — don’t have a low self-esteem problem; just the opposite — they have a problem of unwarranted high self-esteem. What kind of woman do you get when you combine a cultural apparatus designed to maximally extol the virtues of womanhood and cast all fault for any female shortcomings on male bias and discrimination with a biologically innate evolutionary imperative that renders men more expendable than women? Answer:

A woman with a big fat head.

From the cradle, women are groomed by their peers, family, society and DNA-coded algorithms alike to embrace the joys of big-headedness. It used to be only beautiful women had this problem (and with at least a semblance of justification based on real value), but now ugly women, fat women, and lawyers are all riding the phony low self-esteem grievance chariot to the entitled princess winners’ circle. The result has been to produce a nation of broads hell-bent on seeing themselves as god’s gift to god himself.

The worst thing a man could do would be to feed this beast even further with traditional courtship game. It’s not for nothing that modern game focuses so much attention on breaking down a woman’s self-esteem into manageable chunks — negs, qualification, teasing, push-pull, takeaways, calculated indifference — all are game tactics with the primary purpose of knocking bigheaded chicks off their royal, gilded vaj-shaped thrones. And these tactics are effective precisely because girls want to be dethroned by a man of higher value than themselves, whether they admit to this or not.

The funny thing about female self-esteem is that it doesn’t take much to help it grow wildly beyond the bounds of the pot it was planted in. All women are born with a self-entitlement complex preinstalled. Eggs are biologically more expensive than sperm, and the brain of each sex has evolved to reflect that immutable procreative reality; in women, their minds are primed from birth to regard themselves as the more valuable sex, and this regard is not without merit, at least in the reproductive realm, which is the realm that underpins all other realms. Men, by contrast, are primed to regard themselves as less individually valuable than women, and this manifests as a willingness to take more mortal risks.

So now that we know that women start with a higher basal self-esteem than men, wouldn’t it make more sense for a healthy, functioning society to turn its cultural apparatus toward the project of boosting men’s self-esteem? In fact, this is what quasi-patriarchal Western societies used to do, before they were infected with the late decadent, postmodern deconstructivism and victimology virii. Now the optimal pattern has been completely turned on its head — intrinsically high self-esteem women are administered supercharged booster injections of ego-stroking, while intrinsically low self-esteem men are, either deliberately or coincidentally, pushed further into ego-deflating self-abnegation. See: March 2009 BOTM.

The goals of this outpost of bristling reality are, one, to acquaint readers with the truth of the female (and male) condition that exists past the boundaries of mainstream-approved polite discourse and, two, to arm the male readers (and, by extension, the female readers) with the tools to capitalize on that taboo knowledge. Thankfully, there are plenty of readers here who contribute to that knowledge base. Reader PA comments:

Gentle and friendly teasing is not intimidating, and creates a sort of rapport that makes one feel at ease.

Exactly. This is true even with non-sexual interaction. Think the last time you saw a man who is good with kids. He will ‘neg’ the girl by saying stuff like: “hey! you’re cheating! no red crayon allowed!” or whatever.

Boys, on the other hand, don’t like to be negged. If you’re good with kids, you will build him up with stuff like “that’s really cool. Can you draw it bigger?” etc.

If you have young nieces and nephews, you will quickly recognize the truth in PA’s comment. Nieces respond positively — with glee, even — to prototype negs and teasing; the sort of banter that modern feminists would describe as demeaning. In contrast, little boys, with their fragile egos, wilt under negs and teasing, but respond well to compliments and encouragement. Mothers instinctively know this, as they will often reprimand the fathers for being too discouraging or too critical with their sons while giving the fathers a pass or a semi-serious chiding when they tease the daughters.

The great irony here is that what makes good parenting is exactly the opposite of what feminists claim is the best way to raise boys and girls. Parents know, deep down, that to raise a good daughter you must keep her ego judiciously pruned, and to raise a good son you must suffuse his ego with promise.

Game theory — in fact, most social theory — has much to owe to the instinctual rapport that emerges between father and child, before diseased memes intrude and sully the message. When you want to better understand the nature of game and how it helps attract women, think of how you treat your niece, or how a father you know treats his young daughter. Recall how effortlessly the negs and teasing spilled from your lips when you were goofing around with your little niece. Recall, too, how she squealed with delight. Then take that knowledge and apply it — almost verbatim! — to your seductions of adult women. Their vocal pitch may change, but the squeal remains the same.

Today, in the era of the bloated female ego, the mark of a quality woman is a humble woman. Meet a pretty woman like this — usually foreign, and usually from a strong lower to middle class family — and marvel how refreshing she seems to the typical, mind and body bloated American chick you are used to dating. Unfortunately, more likely you will meet another egotistical bitch with self-love issues and will have to invest months training her (i.e. running game on her) to grace her with a proper and realistic humility. For those who love the game for what it is, this is not such a burdensome sacrifice. But for those who struggle to hear the strange tuning of women’s feminine nature, the required training may be a cost too high to pay.

Thought Police to Nurses: You Vil Not Treat Patients as Humans..

Another typical example of the thought police in action. I wonder how many millions of patients, hospitals deals with every year and yet here they are receiving 17 complaints and they feel it necessary to overreact. One would imagine that sooner or later one would meet an individual who they may find interesting and connect with, maybe organise some later shenanigans, so what, human nature at work. Nothing is stated about the complaints themselves, they may have either been harmless or accidental as hospitals stays normally demands that your modesty be thrown out window..

Sadly enough as well is that the sex of the perpertrators are not stated but one can assume it to be the opposite sex but who knows, there are plenty of gays in that industry as well. Talk about taking the fun out of going to work..

But the thought gestapo do have some opposition..

Mr Holmes said the medical tribunal should take "a balanced view rather than trying to make a black-letter law on what is or isn't flirting".

The ongoing and continual PC crowd determined to undermine both sexes with their inane and incompetent over-kill reaction to any situation once again prevails.

NURSES have been banned from flirting with patients under a new set of professional-ethics guidelines introduced to hospitals.

Also forbidden under the code are sexual innuendo, "off-colour" jokes and using offensive language.

The guidelines, which carry disciplinary measures, were drawn up by the newly created Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and have been issued to all nursing staff.

Nurses have been warned that discussing personal problems, feelings of sexual attraction or aspects of their personal life with patients could be interpreted as sexual violations.

The rules state sexual misconduct is an "extremely serious violation of the nurse's professional responsibility to the person in their care", and could result in dismissal.

Even if a patient consents or initiates sexual conduct, it is the nurse's responsibility to maintain a professional boundary.

Link..

Failing to recognise the development of an attraction of a sexual nature is considered sexual misconduct or assault.

The guidelines came into effect on July 1, when all states joined the scheme except WA, which joined on October 18.

According to the most recent figures published by the NSW Nurses and Midwives Board, there were 17 complaints made about nurses with "professional boundary issues" in the year to June, 2009 - almost triple the number in the previous year, when there were only six.

A total of 47 complaints relating to the issue have been made in the past five years.

Agency spokeswoman Nicole Newton said complaints about professional-boundaries issues were typically among the top 10 complaints reported about nurses.

The guidelines also stipulate that nurses must not accept bus fares, meal tickets, money or goods from patients.

NSW Nurses' Association general secretary Brett Holmes said it was the first time there had been specific guidelines on flirting. He was concerned nurses could be punished for being friendly to patients.

"It's a fairly high bar as flirting becomes crossing a professional boundary. Is [flirting] being fairly jocular or having a light-hearted conversation in what can be a very difficult situation, when it's therapeutic to lighten the load?" he said.

Mr Holmes said the medical tribunal should take "a balanced view rather than trying to make a black-letter law on what is or isn't flirting".

There will be no more of this then ???

Feminist Screed: Women's Brains are Superior..

Amazingly, feminists still hang onto that " we are the product of our environment and not our sex" dogma. The brain apparently has different ideas..

The hystrerical debate offered by feminists runs along similar lines as their pursuit of the falsifcation of domestic violence, same methodology and same obfuscation of the facts..

The Difference between the Male and Female Brain..

Make any comment that will somehow demonstrate that women are not superior to all men and off they go on their practiced tangent. The facts and truth littering the roadside in their race to shore up their own preferred mythology..

