All Gender Wage-Gap Arguments Lead to Totalitarianism

I am assuming we all know that the "$0.76 paid to women for every $1.00 a man earns" argument is a completely distorted statistic which feminists and their political lackies are using as propaganda to fuel their ceaseless battle on males in the war for female gender supremacy/Marxism.

Yet how often do we hear some feminist "useful idiot" spout off that they believe women should get "equal pay for equal work?" It is one thing for us to acknowledge that certain feminists, such as those at "A Bird's Nest Blog" http://abirdsnest.wordpress.com/2007/02/09/guilty-pleasures/ , are truly ignorant people who haven't got a clue what they are talking when they speak of such things. And ignorant is the kindest word for people who rally behind such claims while ignoring that the populace fully supported laws making such discrimination illegal way back in 1963. http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html For those mathematically challenged students chasing after their "BA in Gender Studies," 1963 was 44 years ago - that is twice the length of time your average Gender Studies Graduate has lived. We can go into the historical socio-economic conditions which allowed such imbalanced conditions to arrive on another day... perhaps after you attach yourself to the idea 2007 minus 1963 = 44 years, therefore, you are a moron.

In case you are a feminist, currently enrolled or enthralled in Gender Studies, please read the following pieces to establish that you are indeed a misled "useful idiot:"

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/ba392.pdf
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922.html
http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=515

Now, it is one thing for the "general population" of feminists to be so glaringly guilty of a lack of facts and history. We have rightly come to not expect much in the way of intelligence and integrity from them. However, standing conspicously out in the open like a naked Debra Lafave at the Boy Scout Jamboree, is the never discussed willingness of prominent politicians to use this distorted "fact" in order to gain votes. Truly a treasonous act.

First, let's establish that when a politician like Canada's Maria Minna, or a US Presidential Candidate like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, yammers on and on about "$0.76" and the need to do something about it - they know! They know they are lying! If they don't know that what they are campaigning for has been solved over 4 decades ago... then who should? Let's establish that not a squeak of feminist flatulence is emitted from a Presidential Candidate without an army of people researching every fact and detail, and every noise made is carefully crafted by a team of individuals who analyze every aspect of the electorate's psychology in regard to said noises. There are no "mistakes" when you run for leader of the free world!

So what are these people saying to us? They are using the Hegelian Dialectic to establish that the "Truth is Relative" and then they are saying "who says your truth is more real than my truth?" This fact is established by them arguing that something can be done about it, rather than taking a realistic approach and saying: "Men & Women are different, and therefore they make different life-choices which will cause a wage-gap without discrimination being the cause." A simple acknowlegement of this fact would permanently kill the "Wage Gap" argument in a fortnight - But, where is the totalitarianism is that?

So what do the enlightened ones propose can be done to solve the "Wage Gap?" Well, in Canada we have feminist theorists who get on the News and discuss such aspects as passing laws forcing businesses to give "flexi-time" to women so they can juggle having a family and a career. I seen one woman who argued that even the Prime Minister's office & the Canadian Parliament should be forced to adhere to "flexi-time" laws so that more women & single moms can consider running for public office while juggling family duties. (Need I say it? OK, fine then! Being leader of your country is a 24/7 job and your family life certainly and neccessarily suffers from it... YOU MORON!)

Of course, a politician can rally the populace to such a scheme because of "economically disadvantaged single mom's" and the "best interest of the child." That feminists and the government are complicit in creating the bursting "single mom" demographic and therefore, also directly contributed to the widespread poverty of children seen in the typical single mom "family" is something that is competely ignored. Historical revisionism is not known to be a tactic too low for Marxists to stoop to... the end does justify the means, as is common throughout all Marxist social planning.

What are some other solutions to the Wage Gap? Daniel Amneus, in Chapter Two of his book The Garbage Genereation http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html , chronicles how feminist Carolyn Shaw Bell proposes "a special tax to pay for the welfare benefits of families headed by women, and sufficient to increase these benefits so as to wipe out the income differential between poor children with only a mother and well-off children with two parents. The tax would be levied on all men." Another raving lunatic feminist, Howard University Ph D candidate Martha Sawyer, backs up this theory by speculating that "the cost of these fatherless families should be paid by "the most advantaged category, monied white men." For those of you who think this is some dream-like fantasy, let me remind you that Gudrun Schyman of Sweden's Left Party has proposed such a gender-biased taxation system. http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=468&date=20041005 But who's to say this is not a version of equality? The Truth is Relative... Excuse me for a moment, I feel something coming back up the down pipe.

So, lets have a look at what intervention in the wage-gap "problem" will really look like:

- Currently the "wage gap" is NOT caused by a women working for $15/hr while keeping pace with the man next to her earning $20/hr. The wage gap is caused by the average woman working less hours in a week, women taking time off when they have children, women retiring earlier, and women choosing jobs for "emotional fullfilment" rather than the financial bottom line. THIS is what causes a "wage gap" between men's & women's lifetime income. Period, end of story. Take your Hegelian logic and shove it! This is black and white. If feminists would acknowledge these simple facts, wage-gap arguments would suddenly shift to the question: Is it possible to force "un-natural equalization" upon a situation that is "unequal by natural consequences?" The answer of course, is written in black on a white sheet of paper: NO. It is impossible to create "perfect equillibrium" without the use of totalitarianism - and even then...

- It is safe to assume that no-one forces women to have children - her body, her choice. Therefore all negative (& positive) consequences of her choice are completely her responsibility. Society is relieved of any responsibility for this. If you choose to go out and buy the biggest house in town, but the mortgage payments bite into your "pub money," - is it my responsibility to buy you drinks while I'm an apartment renter?

- If we forced every business to hire 50% women and 50% men, we might go a ways to eliminating the wage gap - as women will also be taking construction, farming, mining, military combat and garbageperson jobs. They will not be choosing what to do with their life however. This is how things worked in the USSR. When you finished highschool, you were told what job you would do for the rest of your life. This is not a stretch. The Liberal Party of Canada recently stated they have a "short-list" for women MP's so as to reach their quota of 33% female MP's. The Liberal Party obviously does not believe in the "free market of voter democracy" at all. But this is the start of the harrowing situation we will get if these "intellectuals" refuse to put Hegelian logic aside for a while.

- One must also realize that mathematically, hiring 50% women and 50% men will still result, over time, in more men being in the workforce than women. Currently women work fulltime while they are single & childless, but there is a natural tendency for women to cut back their commitment to the workplace when children arrive on the scene (her body, her choice, of course). In fact many women wish to only return to the workplace on a part-time basis after taking time off for having children & never fully return to working in the capacity before they had children. This is not patriarchal oppression, but rather women choosing a lifestyle which is in accordance with nature. This phenomena has been displayed in places like Britain, who have discovered that 50/50 gender quotas for entrance into Medical Schooling results in less doctors available to the public, because female doctors tend to pull back out of their professions after a decade or so, whereas male doctors plow right on through until retirement. A mathematical solution to this situation would be to dictate that businesses hire perhaps 60% women and 40% men so that as time erodes on the workplace, the overall the balance works out to a 50/50 "gender balance" in any given 50 year period.

- Now, imagine that in our forced 50% hiring situation, the average woman still puts in less hours a week than her male colleagues. (I don't have the exact figures, but it is something to the tune of full-time women working 10hrs/wk less than full-time men). This will likely happen even more when she figures out garbage collection & combat duty are not glamour jobs. Well! We will still be able to show a wage gap! Yup, men will still earn more. The great Hitlery Clinton proposed her feminist solution to this problem when she put forth the "Paycheck Fairness Act" to the New York Senate. Carey Roberts describes Hillary's proposed act here: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050426 "...On April 19 Senator Clinton introduced the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, a law that would pressure employers to fatten women's paychecks, regardless of the number of hours worked or job qualifications." This is nothing more than saying "each according to his abilities & each according to his needs." Classic Marxist talk! And everytime politicians have previously monkeyed with divorcing financial gain from productivity, it has turned into an economic & social disaster of monumental magnitude. What the hell is this gringa thinking?