Life then is a compromise, I guess, and is vastly preferable to Fine's nurture-fascism, which has supposedly liberated women out there substituting baby-stuff for proper intellectual fare, plunging us straight back into the primal domestic swamp we thought we'd just crawled out of. Who says feminism has no funny-bone?

Feminist Fine has no issues whatever about writing off notable experts such as Dr Louane Brizendine  or others of that discipline just to promote her neurotic feminist interpretation, and we all know what credibility that has..

Gender and feminism, a guilt trip 

Elizabeth Farrelly

Tell me it's not throw-up material, this sudden parade of glamorous career women arguing across the front pages about the best way to birth, suckle and rear their young. Next it'll be the diaper diaries, and we'll all be expected to hang impatiently on the cloth v disposables dialectic, parsing the contents like ancient seers. Anyone would think today's thirtysomethings were the first ever to achieve parturition.
But there is something interesting about these Mummy Wars, all the same. It's this. The root from which they so vigorously sprout is the cleft stick in which feminism has got itself thoroughly, perhaps irreparably, wedged.
Insecurity is the soil. You don't hear men angsting in public over whether they're even halfway decent fathers. If paternal guilt exists, they're all very grown up about it. Yet we're supposed to believe that these traits are learnt, not innate. Learnt from whom? Well, from teachers (oops, mostly female). Mothers (even oopser). OK, from big, bad, paternalistic society.

Insecurity is the soil of the Mummy Wars but behaviourism is the root, or at least the cleft stick that holds it.
Feminism has long committed to behaviourism in order to deny innate brain-difference, arguing it's all nurture, no nature. Why? Because anything else makes femaleness a disadvantage, out in the world beyond domesticity. The minute you allow difference - say, ''males are more driven'' - you make non-maleness second-rate.
But when it comes to kids, the nurture-obsession rebounds. We wouldn't worry so about whether our little Taylors and Jacksons (note gender ambiguity) might have their glorious trajectories permanently damaged by not being taught Mandarin in utero or being insufficiently applauded at every tottering milestone if we didn't believe hugely in our power to shape our kids.
This nurture thing cuts directly across the huge genome-push of contemporary science, seeking ''the gene'' for everything from cancer to autism. But, more pertinently, it also puts all the weight of the world back on the mother.
A hundred years ago, mothers were just pleased to get their kids out the other end of childhood alive, so weren't much given to self-blame. But with agency comes responsibility and with responsibility comes guilt.
You might think, then, we'd eagerly jettison our sense of controlling our children's destinies. On the contrary. Mother after young feminist mother seems committed to the guilt route, to proving that gender is indeed a myth and that, beyond basic biology, girls and boys are born identical, with all distinguishing traits post-production.
The latest purveyor of this implausible creed is psychologist Cordelia Fine, whose book, Delusions of Gender, has made global headlines. Fine presents no original science but assiduously takes to task those who do, at least where the work seems to show brain gender.
But Fine's nurture-fascism is a brittle edifice. Not only are there all those documented cases of identical twins who, being separated at birth and growing up on opposite sides of the earth still end up both driving Triumph TR4s, both liking raw octopus and both marrying short pudgy redheads called Mavis.
More compelling, in the gender department, is what psychiatry calls gender identity disorder or, less pejoratively, gender dysphoria. "Perhaps one man in every 12,000," the British government's 2003 Policy Concerning Transsexual People notes, "feels he is a woman." (And no, it's not just the Poms.)
There are countless histories of boys who look male and are brought up male but who nevertheless feel so extremely un-male as adults that they willingly, even desperately, undertake the enormous social, hormonal, psychiatric and surgical traumas of gender reassignment. Many who are unable to make this journey elect suicide.
Fine's insistence that boys and girls are born with identical brains does not explain how an un-gendered mind, fully steeped in boy-type context, can reach adulthood with the life-or-death conviction that it is actually, profoundly, female. How could that happen?
Fine's hyper-behaviourism plays to the tenor of the times. Pursuing her own populism, she derides last century's "popular writers", such as John (Men Are from Mars) Gray, for their uninformed use of "pseudo-science" and insists that the vast array of genuinely scientific research her book debunks is driven by covert "neurosexism". In other words, all dissent is mere propaganda. But Fine, too, has her political agenda firmly pinned to the dash.
Truth is, we don't know. The British transsexual policy admits "scientific proof [is] far from complete" but notes there is "growing acceptance of findings of sexual differences in the brain that are determined pre-natally".
But perhaps it's neither black nor white. Increasingly, genetics is looking multi-factorial; genes establish a tendency that upbringing can either enhance or suppress. It seems commonsensical, further, to see gender not as an either-or but as a spectrum, running all the way from uber-male to uber-female, and to recognise that brain-gender, similarly arrayed, may not correspond fully (or at all) to body gender.
Thus, an uber-male brain may inhabit, say, a glamorous female body. I guess the lucky ones are those whose minds and bodies coincide or at least happily cohabit.
Suddenly, sexual stereotyping is no longer a problem. Indeed, not longer even a possibility. As well, we can relax about our kids, recognising that even through our worst mothering moments, they have the steadying influence of genes. This makes them much tougher than we think.
Life then is a compromise, I guess, and is vastly preferable to Fine's nurture-fascism, which has supposedly liberated women out there substituting baby-stuff for proper intellectual fare, plunging us straight back into the primal domestic swamp we thought we'd just crawled out of. Who says feminism has no funny-bone?

DV Debate: Paul Elam against Feminist, David Futrelle..

This debate quite rightly covers the area of "women are the only victims" as feminists have always blindingly stated. As you will read, the blatant bias in domestic violence research is not denied even by researchers but the feminist version simply exclude any mention of "female on male violence" as being insignificant and according to their "philosophy"(sic), unnecessary.

Paul's excellent "body of work", demonstrates clearly how feminist methodology and misinformation can be so easily rendered useless and tossed into pages of history as lies, irrelevant and basically a complete waste of time and efforts. Discrediting the researchers and belittling their efforts.

Links to "A Voice For Men" and the Great DV Debate..

Sadly, the whimsical, feminist Futrelle, as All feminists have done in the past when confronted with their own lies and deceptions, they run and head for cover. They are well aware of the fact that their doctrine cannot withstand the blowtorch of truth or even the light of day..

These are the cowards we are up against. Their typical attack regimen in the past consisted precisely what Ghandi stated about the affects of confronting anyone with an argument that they refuse to even consider. First they ignore you but the Men's movement is getting way too big to do that, then they ridicule you and feminists have that down to a fine art and finally they attack you and feminists are ignorant and stupid enough to believe that they are blameless and totally justified by their adherence to an ill-conceived, demonstratively biased, sexist, hate doctrine..

Not to take away from Paul's excellent debate but just to add to the blatant bias that has filtered through the western countries regarding false reporting of DV..

It was for the same reason that Amfortas and I produced these MP3's, exposing the biased "woman centered" research in Australia..

Amfortas & Christian J Lying about Domestic Violence Part 1 by amfortas1

The ‘woman’s Safety Survey’ was “uncorroborated, biased and manipulated” ‘Advocacy research’ orchestrated by the Office for the Status of Women and passed off as Bureau of Statistics report. It caused an enormous row, says MRA Amfortas. Manipulated definitions and hysterical claims copied from America made innocuous behaviour criminal. DV sells commercial products to women and expropriates public funds for the fastest growing ‘Industry in Australia.

Amfortas & Christian J Lying about Domestic Violence Part 2 by amfortas1

Three other sources of ‘official’ data which are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analysed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’.” It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.”

Personal Robots: Not too far away..

There appears to be some argument in the MRM concerning the promoting of female robots as that would appear that we are alienating the opposite sex and thereby will not achieve the support we need in order to cleanse feminism from society..

Two of my arguments against this is as follows -

1. Women will never relinquish the privileges they have been given even if it means alienating an entire sex.
2. If women were going to assist the Men's movement to achieve it's outcome they would have done so by now. The handful of intelligent females that do is just a minutiae of what is required.

Also, only stupid women support feminism for the sole reason being that they benefit from it without really understanding or comprehending what feminism is really all about..

Have a listen to Male Matters for a comprehensive expose of the feminist movement and be prepared to be shocked. Although it really does not say any more that I have been stating for years..