- Of course, even if Hillary Clinton's insane Paycheck Fairness ideas were to be enforced, it would still not eliminate the wage gap! Women DO take time off from their life-time career to have children. 5 years off out of your career for the children seems to be about the norm. Let's just say that the average person has a 50 year work-life. 5 years equals 10% of that, therefore, feminists will still argue that there is a wage gap. Add onto that number that women tend to retire earlier than men, by say another 5 years, and now you have a wopping 20% wage gap even though you have previously legislated the work place with gender laws. Well, there is only one solution for this problem: MORE LEGISLATION/TOTALITARIANISM! Yes, the only way to eliminate this aspect of the wage-gap is to force women to go to work immediately after giving birth and forcing women to work the exact same amount of years in their life as men. This also means that women would no longer be allowed to get an education, take 5 years off to have children & then choose to only return to employment on a part-time basis as many women currently do. For such actions would also contribute to the "wage gap."

The entire wage-gap argument also goes directly against core principles of a free enterprise economy. When I hear a feminist yammering on about the need to force businesses to allow flexi-time & provide childcare for women in the workplace, I think the following: If a woman was so valuable to her employer that he could not afford to lose her, he would willingly provide her with those things to keep her! And, if a woman was such a hot-shit commodity to an employer, she would not need to have laws forcing her employer to hire her back after paid maternity leave - he would hire her back immediately because it was in his best financial interest to do so! And, if you force employers to provide such services to women while paying them the exact same wage to a man who does not require such extra benefits... will this not result in a man becoming a "better product for cheaper?" I mean, if a man gets paid $40,000/year and that's it - he stays at the job longer (less training expenses), he does not take absense for a year & leave his employer in a lurch trying to find a temporary 1 year employee (who will require extra training expenses), the man will not add to expensive inefficiency by requiring the employer adheres to his personal schedule, the man will not demand that his employer subsidize the daycare expenses of his children (= $$$), and so on and so on. The logical conclusion to this nonsense is that while both men and women get paid the same, a woman may still cost an employer $10,000/year more than a man! Therefore, by free-enterprise economics, employers will still try to keep more men on staff than women, because in general men will mean profit while women will represent the same profit MINUS expensive benefits based on gender. Men will be a superior product, and even if people don't want to say it, employers will still know just by looking at the bottom line. The only way to get rid of this is for the government to take control of private businesses to ensure "proper" quotas are met, and are not influenced by other factors of mankind and nature!

This is beginning to sound a whole lot like totalitarian Communism, dontcha think? Quickly browse these quotes from prominent feminists and see what they think about women in the workplace:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975

"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

"The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation... [This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics p.178-179

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

Do you see the natural progression of the $0.76 argument? Do you wonder why, here in Canada, 2 out of the 3 major political parties are demanding that "State Run Daycare" be a top priority? Do you know who else provided state run daycare for women so they could be "equal" in the workplace? Vladmir Lenin, thats who!

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040116 :
"So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law."

All of this nonsense is a direct result of Hegelian logic. Once again, Cultural Marxists have chosen feminist agent provocateurs to start a never ending argument against nature! And it really is an argument against nature, and in fact, a direct assault on the family! Yes, $0.76 is an assault on the family! The entire $0.76 argument completely ignores hypergamy. http://fisheaters.com/gb9.html And this is a big deal. Really, it is. If women's attraction to men is based on hypergamy (logically too, for it supports benefits for the next generation), then to eliminate the wage-gap which results as a natural occurence, will also directly take away a large portion of men's attractiveness to women. It would be similar to offering all the males in the country a state-supplied piece of tail 2.6 times a week and wondering if men will still ask women out on dates. Ask yourself what would happen to marriage, families & future populations if men had all the free pieces of ass they could get their hands on! - Don't have to work, don't have to shower, don't have to be polite... you'll still get laid! Think about all the intricate ramifications to even the smallest aspects of society. It is positively endless - and very destructive.

This is where people should ask why left-wing, yoga practising, bottled water drinking, Green Peace loving, wouldn't eat a turnip unless it is organically grown & raw with dirt still on it, vegetarian-vegan, nature is best HYPOCRITES are so obviously supporting an un-natural form of the family & society. How can human intervention on anything in the natural world be bad, but directly monkeying with the mating habits of humans in an un-natural way is considered to be downright desireable? One has to ask these left-wing useful idiots what they would say if the government intervened in the natural way Bald Eagles mated? What would they say if at the start of government intervention, Bald Eagles were producing 3.9 offspring per female... but after government intervention to help Eagles with reproduction, Eagles were producing only 1.5 offspring per female... and the Eagles were dying out as a result? What would happen? These same leftist hippie freaks would be marching on Washington demanding that the government stop monkeying with nature!

It's really not that hard to imagine mankind as just another animal on the planet, is it? Don't the same leftist hippie freaks demand that we all believe in the Theory of Evolution? Don't they all believe that we are evolved from animals, and in fact, we still are animals? Wouldn't that assumption also demand that we acknowledge we have "mating instincts?" Is it "unfair" in nature that a male of the species chooses a female with the best attributes for passing on his genes, and that the female of the species chooses a male with the best attributes for ensuring the survival of her & her offspring? This does not seem to be a stretch with other animals. Why is it evil in regard to "human animals?" Evil to the point that direct intervention is encouraged! Think about that while you sip your wheat-juice. Feminism is un-natural and continually chooses arguments against nature!

It all makes sense, however, when one recognizes that all things feminist are solidly based in Marxism. It's goals are not "justice" between the genders... it's goal is destruction of the family & capitalism. (The patriarchal family, of course, IS Capitalism http://fisheaters.com/gb3.html ). It wants the system to self-destruct because only after the destruction will mankind rise out of the ashes and realize a "new kind of humanity."

"Women, like men, should not have to bear children... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

Ah, yes. Marxofeminist Utopia! It is also interesting to note their rabid opposition to religion (Marriage comes from religion, remember. The gov't didn't invent it!). People who believe in religion are freakin nuts, according to feminists like Amanda Marcotte and her cronies. In Communist Russia, people who believed in religion were thought to be mentally insane and were locked up for it. But what the Marxofeminists don't seem to recognize is that they too have "blinding irrational faith." They somehow believe that destruction of society will result in a better society. That all situations where it has been attempted has proven to be a massive human disaster does not deter them at all. So confident are they in the face of logic, history and human decency, that they don't recognize the massive amount of "religious faith" they are displaying with their belief that they are creating a better kind of humanity. All common-sense would resoundingly indicate otherwise.

Now you can believe what I'm saying about the wage gap, or you can surf on over to "A Cuckou Nest" and read what the head cuckou believes causes the wage gap and how to solve it:

http://abirdsnest.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/responses-to-the-commenters-on-the-guilty-pleasures-post/

Uccelline said:

I think it’s important to consider the factors behind the choices we make. If women take five years out of their careers to have children, or work ten hours less per week, these things hardly happen in a vacuum. I suspect such statistics reflect necessity more than choice; if more men took responsibility for childcare, I think you would see a distinct shift.

"Women lawyers don’t marry waiters, but male lawyers do marry waitresses” - those are the stereotypes, sure. But to me this says more about how our culture measures the value of a man as opposed to the value of a woman than about individual dynamics. Women don’t have to be educated or high-earning, they just have to be pretty and pleasant. Men don’t have to be pretty or pleasant, but they should be smart and rich. These expectations hurt everyone, male and female.

Of course, I believe Uccelline is a useful idiot who hasn't got a freakin' clue about anything in life except for knitting and mindlessly bashing men. Anyone who can argue "equality" and then in the same argument declare women are not "equally responsible" is truly a useful idiot in the first degree. This is why she automatically shifts the wage-gap "problem" to men, and then states that hypergamy "expectations hurt everyone, male and female" but of course, she would be hard pressed to define why these expectations hurt everyone... I mean, are children hurt by this too? And more specifically, HOW are children hurt by this? We do know that children fare better with fulltime parental guidance, don't we? And not being poor because of your father's economic performance certainly doesn't hurt children...

But people like Hillary Clinton and other leftist politicians... do you really think they are useful idiots? If I can find out this kind of information on my own, free of charge... what do you think someone with a multi-million dollar political campaign budget and an army of researchers & staff must know in regard to such arguments? And if they don't know, who should?

Makes you wonder, if the general public only knew... would the 0.76 argument suddenly turn to a discussion of whether the gallows will still work if they are only 76% the height of regular gallows?

George Orwell Speaks Out and Tells MGTOW Bloggers How to be the Most Effective

It is worthwhile to read George Orwell's concept of simplifying the written word to maximize the impact on one's readership.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

Save the English Language!

All but the most pusillanimous of turds will see the value in this.

Selkie's Blog: End of the Road

I've bumped into Selkie from time to time at SYG, at Karl's & on the blogosphere. We've only directly spoken a few times but each time impressed me enough that whenever I see a comment left by her, I take the time to read it - because it's worth my time.

http://whatafreakinmess.blogspot.com/

Did I mention she's a fellow Canucklehead?

A Gem from the Comments...

Bukko_in_Australia said...

"Came to your blog from your post on Marcotte's. At first I thought it was a parody, like the Al Bundy bit was on TV. But you seem to be serious.

It must be sad to be you, living with so much anger and bitterness. When I think about people like you hate-filled right-wingers, it makes me gladder that I emigrated from the U.S. to Australia. It's not perfect here, but people on the whole are nowhere as nasty as your lot. Good luck with what's coming to the U.S., mate. You deserve it, because you helped make it."

You know, this seems to be a common thread from the Marxofeminists lately. Anyone who speaks out is labelled a hate-filled right-winger. Anyone who opposes the Cultural Marxist politically-corrected line is automatically some right-wing fanatic.

Hey Bukko, you've been glaring at the right with your squinty, hate-filled eyes for so long that I was wondering when was the last time you turned your head to see the guy standing to your left?

Go ahead, have a look. You can do it... I know your neck must be sore from staring down on the hate-filled right-wingers for so long - but force yourself through the pain of your kinked neck and say hello to the guy to your left...

What? There's nobody there?

Well, you know what, Bukko? You are apparently in the group that is as radically far left as possible! That's what feminism = Marxism means, YOU are as radical on the political spectrum as it gets.

Small wonder that everyone who opposes feminists gets screached at for being right-wing - everyone else but Marxofeminists and their ilk are to the political right of them!

Bukko, it is an honor to stand to the right of you.

Hello to a Loyal Reader!

Thought I'd post a reciprocal link, out of a "kindness of my heart" spirit.

http://abirdsnest.wordpress.com/2007/02/09/guilty-pleasures/

Glad you enjoy visiting my blog.

Neat trick to have "misogynist" automatically appear next to my name in the comments window.

How a Man Handles the Snow

http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/


I'll bet harpie feminist entitlement princesses will still complain that he is not pulling his weight around the house!

Finally Banned From Pandagon! Fembot Bingo Score: 2 Houses!

Well, I assume that I have finally been banned from Pandagon. I started giving out quotes from feminists like MacKinnon et. al. which state by feminism's own description that feminism IS communism and Pravdagon censored my remarks into oblivion. Jeez, they even censor the words that come directly from their own Comradettes mouths when it suits their purposes, so what chance does a future Gulag resident such as moi have?

I have an idea that Pravdagone allowed so many dissenting commentators for a short time (waiting for the dust to settle) because Comradette Amanda Marcotte got caught running back to her blog and deleting (aka revisionism) some of her most offensive remarks & came under fire for such pre-totalitarian style behaviour & she probably felt that her 15 minutes were so scorching hot under the glare of the nation that she had better at least feign that she believes in the basic principles of freedom, such as free speech. But the dust has settled, I suppose, and the Marxofeminist machine is rumbling down the road again, continually travelling towards its goal of equally making everyone's life miserable with their proven failed pseudo-religious ideology.

Comradette Marcotte is back to posting her usual double standard vitriol again, as can be seen with this latest entry at Pravdagone:

"How To Get Banned:

Bore me.

And for the brand new crop of tedious bores who blame feminism for all your problems, though you have no real idea what 'feminism' is, except you know that it has something to do with women, who you don't like much, I will say this. Don't whine when you yammer on in a boring style until you are banned. The internet is not all that different from real life. You know what getting tossed out of public places for assholery and groping women is like. You can take it here."

Good for you, Mzzzz. Marcotte. It's best for delicate little flowers like you to remain in the echo-chamber, hairy-legged & chained to the keyboard. Out of sight from the general public where you can remain safe to make-believe everyone loves people like you via strong use of censorship, until you work up enough courage to again peek out from behind the lace curtain & demand the world listen to your "feminist knows best" filthy mouth.

"...who blame feminism for all of your problems, though you have no real idea what feminism is..."

Ummm, don't people like you blame all of your problems on the Patriarchy? Can YOU define for me what the Patriarchy is, Mzzz. Marcotte? And by the way, we do know what feminism is, for you can plainly read what one of your most famous feminist leaders openly states that it is:

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

What part of that do you think is so unclear that people can't possibly understand what feminism is?

"You know what getting tossed out of public places for assholery... is like."

Actually, Mzzz. Marcotte, I think you are the expert on that one.

Though, at least before banning me, you could have called me a totally gay woman hater who was beaten by his parents, which caused me such psychological problems that I was left impotent & therefore just got dumped by my under-age gay lover.

That would have been nice, but then again, who would expect a feminist to do anything nice for a man?

MGTOW Anthem

Well, it's a day after MGTOW Day, and I think it is fitting to reflect on Wierd Al Yankovic's song "One More Minute", which was obviously written to Western entightlement princesses who have left their men to be courted by mangina-esque government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udMSWpcCGfI

A World Turned Upside Down - Steven Montgomery

Here is an excellent paper I read this evening, and I thought I would post an excerpt for you to read.



http://www.geocities.com/graymada/CB/awtud.html

...it is instructive to note that chief among the enemies of the traditional family are those who adhere to the ideology of Marx and Lenin. For instance, many of the past and present leaders of the feminist (such as Bella Abzug, Shulamith Firestone, Gloria Steinham, and others)(20) and the homosexual (Harry Hay, Dennis Altman, Marshall Kirk, Erastus Pill, and others)(21) movements are, or were, Marxist. Karl Marx himself called for the "abolition of the family," in the Communist Manifesto,(22) so it should come as no surprise that an expert on Marxism, testified before Congress in 2003 that, "the planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels."(23)

In a boast, Michael Walzer, bragged about some of the battles that Marxists have won in their war against family and western culture. For instance he bragged that through their efforts there has been, among other things he named, a "visible impact of feminism," an "emergence of gay rights politics, and . . . the attention paid to it in the media," "the transformation of family life, [including] rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements-and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media," and the "legalization of abortion."(24)

While Marxism is an ideology in which men believe, it is also crucial to understand that it is also a conspiracy in which men participate.(25) Understanding this aspect of Marxism is vital to understanding: their tactics and strategy;(26) their use of agent provocateur's to provoke change in society and culture; and to gain the information vital to those seeking to oppose these Marxist change agents and their diabolical plans.

I mention all of this so that those who are seeking to preserve traditional families might get a better understanding of the enemy they are fighting. For the primary movers, or activists, seeking to abolish the family adhere to the ideology of Marx and Lenin. They seek to establish moral anarchy. Since the "perfect classless society" will supposedly be established upon the ashes of chaos and anarchy, moral anarchy is the goal. A "psy-ops war" is being conducted against us then, where infidelity, atheism, moral licentiousness, intemperance, civil corruption, greed, avarice, and ambition-personal, political, and national-are glorified and promoted-all in an effort to weaken us and our will to resist. The casualties in this war include not only their victims but those who have been pulled and thrust into new fields of action-hence the Marxist "peaceniks" have now mutated into environmental and NAMBLA activists-and new lines of thought-the moral relativists mutating into the worship of "self esteem", a belief in aliens, magic and "new age" psychology. These activists are shaking the faith, undermining morals, and polluting the lives of their victims who are then thrown so far off balance in their activities-economic, social, political and religious-that civilized society stands in danger of being overthrown.(27)

Further, the harm done by these social activists is not limited to those areas where they seek to advance "avant garde," or "vanguard of the proletariat," lifestyles and alternative family relationships. One study suggests that the influence of Marxist socialism and resultant socialist programs they are able to get governments to adopt, is enough by itself to deteriorate the family. For instance, that study suggests that the welfare state in Sweden has stripped the family of the economic benefits of having children, promoted lower fertility rates, and greater dependency upon paternal or "big brother government":

• While a nation's family system may reorganize, for a time, around the nuclear "husband-wife" unit of reproduction, even that basis of independence eventually dissolves. The end result of state intervention is progressively diminished fertility, with living individuals left standing alone in a dependent relationship with the government.(28)

Further, socialistic intervention by government is often, and I would argue that it is usually, harmful. As one religious leader observed:

• There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence. The more governments try in vain to take the place of the family, the less effective governments will be in performing the traditional and basic roles for which governments are formed in the first place.(29)

In other words, if the traditional and proper role of government is to protect citizens in their life, liberty and property,(30) it becomes less effective the more it assumes a paternal role in society.