So back to the robots. From the look of this example, they do not have far to go before they become viable and a reality. This will in turn free the male from servitude and wage slave situations as men in the past will put up with all sort of nonsense that women create just because they have something we need and want..

But not for long apparently..



Thanks to the Citizen Renegade..

Express FM 93.7: Male Matters on Feminism and it's destructive Influence..

An excellent expose on feminism and it's unfettered impact, forced onto society.





Express FM 93.7 Male Matters..

Podcasts you need to listen to..

 Some podcasts that I did with the help of Amfortas regarding the influences of feminism and it's destructive path in society..

Need to listen to..

 here..

Lesbians Just Love Beating the Crap out of Each Other..

Now you know that I do not like to make light of the "lesbian" relationships..:)

But this article did draw my attention to it's inevitability. It's pre-programmed outcome, it's inevitable conclusion. Not only are they more prone to violence and separation. They just really enjoy beating the crap out of each other like it's some national sporting event. I mean, never has a relationship of either gender been so at war with each other..

No, not heterosexual..

Lesbians..

If it were not for those ant's, there would have been a homicide, apparently..

How many times before have we noticed this aggression ?

Well, here is a primer for you..

Lesbians just love beating the shit out of each other, it's almost like it's normal behaviour..

Link..

If women cannot get alone, then what ?

It must be man's fault, apparently, according to feminists..

Another study of 113 lesbians reported that 41% said they had been abused in one or more relationships. Source: Ristock, J., "And Justice for All?...The Social Context of Legal Responses to Abuse in Lesbian relationships," (1994) 7 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 420.

Catfighting Lesbians Attacked By Ants

Fight among former friends ends when fire ants attack
By Naples Daily News staff report
Naples Daily News

Posted October 26, 2010 at 1:12 p.m
[Naples, Florida]

MUG SHOT: Fight among former friends ends when fire ants attack » Naples Daily News

It took fire ants to break up a fight between two women in Naples, authorities reported.

Kanisha Nicole Noelle Altidor, 20, of the 500 block of 14th Street North, Naples, was arrested Monday in the 2200 block of Greenback Circle on suspicion of throwing her ex-girlfriend to the ground, hitting her in the face, choking her and repeating, “I’m going to kill you,” reports said.

Altidor was babysitting her former girlfriend’s children and when she arrived home later than expected, Altidor had been repeatedly calling and texting her, the reports said. Their fight on the ground ceased when fire ants began attacking them, but Altidor continued to hit her former girlfriend in the face and pull her hair and ultimately bit her face, the reports said.

There had been multiple instances of violence during the four months they lived together, the reports said.

The end result of feminism..

DOTA: Ongoing Feminist Sexism..

These guys have been doing this for so long they are an institution in Australia..

Dads on the Air.

Sadly it's the same issue of identifying feminist sexism, India facing the same feminist hegemony and the usual sexist attitude towards all men..

When will this stop ?

Promoting Gender And Race Equality

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 10:30AM

With Special Guests:

• Dr. Warren Farrell and
• Lee-Anne Smith.

At a time when changing slogans and spin, bombard us at an incredible rate, it is difficult to keep up with what is propaganda and what is real. Just to name a few examples of a growing list of deceptive, manipulative blurring of the facts, to which the community is exposed daily, consider the following.

Global Warming has become Climate Change, Equal Rights for Women, has become Women’s Rights, Domestic Violence has turned into Violence Against Women, conveniently ignoring the fact that at least one third of the victims are Men.

Equal Pay For Equal Work, has morphed into Equal Pay For Women, never mind that women often work less hours, thereby earning less pay. Never mind also, that it is already illegal to pay someone less pay for the same hours worked, doing the same work, on the basis of age,race or gender.

It is refreshing therefore, to listen to the genuine and informed, as they speak passionately about real gender and racial equality. No sloganeering here, just the facts and a passion to promote equality. This week we speak with two such people, who represent the genuine article, and present a well balanced enthusiasm for their cause. 

Our first guest is Dr Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, who’s understanding of both sexes is symbolized by his being, on the one hand, on the boards of four national men’s organizations, and on the other hand, being the only man in the US to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in New York City.  Similarly, he has started over 600 men’s and women’s groups, and over 200,000 women and men have attended his workshops worldwide.  

Dr. Warren Farrell began his research on gender issues in the ‘60s.  His first book, The Liberated Man, was published in 1974.  It was from the women’s perspective and the feminist perspective.  By the ‘80s, he began noticing that men were feeling misrepresented, and his award-winning national best-seller, Why Men Are The Way They Are, was written to answer women’s questions about men in a way that rings true for men.  

Our second guest is Lee-Anne Smith, of the Halo Leadership Agency. Halo is a non-profit incorporated, career and personal development agency, advancing Hopes, Aspirations and Leadership Opportunities for young people. The agency listens to the needs of young people, providing advocacy, programmes, peer mentoring and networking opportunities, that enable individuals to discover who they are, design their own futures and make a difference in their communities.

Listen Now [MP3]

Obama and Valerie Jarrett: Feminist Accomplices..

Just in case you were wondering what affect it would have by placing "feminists" in the White House, as Obama has done as well as allocated billions of dollars to those male-haters..

Here is a press release from those curmudgeons, here is one of those sexist releases they specialise in..

An Event to End Violence Against Women

Posted by Valerie Jarrett on October 27, 2010 at 05:10 PM EDT
This afternoon, we marked Domestic Violence Awareness Month with the President and Vice President by highlighting the Obama Administration’s unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse.
For almost 30 years, the month of October has been a time to renew our commitment to ending one of the most tragic and senseless crimes in this country. We were honored to be joined today by a diverse audience from big cities and small towns, from tribes, women’s organizations, survivors, domestic violence and sexual assault advocates, fatherhood programs, law enforcement agencies, and faith communities, all joined by a common purpose- to end violence against women.

Now, do not be fooled by the inclusion of "fatherhood programs", as all that will be to teach and conjole all fathers into believing that it's all their fault. Women are blameless and never commit any violence and they should cow-tow to their interpretation rather than excepting the truth..

Also Valerie Jarrett, what level of male-hater that is..

..much like Obama's Valerie Jarrett was tasked with leading the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department", as was Jarrett just appointed the same position for Obama's new Federal Council On Women and Girls. You can see from the below quotes that Kollontai espouses the views that Communist Feminists espouse today.

Link..

How about a comment like this..

Valerie Jarrett: Hurray for Obama’s “womanly leadership”

States a lot about the questionable Obama, does it not. It does make you wonder what level of wimp he really is..

So the whole introduction of feminists into the White House is just to promote the feminists and their male hate doctrine to all and sundry without recognising the violence that women indulge in. Not a single word, reference or even denial..

I was always of the opinion that a country needed a leader but all we have here is a pretense for one..

For more information on what level of lunacy Jarrett supports, have a look here..

Irrational Behaviour: Men Not to be Trusted Around Children..

This undeserved paranoia has been surfacing for some time. Even to the extent where kids living on the same road as the school they are attending will still be driven just in case that imaginary pedophile may be present, that image so projected by feminists and their male-hating supporters, it's now the norm. Regardless of the fact that women are just as inclined, if not more so now, than men to sexually abuse children, either mentally or physically, need not be explained as the facts speak for themselves. But women, sadly, continue to irrationally accuse and implicate by their action that it's only ever one sex and not the other that causes the harm..

Here is the ever growing list of female child abusers for reference..

Regardless of the minutiae of pedophiles operating in public (more kids drown in swimming pools), the irrationality still pervades society without rhyme or reason.. Meanwhile and as usual it's the children that suffer the most. That obviously is totally irrelevant..

Why are all men made to feel like fiends?