Marxism, in all its variants, is an enemy to the United States, western society and culture, and contrary to reports otherwise, is not dead but is instead actively engaged in seeking to destroy our society, culture, legal institutions, including those most fundamental to preserving a free society--marriage and the family. This understanding is vital to those interested in preserving these institutions.

Read this paper in its entirety here: http://www.geocities.com/graymada/CB/awtud.html

I've got a House! (In Fembot Bingo!)

Here are Duncan's rules: http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-game.html

AND, since I've been arguing with the hell-fire communists from Pandagon, I'm pretty sure I've got at least a "house!"

1 - My penis size was mocked here by anonymous 9:11pm http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/02/amanda-marcotte-pandagon-get-oppressed.html

Anonymous 9:11pm said: "I'm truly sorry your penis is so small. Perhaps you need a bigger truck."



2 - It was suggested that I was gay here by "It has to stop":

"Amanda I think Ron is jealous and wants to be you…he obviusly needs some adjusting by a good “TV repairman”. LOL"



3 - Now, with this wingnut, Pariahuna, I'm not sure what I'm allowed to call this one? "It" insinuates that I'm 55 years old and have never had a date... ummm... ok...

Here's what it said: "Rob, seriously, get a little dignity, man. If you’re so determined to broadcast the fact that you’re a 55 year old guy who’s never had a date, the least you can do is try and come up with a better handle. Using your own name just makes it that much..sadder."

Does that mean that "it" is trying to tell me that I'm ugly and have never been able to get laid??? I mean, I don't want to say that 55 year olds are ugly, because they're not, or that that 55 year olds can't get a date = can't get laid (Because we all know that 55 year olds have a fuck of a lot more money that a 36 year old like me - meaning they most likely get laid a lot more than me!) But what is Pariahuna implying?

WELL??? DOES IT MEAN THAT?

Because if it does....

That would make this:



and that would also make this:



AND, according to the Eternal Bachelor rule book... I would have a House!

YIPPEE!!!

Though, I'm not sure on the officialness of this, so I may call in the Eternal Bachelor to judge the situation with certainty.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT DAY UPDATE:
Well, now that I've had my 40 winks of sleep, let's see if I have acquired any more Fembot Bingo squares from the Pandamaniacs...

5:07am, Pariahuna said:

LMAO, dude, how can anyone refute you? Your points are just too substantive. You’ve got it cold. It’s just too much for mere mortal brains to absorb. “I LOVE BILL O’MORE THAN I PROBABLY SHOULD BUT OH OH, JESUS GOD I masturbate remembering how much the women who seemed to recoil from me in horror actually want me because it’s part of their rape fantasies (the guy’s blog, seriously, I wanted to find out if he’s actually 60 like I suspect or else 14 and instead found a world of hilarity and delight) YOU MASTURBATE to something else, garble, SIGN UP FOR CRAZY PEOPLE’S ARMY, NAZIS, OMG YOU FOUND OUT YOU’RE A FEMINIST WHO KNEW, syduydssj, incoherent” slam dunk, guy. When you’ve got it, you’ve got it, and we just can’t compete.
As far as not being able to get laid, no way. Just because you’ve never been on a date doesn’t mean you can’t get laid. After your 75 year old mom lifts you up to vacuum under you because even though you’re able bodied you’re not going to make it easy on her to wait on you hand and foot and you curse her out for being a total princess and too lazy to do as good a job as when you weighed 40 pounds and were 3 (again, visit his blog and thank me later), you would be a total chick magnet except for how you and your normal, high functioning buddies just won’t play the game and let the femhags get you by the balls like all the other deluded guys. That and it’s just so ICKY thinking of putting anything like vibratey or falafely in that dirty hole with the she-cooties. But damn, they still want you, because how could they not? Maladjusted, seriously disturbed and incoherent creepy guys are the HAWT. And the more they run away screaming, the more they want you to chase they, and, well, you know (YOU KNOW) how that ends.




Hey! I've got my 2nd House!

Well, let's carry on and see how many other squares I can fill,

6:19am Phoenician in a time of Romans said:
http://www.walkingwithghosts.blogspot.com/

If Amynda was really for what she preached, she would first of all not preach victimhood,
Robbie-snookums, anyone who celebrates the sheer joy of fucking in the face of the disapproval of moralising prudes and whimpering milquetoasts such as yourself is nobody’s victim.

Amanda is more of a man than you can ever be, and more of a woman than you can ever handle - which is precisely why you fear her so much. You fear her speech, you fear her sexuality, and you fear her independence from your approval or disapproval.

Suffer, you pusillanimous little turd.





I would also like to tip my hat to Phoenician for the most beautiful insult I have heard in quite a while: "Suffer, you pusillanimous little turd." That is just awesome!

PUSILLANIMOUS: pu·sil·lan·i·mous /ˌpyusəˈlænəməs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pyoo-suh-lan-uh-muhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.
lacking courage or resolution; cowardly; faint-hearted; timid.
2.
proceeding from or indicating a cowardly spirit.

Beautiful, a work of art... unfortunately, it does not count for a fembot bingo square - but it should!

Well, that's all the squares I have acquired thus far... getting closer to a full fembot bingo!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Posts:

Amanda Marcotte & Pandagone get Oppressed by Gov’t & Catholics in Proper Patriarchal Fashion

Finally Banned from Pandagone

Amanda Marcotte & Pandagon Get Oppressed by Gov't & Catholics in Proper Patriarchal Fashion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008

Targeted Blogger Quits Edwards Campaign

By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer Mon Feb 12, 10:36 PM ET

RALEIGH, N.C. - One of the chief campaign bloggers for Democratic presidential candidate
John Edwards quit Monday after conservative critics raised questions about her history of provocative online messages.

Amanda Marcotte posted on her personal blog, Pandagon, that the criticism "was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign." Marcotte said she resigned from her position Monday, and that her resignation was accepted by the campaign.

Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, confirmed that Marcotte was "no longer working for the campaign." She declined additional comment.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, demanded last week that Edwards fire Marcotte and a second blogger, Melissa McEwan, for remarks he deemed anti-Catholic. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, called the messages personally offensive, but decided to keep Marcotte and McEwan on staff.

"No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won't do it," Marcotte wrote Monday night.

Earlier Monday, Marcotte wrote on her personal Web site, "The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where ... women are nothing but vessels."
Donohue called both Marcotte and McEwan "foul-mouthed bigots." He did not return a phone call seeking comment Monday night.

McEwan remains on the Edwards campaign staff. She did not return messages left Monday.

----------------------------------------------------------------

LMAO!

But you know what comes next, don't you? Yup, the feminist bitch and moan...


And here it is, preserved on this blog in case the Pandagonian ditchpigs pull a Marxist historical revisionism or something:

xhttp://punk.punkasshost.com/suspended.page/ (Copy and paste, then remove the "x" for the link - I won't link to these douchebags - note this is on a "suspended page", as they claim their site keeps crashing - sniff, sniff, something smells extra fishy in femhag land today!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Title created by Rob Fedders:

(I AM A FEMINIST; LET ME TELL YOU THE WAYS I AM BEING VICTIMIZED!)

Update: To correct misinformation in the comments, I was not "fired". I offered my resignation and it was accepted.

Because I had the nerve to be critical of the Catholic church's stance on birth control and abortion---nevermind their political opposition to distributing condoms to fight HIV, a stance that has helped usher thousands and possibly millions to their untimely deaths---I've gotten a number of letters from people who call themselves "Christians", as Bill Donohue also calls himself. Chrisitians are people who are supposed to follow the behavior and teachings of Jesus Christ. I mention this, because it seems to me that therefore, when Christians are contemplating an action that is morally questionable, it appears they should consult the Bible before acting.

Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, because even though I'm not a Christian, I was an English major, and it is important to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry. And I flipped to this passage that seems to have solid advice on what to do if you've got some asshole dragging a woman in front of an angry crowd and yelling, "SINNER!":

• The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Granted, I don't think criticizing the church for policies that hurt families and even get people killed is a "sin", but my letter writers do. But I thought I'd bring up this story for two reasons. One, I've always been impressed by the subtext of the story. I suspect, strongly, that this story is part of the reason that Christianity was so attractive to women in its early days, because this sort of random misogynist scapegoating is all too real in a patriarchy, and this story must have touched a lot of women at the time, who would be impressed with Jesus' unwillingness to play into such misogyny. In fact, from everything I understand, much of the history of Christian misogyny is one 2,000 year long backlash against early female power in the church.

I'm also impressed by how so many people who claim to follow Jesus have basic reading comprehension problems when they regard this story. (Not all---for instance, some fellow Pandagonians take their faith seriously enough to read the Bible and try to follow its precepts.) From my mailbag:

• I pray that I had some small part to play in your "resigning" from the Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!

That's from a Vivian Thomas, who also wants me to know that I'm a worthless hag.

• Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don'thave to accept that as moral. That's why it's called a religion. Look into it.

Frankly, if I were a churchy person, this "Look into it" thing would insult me, since R.R. from Tallahassee, FL is all but saying that religion is his excuse to declare his misogyny "moral" so he doesn't actually have to think and decide what his morality is for himself.

• Amanda, after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you're not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I'm figuring you're just mad at him for making you a woman.

Annette D'Amato is somewhat right, that I'm angry---but not that I'm a woman, but that people like her have such uncalled for contempt for women. But I am impressed that I gave her a small bit of education. Contrary to what people have been telling her, feminists are not demons without eyebrows (she missed the boar's teeth and snakes on our heads), but human beings.

Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:

• Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven't found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn't want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.

Reminder: Donohue was claiming to be so hurt by my "bigotry". Yet, for some reason, his supporters write me and they are more interested in telling me that my womanhood is repulsive to them. Interesting---almost as if his claims to speak for Catholicism were in fact dog whistles to scare people about women's equality.

As I told some close friends in the days that Donohue was on the news, spraying code words about "get the feminists" (which explains why he roped Shakespeare's Sister into this, even though she really had nothing to do with any of this---except she's pro-equality, which is what is really what offends Donohue and all the people who gave that anti-Semite airtime), a good half of my hate mail could be summed up, "You have a pottymouth, you stupid cunt." An example, from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:

• i like the way you trash talk i don't particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.

Right wingers right now are pretending like sexism has nothing to do with me, which is an argument that works if you think a) men get emails about how they need to suck a dick on a regular basis and b) that there's nothing whatsoever sexist about allowing men to curse but hitting the fainting couch if a woman does.

Bud Phelps, another person who opposes "bigotry", as defined by right wing shill Bill Donohue.

• It's just too bad your mother didn't abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

Time to wake up and smell reality---real bigots follow the siren call of the fascist right wing. Why would they even bother with liberals and all our equality and human rights and other tedious ideas?

Romanco De Leone was also moved by Donohue's poignant claims about insulating the Catholic church from legitimate criticisms.

• YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH
  

But I shan't belabor the point. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the hate mail the Bill Donohue's "Christian" campaign against me has inspired. This is all stuff from days ago---I've gotten more than 100 since. Hell, from the looks of my email from last night, I've had more than 100 in the past 12 hours from self-proclaimed Christians who want me to know that I have hurt their feelings and this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with their own misogyny and tendency to witch hunt.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Rob Fedders says: Ha Ha! We all know you got asked to resign (fired!), dipshit! Once the disguise of "equality" falls from the face of feminism, people can see what a toxic pile 'o shit feminists really are and wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

Welcome to your futures, you hateful femhags.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a You Tube Video of O'Reilly discussing these two twisted femhags. (8min)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IcRSsNYr5LU

They REALLY shred these two sickos, but sadly there is no mention that they are RADICAL FEMINISTS and their behaviour is typical of the whole sick cult called Feminism.

(Amyn-duh Marcotte, from PandaGONE)

The Fine Art of TV Repair

Is something wrong in your house?
.
Is there a constant subtle drone always permeating throughout what should be your retreat from the harsh world?
.
Do you think that Man Hatred is just everywhere?
.
Chances are, your TV is broken!
.
Therefore, No Ma'am will provide you with an easy, illustrated, 4-step method to fixing your "best friend."
.

.
STEP #1: Get the Proper Tools
.
.
The best tools for TV Repair can likely be found in the backyard shed. Two favourites are the pick-axe and the sledgehammer. Also find some gloves and safety goggles - The Safety Bear recommends this, so I will defer to his judgement in regard to safety.
.
Step #2: Swinging the Pick-Axe
.
.
Take a few steps to the side of your friend and grasp the pick-axe firmy with both hands. Your aim should be directly for center of the screen, as this is where the heart of the problem is.
.
The swing is performed much like a golf swing. Keep your eye on the center of the screen from the beginning of the swing right through to the end.
.
Bring the pick-axe behind you and begin your swing. Your upper body should shift the energy through your shoulders while at the same time, the weight of your body should shift from your back foot through to your front foot. Remember to keep your eye on the center of the screen throughout your swing!
.
The above illustration is an example of the results of a good first swing. The pick-axe should penetrate to the heart of the problem with a depth of at least 6 inches. A professional TV Repair Man consistently hits 10 inchers, but 6 inches is the minimum penetration needed.
.
Step #3: Sweeping the Field
.
.
Sometimes it is best to change tools and grab your sledgehammer for this task.
.
You must remove all of the glass to fully repair your TV.
.
Don't be afraid to choke up on the hammer nor to get down on your knees to get every last piece of glass out of there. There is nothing "sissy" about this. The only "sissy" thing would be to not do a thorough and complete job. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
.
Notice the craftsmanship of this professional job in that he has even removed the knobs. This attention to detail is the mark of true guildsmanship, but you need not be this fancy. Removing the glass will most likely fix your problem completely.
.
This is also an excellent time to have a look around inside the TV. You will realize that there is really nothing of substance behind the glass.
.
Step #4: Call the Wife
.
.
With the most manly bellow you can muster, holler out the following words:
.
"Woman! Come Hither!"
.
A real professional might manage to include the following:
.
"And bring me a cold one!"
.
But your main job is to have the wife come and look at your craftsmanship.
.
You can now gently explain to the missus that you believe in the "Eek-Wallet-Tee" of both sexes equally doing the housework. Point out that you have done your 50%, and the other 50% is the clean up - so hop to it!
.
Be sure to stay with the missus while she works. This is where the cold one would have come in handy, as it would give you something to do rather than just stand there doing nothing.
.
Don't be afraid to direct your wife to any teeny tiny piece of glass that she may have missed. You might impart some manly wisdom at her here by telling her that "anything worth doing is worth doing well!"
.
You're all done!
.
Go back into the house and see if that annoying drone of man-hatred has disappeared.
.
And rest assured, it will only get better from here!
.
Good job! Mr. Repairman!

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Lest We Forget: The Super Bowl Sunday Hoax

Is there anything else that illustrates so succinctly the evil depths which feminism will sink to in order to demonize men and further their anti-social agenda of relationship destruction between men and women?

It is important to understand why the femhags concocted this whole sham in order to realize the full depths of feminist evil. Carey Roberts wrote about the feminist motivation for the Super Bowl Sunday Hoax back in April '05 with his article "Un-constitutional VAWA Law Helped by a Propaganda Ploy" where we can read the following:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050412

To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. [www.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PublicPolicy/VAWA-SVPubPol.pdf] But many in Congress were opposed to Biden's bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution.