Miranda Devine Blog  
Miranda DevineWednesday, October 27, 2010

ONE sunny morning last week a 55-year-old advertising executive and father was walking to work on Sydney’s North Shore when he came across a toddler wandering by himself just 10m from busy Military Rd, no guardian in sight.
“Where’s your mummy,” he asked the small boy, who didn’t respond and kept walking towards the dangerous thoroughfare.
Against his instinct, the man did not pick up the boy, for fear of being accused of being a paedophile abductor. Instead, as the child kept moving towards danger, he called to a lady in a nearby shop to ask if the boy was hers. She ran outside and chased the toddler down.
In the commotion the mother emerged from a nearby shop, apparently unperturbed.
But the man was angry.
“What would have got her upset is if I had picked the boy up when I saw him, which was my first instinct,” he said.
“If the child had walked on to Military Rd and been killed I would have had to wear the guilt for life. Men have been reduced to [failing to react] when they see a child in danger for fear of being labelled paedophiles.”
In 100 different ways every day the same scenario is played out, reflecting a profound and largely unspoken shift in the way decent men view small children.
These are just ordinary men, fathers, grandfathers, brothers, uncles, who have been made to feel like criminals around children and obliged to suppress their natural, healthy instinct to protect the most vulnerable members of our society.
In the same way, you can understand why men using the change rooms at a public swimming pool in a northern Sydney suburb last week might be concerned about the presence of unsupervised young boys undressing nearby.
Afraid of being falsely accused of being paedophiles, several men complained to pool management that they felt uncomfortable undressing in front of the schoolboys, in an increasingly febrile atmosphere in which even the mildest accusation of sexual impropriety can be ruinous
So the boys were banned from the change rooms of the Hornsby Aquatic Centre and reportedly had to ride back on the bus to school in wet swimsuits.
Nobody comes out of the story feeling better about themselves, but who can blame the men for wanting to protect themselves from complaints?
It has happened before.
One of the many heartfelt comments from men responding to the story on The Daily Telegraph website last week detailed the experience of “RM” when he took his four-year-old niece and two-year-old nephew to a playground and saw a little girl hurt herself.
“I was asking if she was OK, which one is her mum etc, only to have a woman (who turned out to be the child’s mother) rush up and yell, ‘what are you doing?’ Thankfully another mother there came to my defence.”
RM was critical of the mother who had left her child unsupervised while she went across the road for a coffee.
In the UK , a notorious case a few years ago highlighted the dilemma men are finding themselves in when a truck driver saw a two-year-old girl wandering alone along a village road but decided against stopping to see if she was OK for fear of being accused of bad intentions.
The child drowned in a pond and the poor man has to live with the crushing guilt.
Much of this modern paranoia is due to revelations of child sexual abuse over the past decade - and increased knowledge of the predatory activities of sneaky paedophiles such as “Dolly” Dunn - making Australian parents hyper vigilant.
I remember as a reporter covering the shocking paedophilia revelations of the Wood royal commission more than a decade ago, feeling suddenly over-protective towards my toddler son in the supermarket, wondering if there were lascivious intent behind the innocent smile of a male shopper. The natural interest and regard between older and younger males became verboten.
Mothers began to worry about allowing their small boys to go alone into shopping centre urinals, and the sight of anxious women loitering around male toilets, eyes glued on the door, became disconcertingly commonplace, as did the phenomenon of women bringing sons as old as eight or nine into female bathrooms.
It was a sad but understandable shift in attitudes towards men. Now they were all suspect.
We have seen the consequences for families in the tragic story this year of a mother jailed in Amsterdam for kidnapping her young son and spiriting him out of Australia because of her apparently mistaken belief that her husband had paedophile tendencies. Once the seed of doubt is planted there’s no telling how far it can go.
Previously there was a widespread societal denial that such foul behaviour was even possible and certainly not from seemingly avuncular types such as Dolly Dunn, a kindly faced teacher who took a special interest in the problems of his young charges.
But this sort of squeamishness about acknowledging paedophilia had conspired to allow past cover-ups and deny victims natural justice. In some cases, even mothers of victims refused to believe such wickedness was possible, thus compounding the crime with their tacit approval.
It was a deliberate decision by clear-eyed judges and prosecutors such as Margaret Cunneen SC, who prosecuted Dunn, to make explicit the true nature of paedophilia.
Earlier this month, in sentencing the unspeakably vile paedophile David Shane Whitby to 26 years in jail for the rape and ongoing sexual abuse of eight children as young as 14 months, NSW District Court Judge Peter Berman declared that, distressing as they were, the offences should be detailed explicitly and publicly as a warning .
“I’ve never seen a human being treat another in such a vile manner ... there are people like Mr Whitby in the world and it is necessary to describe the evil that people do because as Shakespeare reminds us, ‘that evil lives after them’,” he said.
The pendulum needed to swing in the direction of disclosure in order to strip paedophiles of the cover of our ignorance.
But demonising men won’t prevent child abuse. In the interests of children, we women must force ourselves to reclaim the notion of male innocence.
The male protective instinct, after all, is one of the most crucial safeguards of childhood.

Obama now Begging For Votes..

---

---

Obama pleads for women's votes

---

Posted: October 27, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 
Barack Obama's pandering to the feminists makes him look like the suitor who is unwilling to face up to his beloved's announcing she will marry another man. In desperation, he showers her with expensive gifts, hoping to win back her favor.
A majority of women were captivated by Obama's charms in 2008. Now, according to the pro-Obama New York Times, Obama is reduced to pleading with them "not to abandon the Democratic Party in its hour of need."
Like Julius Caesar, Obama must be thinking that ingratitude is "the most unkindest cut of all." To reclaim the feminists' affections, he is campaigning in a "fevered push to cement a Democratic firewall" that can re-elect Sens. Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray.
Obama's principal plan to nail down the loyalty of the feminists is to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, or PFA. It has already passed the House, and Majority Leader Harry Reid plans a Senate vote in a mischievous lame-duck session.
This bill would amend the Equal Pay Act to shift decision-making about wages and salaries from employers to judges and juries, a longtime goal of the feminists who want wages to be based on subjective motions of "worth" rather than on market rates. The Paycheck Fairness Act would also reward another Obama constituency by opening a lucrative channel for trial lawyers to file class-action lawsuits against employers and collect punitive damages in unlimited amounts.
The PFA would make it difficult for employers to know if they are in compliance with the law – in fact, they won't know the answer to that question until they are in the middle of an expensive lawsuit. With every management decision, the employer will be asking his lawyer, "Am I going to be sued?"
The PFA would give the courts the power to micromanage all personnel decisions. That's a goal the feminists have sought for nearly 30 years under the slogans "pay equity" and "comparable worth."
The PFA expands grounds for litigation even for unintentional violations. In assessing discrimination, the courts would decide if work experience is a "bona fide factor other than sex."
Employers already must justify their pay practices with a factor other than sex and defend it in court. Under PFA, employers with as few as two employees will be able to defend themselves only by adopting and funding an "alternative employment practice" that does not result in a pay disparity.
For example, a woman earning less than a more experienced man could argue that work experience is not a "bona fide" factor because the employer could have eliminated the disparity by the "alternative employment practice" of training the woman for the job.
The PFA would reinstate the Equal Opportunity Survey to identify employers for further investigation. The Department of Labor had discontinued use of this survey because of its gross inaccuracies.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to senators voicing clear-cut opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act. The commission's letter stated that the PFA "will succeed only in placing heavy and unnecessary burdens on employers. Those burdens will be felt by all Americans, both men and women."

The commission effectively refuted what it called "the foundation on which the argument for this bill is built," namely, that "women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar men are paid." The commission's letter lists factors other than discrimination that explain pay differences: different specialties in college degrees, leaving the workforce for childbirth and rearing and elder care, men taking jobs that involve physical risks, women taking jobs with availability of time off for child emergencies.
No feminist-supported legislation would be complete without including grants of taxpayers' money to feminist organizations. The PFA authorizes grants to "eligible entities" (aka feminist groups) to teach feminists "negotiation skills" to demand higher salaries.
The National Economic Council, a policy front for the White House, issued a 26-page report boasting how the Obama administration has promoted economic benefits especially for women. The report cited the expansion of the EITC (earned income tax credit), which gives tax-free financial handouts disproportionately to single moms.
Other goodies cited in the NEC report, which the New York Times admitted was "timed to the Nov. 2 election," include new handouts for community college students, 56 percent of whom are female, and very large sums of aid to states to be spent on jobs for teachers and nurses, most of whom are women.
The NEC report pegs its argument to the feminists' false whine that women are paid only "77 cents for every dollar paid to men." And, the White House brought out Valerie Jarrett to threaten that bad Republicans in Congress would take away benefits for women.