First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women?

Second, Biden's proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Biden's bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn't please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt.

In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn [SIC] of the California Women's Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the "biggest day of the year for violence against women."

That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to "explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten."

How's that for dispassionate news reporting?

Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article "Debunking the 'Day of Dread' for Women," Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. [www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp] But Ringle's expose' came too late — the genie was out of the bottle.

The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.

That is outrageous! The Super Bowl Sunday Hoax was purposefully foisted upon an unsuspecting public by feminists in order to pass laws which took away the constitutional rights of men! Now, I don't know what kind of laws the rest of the Western world are reading but the last that I heard, if someone knowingly used falseties to promote propaganda with the intent of causing discrimination against a specific group, that is the very definition of a Hate Crime - a crime against Humanity!

For you manginas out there who are saying, "Well, maybe the feminist sisters just made an honest mistake," let's read further and see exactly how purposefully and with evil intent the femhags set about launching this lie:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

Christina Hoff Sommers charted a timeline of how the apocryphal statistic about domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday was foisted upon the public over the course of a few days leading up to the Super Bowl in January 1993:

Thursday, January 28

• A news conference was called in Pasadena, California, the site of the forthcoming Super Bowl game, by a coalition of women's groups. At the news conference reporters were informed that significant anecdotal evidence suggested that Super Bowl Sunday is "the biggest day of the year for violence against women." Prior to the conference, there had been reports of increases as high as 40 percenst in calls for help from victims that day. At the conference, Sheila Kuehl of the California Women's Law Center cited a study done at Virginia's Old Dominion University three years before, saying that it found police reports of beatings and hospital admissions in northern Virginia rose 40 percent after games won by the Redskins during the 1988-89 season. The presence of Linda Mitchell at the conference, a representative of a media "watchdog" group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), lent credibility to the cause.
• At about this time a very large media mailing was sent by Dobisky Associates, warning at-risk women, "Don't remain at home with him during the game." The idea that sports fans are prone to attack wives or girlfriends on that climactic day persuaded many men as well: Robert Lipsyte of the New York Times would soon be referring to the "Abuse Bowl."

Friday, January 29

• Lenore Walker, a Denver psychologist and author of "The Battered Woman", appeared on "Good Morning America" claiming to have compiled a ten-year record showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays. Here, again, a representative from FAIR, Laura Flanders, was present to lend credibility to the cause.

Saturday, January 30

• A story in the Boston Globe written by Linda Gorov reported that women's shelters and hotlines are "flooded with more calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] than on any other day of the year." Gorov cited "one study of women's shelters out West" that "showed a 40 percent climb in calls, a pattern advocates said is repeated nationwide, including in Massachusetts."

Writers and pundits were quick to offer reasons why this "fact" was so obviously true. After all, everyone knows that men are mostly loutish brutes, and football is the epitome of mindless, aggressive, violent, testosterone-driven macho posturing. Certainly during the culmination of the football season, the final, spectacular, massively-hyped "super" game, more men than ever are going to express their excitement or disappointment by smacking their wives or girlfriends around. So much attention did the "Super Bowl abuse" stories garner that NBC aired a public service announcement before the game to remind men that domestic violence is a crime.

Ken Ringle, a reporter for the Washington Post, was one of the few journalists to bother to check the sources behind the stories. When he contacted Janet Katz, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University and one of the authors of the study cited during the January 28 news conference, he found:

• Janet Katz, professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion and one of the authors of that study, said "that's not what we found at all."
• One of the most notable findings, she said, was that an increase of emergency room admissions "was not associated with the occurence of football games in general, nor with watching a team lose." When they looked at win days alone, however, they found that the number of women admitted for gunshot wounds, stabbings, assaults, falls, lacerations and wounds from being hit by objects was slightly higher than average. But certainly not 40 percent.
• "These are interesting but very tentative findings, suggesting what violence there is from males after football may spring not from a feeling of defensive insecurity, which you'd associate with a loss, but from a sense of empowerment following a win. We found that significant. But it certainly doesn't support what those women are saying in Pasadena," said Katz.

Likewise, Ringle checked the claim made by Dobisky Associates (the organization that had mailed warnings to women advising them not to stay at home with their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday) that "Super Bowl Sunday is the one day in the year when hot lines, shelters, and other agencies that work with battered women get the most reports and complaints of domestic violence." Dobisky's source for this quote was Charles Patrick Ewing, a professor at the University of Buffalo, but Professor Ewing told Ringle he'd never said it:

• "I don't think anybody has any systematic data on any of this," said Charles Patrick Ewing, a forensic psychologist and author of "Battered Women Who Kill."
• Yet Ewing is quoted in the release from Dobisky Associates declaring "Super Bowl Sunday is the one day in the year when hotlines, shelters and other agencies that work with battered women get the most reports and complaints of domestic violence."
• "I never said that," Ewing said. "I don't know that to be true."
• Told of Ewing's response, Frank Dobisky acknowledged that the quote should have read "one of the days of the year." That could mean one of many days in the year.

In addition, Ringle learned that Linda Gorov, the Boston Globe reporter who'd written that women's shelters and hotlines are "flooded with more calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] than on any other day of the year" hadn't even seen the study she'd cited in support of that statement but had merely been told about it by Linda Mitchell, the FAIR representative who was present at the January 28 news conference that had kicked off the whole issue.

Did any evidence back up the assertion that Super Bowl Sunday was the leading day for domestic violence? When the Washington Post's Ringle attempted to follow the chain by contacting Linda Mitchell of FAIR, Mitchell said her source had been Lenore Walker, the Denver psychologist who'd appeared on "Good Morning America" the day after the conference. Ms. Walker's office referred Ringle to Michael Lindsey, another Denver psychologist who was also an authority on battered women. Mr. Lindsey told Ringle that "I haven't been any more successful than you in tracking down any of this" and asked, "You think maybe we have one of these myth things here?"

The upshot? It turned out that Super Bowl Sunday was not a significantly different day for those who monitor domestic abuse hotlines and staff battered women's shelters:

• Those who work with victims of domestic violence in Connecticut reported no increase in cases Monday, after a barrage of publicity on the potential link between Super Bowl gatherings and family violence.
• An increase in domestic violence predicted for Super Bowl Sunday did not happen in Columbus, authorities said yesterday, and others nationwide said women's rights activists were spreading the wrong message.
• Despite some pre-game hype about the "day of dread" for some women, Columbus-area domestic violence counselors said that Sunday, although certainly violent for some women, was relatively routine.

The ensuing weeks and months saw a fair amount of backpedalling by those who had propagated the Super Bowl Sunday violence myth, but - as usual - the retractions and corrections received far less attention than the sensational-but-false stories everyone wanted to believe, and the bogus Super Bowl statistic remains a widely-cited and believed piece of mis-information. As Sommers concluded, "How a belief in that misandrist canard can make the world a better place for women is not explained."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen, do you know what we have witnessed with the succesful feminist implementation of the Super Bowl Hoax into the mindset of the public and it's use in bending the US government to revoke certain Constitutional rights of men?

We have witnessed a HATE CRIME!

In a decade which saw the President of the United States come under tremendous media fire for smoking a joint and "not inhaling", and which saw a near Presidential impeachment for lying about a blowjob..., the following people got away scot-free after openly perpetrating a hate-crime which resulted in a draconian stripping of Constitutional rights (VAWA) against 50% of the population:

SHEILA KUEHL (now a California State Senator - also known for obstructing California paternity law reform - and must have since sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States - a feminist defending the constitution, lol, now there's an oxymoron.)

LINDA MITCHELL, LAURA FLANDERS & "FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN REPORTING" (FAIR)

FRANK DOBISKY & DOBISKY ASSOCIATES

LENORE WALKER (Author of "The Battered Woman")

"GOOD MORNING AMERICA"

LINDA GOROV & THE BOSTON GLOBE

THE OAKLAND TRIBUNE

ROBERT LIPSYTE & THE NEW YORK TIMES

Shame on feminists, you filthy anti-social freaks!

Divide and Conquer

I often ponder that we in the MRM are guilty of not being able to see the forest for the trees. We rant and rail against feminism as if it is the only cause of Western demise. The fact is, feminism is only one face of the subversive Marxist movement to curb freedom and consolidate power. Though, in our defence, feminism is the most vocal and rabid group out there and like the Brown Shirts they emulate, they are easily despised.



But the fact is that it is not just MRA's that are fighting this battle. Before we all go blinking insane trying to rationally argue some sense into feminists and their pussified political mangina lackeys, we should stand back and recognize that ultimately the battle is against Marxism and there are tremendous amounts of people fighting its many different assaults on freedom and the very foundations of Western Civilization.

The problem is that we don't recognize that we are all fighting the same thing, resulting in us being divided - and therefore we are easily conquered, as has been plainly evident for the past several decades.

The main thing that must be realized about the goal of Marxism is that it must first destroy society in order for their new utopian society to emerge from the ruins of the old. This is not a joke! This is a common theme heard over and over again from Marx to Lenin to Gramsci to feminists to gay rights activists. The similarities in their words and thoughts are astounding! What they all agree they must do to bring down the present society is simple:

1 - Eliminate Christianity/religion from society
2 - Destroy Marriage and the family unit

These two things must be accomplished before the Marxist utopia can arrive. Why? Because these are two things that exist in society which virtually all men who are committed to them will die to defend. The Marxist elitists will never be able to control the direction of the masses as long as people believe in the unwavering authority of the Bible, nor as long as people have the natural urge to protect and nurture those who they love in "family situations." Marxists need human robots who will do what they are told without causing much of a fuss.

What the cultural Marxists have been brilliant in doing is fracturing their opponents into so many different groups that they are each virtually powerless to launch a counter-offensive.

- Many MRA's are anti-religious, and therefore are alienating themselves to potential allies.

- Some MRA's are for abortion and so they are alienated to anti-abortionists.

- Many father's rights activists only oppose custody and family law - but couldn't be bothered about other draconian laws against men, like biased rape laws.

- Religious activists are for strengthening marriage and are against abortion but many are also proudly proclaimed feminists and would rather light themselves on fire than recant it.

- Those who oppose the evolution theory are written off as religious nuts even though many who question it are not religious at all. (And who told us religion was "nuts" to begin with?)Questioning evolution theory in Western schools is asking for a quick dismissal because it is essential in discrediting religion.

- Environmental groups are hellbent on passing Marxist style restrictions on society, especially since the "Global Warming Report", yet there are many scientists and historians out there who are screaming on apparent media-deaf ears, that since humans have been recording temperatures there have been many dramatic, decades long temperature shifts that are similar to what we are experiencing - both warming and cooling.

The list could go on almost forever about all of the anti-freedom movements that have taken hold since the 60's "anti-establishment movement" has become the "new establishment." And we should all recognize that every one of the groups opposed to the Marxist left has the same frustration with fact distortion, advocacy research, illogical logic and basic bulldozer "Brown Shirt" tactics that MRA's face!

The fact is, those freedom loving hippies from the 60's didn't know the first thing about freedom, but they did get propagandized about Marxism - over and over again. Now they are in power and are carrying out their drug induced utopian vision via any totallitarian means their elitist egos see fit. Marxism has no room for honesty, integrity, civility, logic and the like. Marxists believe the ends justify the means and the "new utopia" is the ultimate end - therefore, they will bulldoze any and all opposition, believing with their elite view that they know best, and the rest of us are just silly children who don't know what's good for them.

It's time for all of the various groups to recognize that we don't have to agree on everything. What we have to do is put our differences aside and defeat our PC Marxist overlords first. We can work out the details later - when we can have free access to all the facts.

United, we could kick these dipshits to the curb.

THE Statement for the New Millenium

From Bernard Chapin,

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/26/women-are-not-oppressed/

"...crazed feminists multiply and become more powerful when good men think they're above responding to them." (Bernard Chapin)

Well said, Mr. Chapin, well said!

Pierre Elliot Trudeau: Cultural Marxist Wrapped in a Canadian Flag

Those of you who are Canadian readers may remember the 2002 mini-series "Trudeau" that the tax-subsidised Canadian Pravda (read: the CBC) created with further tax-subsidies. (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0299404/) Of course, at the time, Pierre's own Liberal Party held a majority of seats in the Cremlin...erm...Parliament, so it comes as no surprise that Canada's greatest Marxist was hailed as some sort of Canadian hero rather than someone who implemented some of the most damaging and ridiculous legislation in Canadian history. Sigh, I suppose it was only to be expected, for his longtime henchman, Jean Chretien, was in power and he still worshipped the very ground that Trudeau had walked on. Remember Chretien's failed attempt to rename Canada's highest peak, Mt. Logan, as Mt. Trudeau? (A peak in British Columbia did eventually become named Mt Trudeau in 2006 - but it was not Mt. Logan. When Canada's greatest mountain gets renamed, Mr. Chretien, it will be christened "Mt. Fedders.")

This blogger wonders, however, if many of us Canadians recognize precisely how Marxist the "great" Trudeau was, and whether the future history books will view him as kindly as the pro-left (read: need tax dollars just to survive) CBC did.

Here is a very telling article which illustrates exactly how deeply Trudeau believed in Marxism:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000trudeau.htm

Trudeau and his Communist friends - by Jamie Glazov, Ph D. (Oct 16, 2000)

He never met a communist he didn't like.

That's the reality that all of the adoring eulogies to former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau somehow fail to mention.

It was completely expected that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro showed up for Trudeau's state funeral on October 5, after he declared three days of mourning in his totalitarian state. The two were great buddies ever since Trudeau visited Cuba in 1973 and proclaimed "Viva Castro!" One only has to read Armando Valladaras' "Against All Hope" to get a good sense of the moral degeneracy it takes to utter such words about the father of Cuba's concentration camp system.

Valladaras, a Cuban poet who spent twenty years of torture and imprisonment for merely raising the issue of freedom, provides the most indicating and heart-wrenching account of Castro's atrocious human-rights record. His book serves as Cuba's version of Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago". For Trudeau, of course, there were bigger priorities: cozying up to individuals who put the ideas of socialism into actual practise.

Castro, of course, was not alone in enjoying Trudeau's publicly declared endorsements. The same year he pronounced "Viva Castro!" he also praised Mao Tse-tung's revolution in China, stating that Mao had delivered a wonderful system to his people. At that time, it was already well documented in the West that Mao's gulag had liquidated more than 60 million human lives.

Trudeau's behaviour becomes understandable in the context of his life-long admiration of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th century French philosopher who, in his famous promotion of the submission of the individual to the "general will," set out the blueprint for genocide-making not only of the French Revolution, but of the Marxist and Nazi revolutions of the 20th century.

Thus, in Trudeau's philosophical outlook, the innocent victims of Castro's and Mao's concentration camps were not to be thought about in their human context, but only in abstract terms - if at all.

As Prime Minister, Trudeau was enchanted with pacifism -- in the face of "general will" of course. Thus, Trudeau tried to pull Canada out of NATO. Failing that, he succeeded in cutting in half Canada's NATO commitments in Europe, and in decimating the preparedness of his own armed forces at home.

Trudeau never forgot about Cuba. In 1976, he made sure to help Castro's effort to liberate Angolan citizens from their individual interests, and to help subordinate them to the "general will." Thus, Trudeau allowed Cuban transport planes to refuel in Newfoundland before they picked up arms in the Soviety Union and flew to Angola to fight for class utopia.

One problem was that Castro couldn't help Julius Nyerere, the ruthless communist dictator of Tanzania, whose disastrous Marxist economic policies created large-scale famines. Trudeau came to the rescue. As a great admirer of Nyerere, he made sure that Canada exported free food supplies to the communist dictatorship, most of which the elites grabbed for themselves, and which never reached the individuals who failed to subordinate their interests to the "general will" - which meant the people of Tanzania whom Nyerere didn't feel worth saving.