Men's Issues Site Cleans up Feministing..

I must confess to being exceptionally proud of these guys. The major part being that "The Spearhead", a Men's Issues Site has knocked off that nasty, irelevant feminist raging site called feministing. As a moderator of the Spearhead site, I must confess to spending endless hours cleaning it up and tossing ragers and ranters to the curb. The intention being that that site should be shown some respect as the work going into it was there for all to witness..

Congratulations to all those guys who have submitted to the site as well as to Bill for his great work..

This is indeed a good reason to celebrate as we witness the nosedive and irrelevance of feminism and it's male-hating doctrine..

Spearhead Birthday Drive

by W.F. Price on October 26, 2010

Recently, The Spearhead passed its first major milestone — its first birthday. When the site started I had no idea how long it would last or how much it would grow. It could have fizzled out, or it could be just another small site without many readers. Fortunately, it’s done quite well and started to make an impact. The last month saw more visitors and higher traffic than ever before, and the site has caught up to a virtual tie with one of the more prominent feminist sites.
Although I’m proud of what’s been accomplished so far, the truth is that the site never would have survived that crucial first year without the support of a number of people around the world, including some generous donors whose large contributions have made it possible for me to put a great deal of work into it. There are a few times when these donations made the difference between keeping the site steaming along or having no choice but to scale my activities back considerably, which, given its young and fragile state, probably would have consigned it to obscurity. Contributions have provided the funds for an upgrade to a private server, allowed me to purchase ISBNs for pending publications, paid for software and, most importantly, freed up valuable time for managing the site, editing contributions, writing and dealing with technical issues.
For a visual example of what’s been going on in the online struggle of ideas, I’d like to present a little graph from Alexa, which measures web traffic to high traffic sites around the world. In the following, you can see a comparison between The Spearhead and Feministing:

As you can see, the feminist site peaked shortly after The Spearhead went online, but some time this year went into a steep decline, while The Spearhead has been steadily gaining ground, finally catching up, and, over the last month, actually surpassing Feministing in terms of reach and traffic.
When we first started The Spearhead feminist sites immediately went on the attack, ridiculing the site and going after Pro-Male Anti-Feminist Tech’s post on the feminization of science fiction, which resulted in that early traffic spike you can see back in October 2009. Perhaps they thought we’d tuck our tails and run under the barrage of hatred and ridicule, but it had the opposite effect: we were invigorated and rose to the occasion.
Now, for some reason, feminist sites don’t mention The Spearhead at all. Surely they are well aware of its existence, but they walk on tip-toes around it.
Over the last few weeks we had a major increase in traffic, providing us with the highest monthly totals yet. With over 300,000 page views and 50,000 unique visitors, we reached more people than ever. I have received letters from around the world expressing great appreciation for the site, which provides men with a perspective and information that is very difficult to find elsewhere. It’s been great to see that men are finding The Spearhead such a valuable resource.
Unfortunately, it seems some others have noticed our success and have not been altogether pleased by it — a few days ago Google finally pulled the plug on Adsense for The Spearhead, depriving us of a relatively small, but important source of income. It isn’t entirely unexpected; Google has been known to do this to sites with political content that runs counter to its executives’ politics, which are strongly connected to the Democratic Party. I suspect criticism of Patty Murray may have been the last straw, especially considering that the election is coming up and her seat is so important to the Obama administration.
However, the setback is relatively minor, and I was not all that happy about giving Google ads so much valuable real estate on the site anyway. But it does mean that I will be a couple hundred dollars shorter in following months, and will need to make up the revenue somehow. On the bright side, it will spur me to finally pursue other avenues that will, in all likelihood, be more profitable.
In the meanwhile, contributions are needed to keep the momentum going. The Spearhead is finally coming into its own, and is gaining a reputation as a place where men can make some sense of the insanity that surrounds contemporary sexual politics.
So, with your help we can continue to grow and get the message out there, and I can even see the day when the issues we are bringing to prominence on The Spearhead can no longer be ignored.
I’d like to thank all of our writers and all supporters of all kinds. Without your help and interest we couldn’t have accomplished so much. Everyone who has made a contribution has made a difference, and it is deeply appreciated.
Donations can be accepted by PayPal:

Or by sending a check or money order to:
Price Content
PO Box 28282
Seattle WA 98118

Female Managers: Who Really Wants em!!!!

Ella L.J. Edmondson Bell PhD, an associate professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, asked her class of men and women how many would prefer a male manager. "Ninety percent of the women raised their hands",

Gee !! I wonder if it's another feminist ?

She got her wake up call..

" I felt like somebody had thrown that celebratory champagne right in my face."

The ignorance is supreme..

I have posted about this before, the topic that is, not the article. The sole reason being that feminists are so determined to infect us with the lie that "Wimmin" make better everything but that of course is the usual lies, feminists propagate.

Why tell the truth when you are feeding or trying to feed the mantra, intravenously..

Few other articles where I may have made the similar observations in the past..

I do try to be consistent..

 Female Micromanaging Does not a Better Manager Make
 Link..

 Women are the best managers: Bullshit Apparently..
Link..

Julia Gillard and Roxon Unable to keep staff..
Link..

The Answer is simple, simply do not hire women..
Link..

And just for the hell of it. How Demi Moore spend 226,500 pounds to improve her body..
Link..

Women Bosses (and One Man Who Hates Them)

Written By BaldHiker
Women cannot be bosses. They should never be given supervisory power over anyone in the workplace, because they really don't seem to be able handle it. In almost every case I've seen, they get a little taste of power and it turns them into monsters; ready to deal death to all those under their control. It’s as if they’re trying to make up for not being invited to the prom by the high school quarterback, and all shall suffer for it!
Right now, a woman reading this is thinking "you misogynist bastard, how dare you?" Which - in some ways - is quite correct, but I have my reasons. A perfect case-in-point, I currently suffer under a supervisor who has absolutely nothing positive to say about anything that I do. She is constantly finding fault with my work, and sends me bi-weekly e-mails to that effect. Well perhaps I'm just no good at my job, you might say? I'm going to go with "no". This is a supervisor who, nearly seven months ago, came into my office, sat down, and cried about how the man-hating lesbian (her words, not mine) who thinks she runs the place was treating her. That’s right. My boss - the person I report to - sat in my office and cried to me.
This was the first time I’d ever encountered such a situation. Now, being a decent fellow, I tried to be conciliatory and supportive. That backfired however, when only two weeks later she decided to throw me under the bus and blame me for everything that was not quite up to snuff in this department. That's some reward right there.
This isn’t the first time I’ve observed such unprofessional behavior from women in the workplace. I could tell stories of another female supervisor who decided she didn’t like the way I did things. Or I could talk about an incident that happened four years ago, when a woman came in to take over the "team" I worked for at a medical center - a woman who, within two months of arriving, was writing up every male member of the team on a regular basis. Then there was another female boss who was one of the worst people I've ever known (in fact, this was over twenty years ago and to this day my friends and I still talk about her!). She took over the mail room at a large downtown law firm I worked at and proceeded to hunt down and destroy anyone she didn’t like. She was a carbon copy of the pretty, power-suited, gym junkie, phony office women I’d only previously seen in movies. I didn’t realize they really existed! Turned out she was also sleeping with one of my coworkers. The ended up married, but for less than a year.
These are my personal experiences, but I’ve always wondered... does this happen everywhere? Is it just me or do others feel this way as well? I decided to do a quick search on the Internet to find out. Here are some interesting facts:

• In an article written for "The Huffington Post" in April of 2010, Ella L.J. Edmondson Bell PhD, an associate professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, asked her class of men and women how many would prefer a male manager. "Ninety percent of the women raised their hands", Edmondson Bell wrote. But when she asked the same question concerning a female manager, only two women raised their hands. She’d begun the article by mentioning raising a glass of champagne over the fact that women now surpassed men in the workplace. But after her student’s responses " I felt like somebody had thrown that celebratory champagne right in my face." She mentioned that one of her female students went on to say that "women don’t take the time to develop other women, they’re also not nice. Women tend to be critical and don’t have empathy or compassion. They’re the mean girls from middle school all grown up.
• An article in ForbesWoman Views written by Meghan Casserly that same month, referred back to the Edmondson Bell piece and put the question to their readership. Of the 25 women who responded, 19 said that men make better bosses. Some went on to comment on female bosses, stating "women can be conniving and backstabbing while giving you the nice-nasty smile" or "I’ve had one good female manager, but most of my spectacularly bad managers have been female" and "A man any day of the week…. they do not have those female catfight instincts".
• The Daily Mail in the UK published an article by Liz Hull in August 2010 for which 3,000 men and women were polled as to whether they preferred to work for a man or a woman. "Two-thirds of women said they preferred a male boss because their straight-talking, 'get to the point' attitude makes them easier to deal with". According to the article, the research had been conducted by David Brown of the recruitment firm UKJobs.net, who found that "forty percent said men were more able to distance themselves from politics and bitching and fourteen percent found them more reasonable than women".

I could go on, but you get the idea. Most workers do not want a female boss. If someone wanted to look at this argument as sexist, or even misogynistic, then let’s look at the practical aspects. What happens to a private business or an organization in the public sector if they have to continually hire new people and train them because the current employees can’t work with the female boss in charge? Doesn’t this cut down on effectiveness? Don’t profit margins fall when looked at both yearly and quarterly, since so much money is now being spent on recruitment and training of replacements? Doesn’t it also affect the quantity and quality of the work being produced? And what about the overall morale of the work site if there is constant turnover?
Why, then, are these types of situations allowed to continue? The answer, of course, is political correctness, which has been insidiously inserted into our societal zeitgeist by feminism. You can no longer simply fire a female employee based on a bad performance record for fear of being sued for sexism. You can, however, do this to a man and that person will have little or no recourse. Fire a woman, and all hell breaks loose. Fire a man and no one cares. If women demand equal pay for the same work done (which I completely agree with, by the way) then why can’t men demand equal treatment from their bosses, be they male or female? If you need to fire a mid-to-upper-level manager based on their continual, daily mistreatment of your workforce, that person’s sex shouldn’t matter. But it does.

Not Date Rape Drug but Booze..

The name of the booze should at least indicate the mentality of the users. This is just another example of the hysteria generated on campus by feminists once again lying through their teeth about "campus rape". Even after being exposed lying about this "phenomenon" for years. Campuses now have compulsory "education" on how to treat the PP (Priv. Princesses) on campus while nothing is ever offered for Male students on how to control or treat all those drunken, uncontrollable women..

The greenies must be laughing it up as they are using their favourite "non-polluting and environment friendly" substance, "ethanol", now being utilised for more than it was originally intended apart from denying African's the food it was processed from ofcourse..

Drink, not drugs, sickened CWU students at Roslyn

An investigation has determined it was a high-alcohol caffeinated drink called Four Loko, not date-rape drugs, that sickened Central Washington University students at a party in Roslyn.

The Associated Press

 

• "Blackout in a can" worries colleges

ELLENSBURG, Wash. — An investigation has determined it was a high-alcohol caffeinated drink called Four Loko, not date-rape drugs, that sickened Central Washington University students at a party in Roslyn.
The university announced at a news conference Monday in Ellensburg that blood-alcohol content ranged from .12 percent to .35 percent.
Nine students were hospitalized after the Oct. 8 party at a house where about 50 people had been drinking.
Four Loko is made by Phusion Projects Inc., of Chicago. It comes in several varieties, including fruit punch and blue raspberry.
Twenty-three intoxicated students were hospitalized over the span of a few weeks last month at northern New Jersey's Ramapo College after drinking Four Loko.

More on this article here..

Sexism in England..

Okay, another one of the MRA managers trying to get some funds instead of every cent going to WOMEN. How hard should that be. We are HALF of the population for crying out loud. So who cares, well no one..

Once again demonstrating the blatant sexism against all men and boys.

This time, it's another saga from England, where the funds in millions, are going to women and all men can go to hell...

Is this new ?

This particular broadcast is a topic to look at Men's issues but as usual they are on a shoe string budget but unfortunately  I cannot link it directly but have a listen at 32 minutes into spot on the "Men's Matter" segment. Another great MRA pushing the anti-male sexism and stating the issues..

Link..


Have a listen...

Women Do No Wrong: But, Let's Sue For 37 Mill..

Another prime example of women getting away with anything. Pinch a woman's arse and face a lawsuit but for a woman to pinch a man's arse, it's, well, nothing..

Note the hypocrisy ?

Like women do nothing wrong. Report that to the law and they will fall over themselves laughing..

A great world isn't it. The sexism is so rampant one must take a break to actually comprehend it..

So it's the "touch a woman", you're screwed but if a female does the same, it's nothing. As feminists proudly proclaim, it's an independent woman making her own choice..

Any one see the sexism or am I just blind..

I wheeled around to confront the pincher, who now, not unexpectedly, faced me. She grinned widely. She was not a stranger, though I was reasonably confident it was the first time she’d laid hands on my Levi’s. She was a publicist.( ED: one of those strong sexist women, feminists are always bragging about)..

No retribution in law, without doubt..

Now that big harassment payouts are in, a man can try his luck
Stephen Romei
Friday, 22nd October 2010

Literary editors have personal space too

The week just past saw two stirring Australian sagas draw to their conclusions. Mary MacKillop, a nun latterly of South Australia, became the nation’s first saint, though a little too late to enjoy her celebrity personally, and Kirsty Fraser-Kirk, a former publicist at tony department store chain David Jones, settled her sexual harassment claim against the company’s ex-chief executive Mark McInnes, albeit at a bit of a discount on her original price tag.

The two events coincided over one memorable weekend, and while MacKillop got the best of the press coverage, it was a close-run thing. Acute observers noted the admirable similarities between the two women. Both had Scottish-sounding names; both were well-groomed; both said they would devote themselves to charitable causes and one of them did.

For this correspondent, however, the Mary-Kirsty alignment brought back deeply personal memories. The precise date is hazy, for reasons that will become clear. It was a writers’ festival in Adelaide, it was hot, and I was standing in a loose circle of literary types, chatting away in innocent daylight, when someone pinched my arse.

I wheeled around to confront the pincher, who now, not unexpectedly, faced me. She grinned widely. She was not a stranger, though I was reasonably confident it was the first time she’d laid hands on my Levi’s. She was a publicist.

I walked away, a little ruffled, and my mobile phone throbbed with an incoming text message. It was from her, its meaning was clear and it was signed with a X. I thought of responding with a mild flirtation of my own, but something told me this would be unwise.



Later it was suggested to me that what I should have done with my phone was take a photograph of the pinch imprint, while it was still fresh. But one never thinks of these things at the time. I was still a relatively young man. And in any event, that thumbprint on my right buttock was about to pale into relative insignificance.

Some two hours later, having composed myself in my mid-range hotel room, I was standing at an Official Function, drink in hand, talking to a Very Famous Australian. As we talked and sipped sauvignon blanc (the pinot grigio craze was not yet upon us), she leaned towards me and placed her hand under my clothing to the point where it touched my undergarment. She mentioned where she was staying, the best hotel in town.

I did not know what to make of this. First the publicist and now the Very Famous Australian, both going for the grope. Perhaps it was because I’d just started using Menage aftershave, which costs under $20 a bottle but punches well above its weight, believe me.

What I did not think to make of it was $37 million. Well, not immediately anyway. Some time later, when I had returned to Sydney, where there are far more lawyers than in Adelaide, I was speaking to a friend who is only an accountant, but has aspirations, and he urged me to file a sexual harassment lawsuit against the Very Famous Australian, for starters.

I was confused but curious. I thought hard about all the other not-so-old men in my situation. (Not long after, when I found myself in the headlines, a colleague declared that the Very Famous Australian was hot and he wished she had groped him, which as contributions to the national debate go was not very helpful.)



How much do you reckon I could get?, I asked my accountant friend. Thirty-seven million, he said, as though the answer was self-evident to anyone properly versed in the law. But, I said, didn’t that bloke who was wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years in Western Australia only get three-and-a-bit million? Yes, he said, and are you telling me your case isn’t at least ten times worse?

And didn’t that bloke in Romania get less than a million after a surgeon mistakenly removed his penis? Well, yes, he said, but don’t forget they also grafted a bit of his arm onto where his penis used to be.

Look, he continued, you’ve got the touching of your undergarment, that’s worth at least 25 million. You’ve got the mention of her hotel room, you’ve got the plying you with a now out-of-fashion white wine…

Oh, I interrupted, I’ve handled much worse. Do not say that again, he said.

OK, I said, but if I sue for such an outlandish amount, an Australian record in fact, won’t independent-minded newspaper columnists like Miranda Devine write that I’m no longer a victim but just another litigious, gold-digging, high-umbrage man egged on by lawyers? Yes she will, he said encouragingly.

OK, I said, I’ll do it but I’ll tell the media that if I do win the lawsuit all the money will go to charity, right? Yes, he confirmed, that would be the right thing to do.

But I won’t actually give any of it to charity, right? I’ll keep it, right? Self-evidently, he said. If you actually get the money it will no longer be possible to give it to charity, will it?

Makes sense to me, I said. And anyway, I’m going to need a nice holiday when all this is over.

Stephen Romei is literary editor of the Australian.

 Link..

Homosexuality: Anti-heterosexuality..

Cannot say that I am a great supporter of homosexuality although I did once have a flatmate suffering from that affliction and had to advise him when the love of his life (the groom and a friend)got married ( he was a heterosexual, funny how one must announce that) and I found him cringing in the corner of his bedroom, sobbing, which bought me to his room. What the hell was that noise !!

I was not aware at the time when I invited him to stay and share my farmhouse, but once I was aware I made clear that his lifestyle was not to infect mine..

Homosexuality doctrine is determined to thrust their lifestyle down our throats whether you like or not, with the help of feminists (how many times have you read their insistence on it)..

Well, this video is going to explain just a little more about their caring attitude as well their on going anti-heterosexual program..

This is probably the most potent video I have seen for some time..

Be prepared to be affected..

The Irony..

I do enjoy a little irony and this appeases me nicely..

Forcing the Court To Uphold The Law..

This is indeed a very interesting turn of events in regards to the power an individual has in court. Here we have a totally different POV regarding the standards the courts and the Police must uphold. Whenever you face a court appearance for any reason, it would appear that if you have a good knowledge of the law then you also have or can have control over the proceedings instead of being railroaded in the usual manner.
I have heard previously that you do not have to accept any ruling of the court if it has erred in it's judgment but I will leave that to those that maybe able to explain the legalities a little better, as I do not in anyway profess to understand or even comprehend the legal jargon or it's pathways..


Credits to CelticDruid..

Link..

Beyond the Marriage Strike..

As much as I know there are a few great women out there which I have no problem admitting to, the hassle of going through the chaff is just way too overwhelming as you know. Now we have untold amount of dating services even at local churches I found out this week. Mostly run by interested single, divorced or widowed women wanting to relieve their boredom and wanting to raise their lifestyle.

Unfortunately for them , men are just not that interested anymore. One does have to pose the question, "What's in it for Me"..

But, Zed, once again lays it all bare for most men. The outrageous laws designed to ensure the PP(Privileged Princesses) receive maximum reward for minimum effort is played out daily in the divorce courts and it's not men calling it quits via divorce, it's women en-masse..

That has been the case for the last 40 odd years ever since the no fault divorce laws were coerced into existence by feminists, supporters and left wing manginas chasing the "vagina" vote. And that worked out for them very well( the girls gave them carte blanche to screw the males every which way but up). Women will always vote for what benefits them and whatever else eventuates they just talk about it over coffee, or at all, why should they bother when it assists their outcomes..

So meanwhile, we have that ongoing "face saving" statements as Zed highlights, where women are at a loss as to what to do, even when the bleedin obvious is staring them in the face..

Obviously not part of the "coffee chat time" conversation either..

So who really cares, I mean really. One can continue in life doing one's own thing without going through the wringer and I think that is where we have finally woken up and decided that it's just not worth it..

Ofcourse the odd manginas marrying feminists as in the previous post will not stop but mostly, men have realised and come to grips with the obvious..

And that is that it's a road to be avoided at all costs..

Beyond the Marriage Strike: Entering the Era of Post-Marriage Consciousness

by zed on October 24, 2010

Now, I start this essay knowing that there is a fairly well-known MRA who will attack me for having the audacity to say what I am about to say. A lot of people seem to very hung up on this term “marriage strike” and are betting on it to produce social change of the type they wish to see.
However, being attacked, insulted, and called names for daring to give voice to ideas which go against the grain of conventional social wisdom is something I have had to grow quite used to over the past 4 decades or so.
While the idea of a marriage strike is a cute sound bite, I think it has several major problems both as a metaphor for what is happening culturally and as a strategy. The first and biggest problem for the MRA side of the issue is that it implies that the changes in patterns of marriage that we are seeing today are temporary, and that sooner or later all these so-called “marriage strikers” will “go back to work.”  I don’t think that is true, and that the changes in mass behavior are permanent and just the beginning of a major cultural-level shift in behavior reflecting the shift in values over the past 50 years.
In a classic strike situation management has a variety of strategies to break the union and break the strike. They can employ goons (White Knights) to go in and break the heads of the strikers. They can find scabs (manginas) to do the jobs that the strikers are not doing. Or they can stage a lockout and refuse to employ strikers in hopes that they can starve them into capitulation.
This last strategy is the one women are currently using – claiming it is them, not men, who are avoiding marriage. All this conveniently ignores the caterwauling of women over the past 40 years that men were “Peter Pans who can’t make a committment” and the fact that there are no Groomzillas nor Groom Magazines gracing the racks by the checkout stand.  There is currently a “Project Husband” – a classic attention-seeker who has the date set and the wedding planned and only needs the small detail of a groom – but no “Project Wife.”  And, we even have a woman marrying herself – complete with photos in a flowing white dress, a wedding planner, and a banquet hall for a marriage celebration with 30 friends –  but no men engaging in such surreal antics.  Every time I think women have reached the absolute peak of narcissism, beyond which it is simply not possible to go, some woman shows up and proves me wrong.  The woman with the life-size wedding cake in her own likeness was the previous high-water mark, but at least she did have a groom.
The entire idea of a strike is that it accepts the status quo as legitimate and as the only option. Faced with falling demand for their product, US women have fallen back on the time-honored method of protectionism – passing IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation act, using their worn, but still effective, method of painting all men as abusers. Imagine what sort of condition Firestone Tires would be in today if, instead of addressing their quality problem, they had gotten huffy and said “Well, NOT ALL our tires are ‘like that.’ Not every one will fail on you and kill you and/or your family.  YOU just HAVE TO find the ones that won’t.”
“I’ll take chapter 11 for $1,000, Alex.”
One of the biggest problems with even trying to discuss the issues turns out to be a religious problem. I don’t mean “religion” as in a particular religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam (although it is related) – but “religious”in the sense that we have TRUE BELIEVERS and non-believers. Many of the issues we deal with fall into this category. As Words Twice commented on my recent essay on self-reliance when it comes to self-defense:

“Many casual gun owners have a religious devotion to their pet gun de jour or some piece of gear and trying to explain to them that their conventional wisdom and cherished beliefs are often mistaken is usually more trouble than it is worth.”

Believers BELIEVE, and it the very persistence of this belief in the face of contrary evidence or argument against it which distinguishes a religious belief from other kinds of beliefs. There are TRUE BELIEVERS and non-believers. The TRUE BELIEVER has a mirror category – the TRUE DIS BELIEVER – whose faith that what the believers believe is wrong is every bit as strong as the faith of the believers.  For example, I am a TRUE DIS BELIEVER in all the tenets of feminism.  I reject it completely, and the depth of my faith is every bit as deep as that of the most committed feminist.
Now, this next bit is going to involve a bit of adroit handling. I’m going to give an example of a TRUE BELIEVER to make a point – NOT to either attack him or hold him up for ridicule. As EW says on his site – Comment with honor.
There is a blog called “Rebellion University” (I like it already) where the blogger discusses another blogger’s musings on the phenomenon of a “Marriage Strike.” he says

“I have been married for 24 years. My marriage almost ended 3 times and had serious disagreements on several other occasions. I would not characterize it as a happy marriage now. But I am still convinced that marriage is an excellent institution that I recommend enthusiastically. A good marriage adds to the quality of life for any man. If my marriage ends badly tomorrow I have no doubt that I would be seeking another committed marriage before long and hoping for a better outcome.”

This person is a TRUE BELIEVER. Despite his own personal experience, he is “still convinced that marriage is an excellent institution that I recommend enthusiastically.” And, if his current excursion into the land of marital bliss “ends badly tomorrow I have no doubt that I would be seeking another committed marriage before long and hoping for a better outcome.”
God bless him, and God love him. And I mean that sincerely, it is not a snark.
All I can say here is that I, personally, would and do choose different strategies. At some point in my experience, if what I have been doing has not worked out, then instead of doing the same thing and hoping for a better outcome, I do something different.
I am a marriage non-believer. I do not believe in Marriage 2.0, and I mostly do not believe in my countrywomen. I pretty much agree with Mr. Price about “Stop Looking For a Wife: You Won’t Find One.” The difference between him and me is that I never actually looked for one, because I never was a Marriage True Believer. Probably the strongest point in favor of the institution that I ever reached was “marriage skeptic.” I saw a lot of gruesome marriages as I was growing up, and I watched my older brother’s marriage crash and burn before I was out of high school. My older sister’s marriage crashed and burned a few years later. Like the safety films they used to show us in high school with names like “Wheels of Tragedy” which showed ghastly car wrecks from driving recklessly, I looked at the carnage from brutal divorces that I was seeing all around me, and decided not to engage in high risk behavior.
As a result, I tend to not be as negative toward either marriage or women as men who have been through the meat grinder of family courts, but rather take more of a “none for me, thanks” position.
The tired old NAWALT dodge is wasted on guys like me – “There are still lots of good women out there, YOU JUST HAVE TO go out and find them.”
Um, sorry, no, actually, I don’t “have to.” There are a lot of laws that require me to do things – file tax returns, pay taxes, get a license to drive plus a license for every vehicle I intend to drive on public streets. But, there are no laws that say I “have to” go out, sort through all the turds for as long as it takes to find my tootsie roll (HT: Anakim Niceguy, aka Jaded Guy), stand at the foot of her tower pleading “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair”, court her, lay my worldly goods at her feet, and wait with bated breath while she rules on my “worthiness.”
As novaseeker has observed, people not marrying does not mean that they are not pairing up – at least for the few years it takes to produce one or more offspring. With marriage going down and cohabitation going up, the response of the White Knights has been to extend what were formerly marital prerogatives for women and obligations for men to cohabiting relationships. This is a singularly bad strategy for women because it forces the commitment-phobes to end an otherwise satisfying relationship before she gains legal claim on his assets and his work.
Now, the owners of the means of (re)production are counting on the fact that men need women so badly that all women have to do is wait men out and men will come around. And, I think the term “marriage strike” lends itself to this kind of thinking. After all, a striker’s bills go on whether he is working or not. Eventually he will run out of food, and the heat and lights will be cut off and he will have to take whatever he is offered or starve.
But, what if he doesn’t? What if he decides to up and move somewhere else where the availablity of work and working conditions are better? What if he has been frugal enough that he looks at his fiscal situation and decides that he can just retire?
Women and marriage are getting a whole lot of very bad PR right now. From Bill’s article, to how Bridezillas are portrayed, to the amount of hostility and violence expressed by not just women,but young girls as well, toward males of all ages. “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.”
But, bad PR is nothing new. As I said, growing up I saw a lot of gruesome marriages. The mother of one friend of mine was referred to as “the meanest woman in 4 counties.” For the last 15 years of my friend’s father’s life, his wife thought he was deaf because he never acknowledged hearing anything she said. Everyone in those 4 counties knew that he could hear just fine, and in 15 years NOT ONE PERSON TOLD HER!!! Everyone knew what a truly toxic person she was, but her husband stuck with her because he was a marriage true believer and kept hoping for a better outcome.
Not surprisingly, my friend never married.
I was moved from the “marriage skeptic” camp to the “marriage non-believer” camp by a number of experiences – including one with my doctor. More than 30 years ago, when I was in for one of my yearly physicals, he asked me if I was married. I said no, I wasn’t, and he replied “Every night, and every morning, get down on your knees AND THANK GOD that is the case!!!!!“
At the time he was going through his 2nd gruesome divorce and was showing major signs of anxiety disorders – nervous ticks, picking and pulling at his hair (he looked like a cancer patient), and that death-camp look on his face.
I got a real chuckle through the years out of being able to respond to the question “Why aren’t you married” completely truthfully with “Doctor’s orders.”
I never actually took him literally and prayed to god twice a day, but over and over again over the years I had MANY occasions to look up and say “Thank you god that I am not married to a woman like that.” One of them is married to a member of my family, so I get a regular dose of “so, that is what living hell really looks like.” One of the benefits she thinks she gets from marriage is the right to use her husband’s family as a captive audience to listen to her complaints, mostly about him. Close to 30 years ago when they were first married she used to call me up to have someone to listen to her complain about him. And, the #1 thing she wanted to complain about was that he wanted to have sex with her. (Shades of Mary Winker!!) AND FOR ME TO AGREE WITH HER ABOUT HOW AWFUL THAT WAS!!! I had to really stomp on her repeatedly to drive home a few points -

1. That is the deal of marriage. I’m sure that every morning at 5:00am when he had to roll out of bed to go to work so he could support her and she didn’t have to work, that there were some mornings when he didn’t feel jumping-up-and-down enthusiastic about doing it. But, he did it because that was the deal he made and he was going to live up to it.
2. That, as a man, I had a LOT more sympathy for his position than hers,
3. That she was betraying her husband about as severely as it is possible to betray someone by not just spreading around details about their husband and wife relationship, but that she was trying to so with a member of his own family and that blood always will be thicker than water, and
4. That I was NOT going to listen to this, and that every time she tried I would tear her a new one so not to EVER bring the subject up to me again!

Nearly 30 years have gone by and I still absolutely loathe this woman. I’m sure I could have forgiven her over the years if she had figured out the error of her ways, mended them, and repented – but she never did. Thirty years later she is still the kind of woman who would use her husband’s family as a captive audience – thoroughly exploiting the social graces which we have that she doesn’t – to listen to her bitch about our family member – if we would allow her to, which we don’t.
THANK YOU GOD THAT I AM NOT MARRIED TO A WOMAN LIKE THAT!!!
And, at this point, I have to say “Thank you, feminism.” See, just about the time that I was entering the most vulnerable years for a young man to possibly get trapped into a marriage with a woman like I have just described, women started telling me that they needed me no more than a fish needed a bicycle, and that marriage was “oppression” for women. And, I listened to them and believed them. And right then I started organizing my thinking and my beliefs so that I could make women in general, and any particular woman, equally as irrelevant to me.  Thus, when I would meet a woman who kept a sign on her bedroom door that said something like “I am a high performance woman!  I go from zero to BITCH in 0.2 seconds.  Caution, the bitch switch sticks!” or “It’s all about me, DEAL WITH IT!“, I could just go “OK.  C’ya, bye.”  (real examples which completed the job of moving me to the true non-believer camp)
So, now I’m about as hard core a non-believer as it is possible to be. If I met a woman tomorrow who was better looking than Jennifer Anniston AND Haley Barrry combined, cooked better than Julia Child, and knew more sex positions than Xaviera Hollander, I would still have a voice in my brain going “Run, Forrest, RUN!!!”
So, I, personally, am not on a “marriage strike”, because I have no intention of ever “going back to work” of marriage.  Personally, I have entered a state of mind where I do not see marriage as necessary, or in most cases even desirable.  It was a very useful institution in the past, but it has been completely demolished by women, white knights, and manginas over the past 50 years – just as the rubble of many ancient cites lie in mute testament to the structures which once stood there.  I am completely and totally in a state of post-marriage consciousness and my only question is not “when?” or even “whether”, but “what comes next.”
And, I believe that instead of being concerned about any sort of marriage strike, and particularly not believing that all women have to do is wait men out and they will “go back to work”, I think what marriage True Believers need to be concerned about is the loss of the faithful. Once a man stops believing in marriage, and in the women who are his potential mates, there is absolutely nothing going on in this culture to encourage him to start believing again.