Very little, of course, tingled the human heart as much as the compliments that Trudeau heaved upon the Soviet regime, a system that inflicted genocide on a scale that only Mao could surpass in numbers killed. Trudeau visited the Soviet Union not once, but twice, and on one of the visits he could not restrain himself from praising the way the Soviets had developed their North -- saying that Canada should do the same. Anyone who had the slightest knowledge about the Soviet Union at the time knew that the Soviet North was developed by concentration camp slave labour. Trudeau knew it well. But, of course, he also knew the importance of the "general will." That's why he never apologized to the families of the millions who perished, nor to Soviet dissidents, who were infuriated by his remark.

When Trudeau pined for Fidel, he filled that void by palling around with the Soviet ambassador to Canada, Alexander Yakovlev. He also signed a "friendship protocol" with the Soviets, a friendship of which he was genuinely proud.

In light of these realities, it might do well to build a Lenin-style mausoleum on Parliament Hill for the late Prime Minister. It would be the least Canadians could do in memory of Canada's great humanitarian leader, whose life was dedicated to praising those who had sacrificed human life on the altar of utopian ideals.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's pretty revealing about the great Trudeau, isn't it? He most certainly had Marxist sympathies, didn't he? But, lets have a look at some other earlier facets of his life which are also just as revealing of how deeply involved Pierre was in Cultural Marxism all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

"...In 1949, he was an active supporter of workers in the Asbestos Strike. In 1956, he edited an important book on the subject, La grève de l'amiante, which argued that the strike was a seminal event in Quebec's history, marking the beginning of resistance to the conservative, francophone clerical establishment and anglophone business class that had long ruled the province. Throughout the 1950s, Trudeau was a leading figure in the opposition to the repressive rule of Premier of Quebec Maurice Duplessis as the founder and editor of Cité Libre, a dissident journal that helped provide the intellectual basis for the Quiet Revolution.

Trudeau was interested in Marxist ideas in the late 1940s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, he was a supporter of the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party — which became the New Democratic Party. During the 1950s, he was blacklisted by the US and prevented from entering the country because of a visit to a conference in Moscow (where he was arrested for throwing a snowball at a statue of Stalin) and because he subscribed to a number of leftist publications. Trudeau later appealed the ban, and it was rescinded."

So, it is obvious that Trudeau was an extreme leftist (Marxist) all along, note the "divide by class and conquer" ideology displayed by his involvement in the Asbestos strike which was deeply marked with socialist idealism. Especially Marxist was his involvement in the "Quiet Revolution" which had the result of Quebec creating a Ministry of Education and involved massive tax-funding into the education system, the unionization of the civil service, and the nationalizing of electricity production and distribution. All of these are highly socialist ideals and right up a Cultural Marxist's alley.

In 1965, Pierre Trudeau abandoned his allegience to the far left NDP party which he had been affiliated with and was persuaded to run for political office on the Liberal ticket for the riding of Mount Royal, an election he easily won and a riding he would hold for the nearly 20 years. It is too bad however, that Trudeau did not abandon his Marxist idealism when he left the NDP. If anything, Trudeau should be attributed with transforming the Liberal party into the far leftist NDP party - which naturally leaves one to wonder exactly how far left the current NDP has to be for it to be regarded to the political left of the Liberals.

Pierre rose quickly through the ranks of the Liberal party and along the way he spread his anti-social agenda like Johnny Marxist Seed. In 1967 he was appointed to the position of Justice Minister and he immediately introduced laws which eerily coincide with the Marxist agenda. In previous posts I have pointed out how Marx & Engels, V.I. Lenin and feminists have targeted marriage-destruction as the way to destroy society - in order to build their new utopia from the ashes of its ruins. Please allow me to briefly review some quotes with you for relevance:

"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040116 So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified. (From Carey Roberts' article: "When Family Dissolution becomes the Law of the Land".)

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

And so, what did the great Canadian Marxist, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, do the moment he had the means to implement his agenda?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/trudeau/footprint.html "...Pierre Trudeau came to champion the values of individual freedom and equality, and to condemn the idea that we remain captives of our race, religion, class or collective history. He did not, however, denigrate cultural identity. He believed that the state should protect cultural values, but under the rubric of equality. It should not privilege the majority.

As minister of justice, Mr. Trudeau began to put these ideas into effect. He introduced legislation permitting therapeutic abortions, legalizing adult consensual homosexual acts, allowing the dissemination of birth-control materials and contraceptive information, and authorizing judicial divorce based on a range of fault and no-fault grounds." (The Globe and Mail: Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1919-2000, by Lorraine Weinrib, Oct 2000)

As Stephen Baskerville often points in his articles, http://stephenbaskerville.net/articles-bydate.htm , there never was a massive uprising of the people back in the 60's demanding no-fault divorce laws... um, so for what other reason did politicians like Trudeau rush to pass anti-family laws such as this - except to promote a Cultural Marxist agenda?

All this and our Marxist hero was only yet the Minister of Justice! In the same year, 1967, Lester B. Pearson announced he would be stepping down as Prime Minister. Pierre Trudeau ran for the Liberal party leadership and was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada on April 20, 1968.

As Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre "Marxist" Trudeau continued his scourgeous ideologies upon the people of Canada.

He strongly defended the universal healthcare program and regional development programs which had been recently introduced in Canada under the guise that they were a way to make Canadian society equally just. Today, this Marxist system has proven to be a vast waste of money which provides services similar to the quality of a Russian breadline. But it is still strongly supported by our governments because it is part of our "national identity." (What, lousy healthcare is our culture?)

He vastly depleted our armed forces, which, after WWII were considered the 3rd most powerful in the world and continued a noble existence through to the 50's and 60's. Today, they could scarcely defend Mt. Trudeau. In the face of all of this, Trudeau set Canada forward on the biggest socialist spending spree ever seen in Canadian history - and Trudeau himself can lay claim to a vast portion of our HUGE national debt. All this debt, no military, but we have statefunded healthcare! The US, who spends VAST resources on their military has their "tax freedom day" in April of each year, while we in Canada have to wait for the beginning of July for ours. (How much health insurance could you buy with 2 months of your wages?)

Pierre Trudeau championed the cause of "Multi-Culturalism", a well know ploy of Cultural Marxist ideology. As well he shoved the notion of "bilingualism" down the throats of Canadians, forcing much red-tape on a general population that is anything but bilingual. It was, however, effective in keeping many anglophones out of political office and federal positions. Must have been more of that anglophones "oppressing" francophones crap, or something. Something Trudeau must have known all about since he was involved in the "Quiet Revolution" which claimed that the "anglophone business class" was oppressing the "francophone working class." (Ummm... sound familiar?)

Oh yes, and lets not forget, The Ministry for the Status of Women was created in 1971, under guess who's reign?

Pierre Trudeau nationalized Canada's energy (communism-ized) and he also created Petro-Canada, an organization which proved profit is ellusive to big goverment and became known as "Pierre Elliot Trudeau Ripping Off Canada." When the government finally took their fingers out of Petro-Canada and privatized it, magically...somehow... this company actually became profitable.

Yes, Pierre Trudeau truly transformed the Liberal party into something far more Marxist than was intended with its original founding. Even after Pierre thankfully bowed out of the public spotlight in the 80's, the Liberals have proudly carried in his fine tradition. Jean Chretien, Trudeau's favourite lackey, siezed power and continued a Liberal campaign of terror against Canadians via oppressive domestic violence laws, hysterical sexual assault laws, and punative divorce and custody laws. Of course, lets not forget the totalitarian styled Gun Registry implemented by Liberal Justice Minister Alan Rock - a law which cost billions & didn't affect crime one iota, yet stripped Canadians of yet more freedoms. But thats OK, it just means that when these anti-freedom "civil servants" are one day condemned for treason, there won't be any guns for a firing squad, so we'll just have to have ourselves an old fashioned stoning.

And surely let's not also forget the heroic efforts of Chretien's post-Trudeau Liberal government in "balancing the budget" and saving us from the impending financial destruction which Chretien himself helped to create when he was Trudeau's Cultural Marxist handjob lackey in the 70's and 80's. Only Goebels himself could have believed that a dumb like a fox fellow like Chretien could have pulled off such a major propaganda coup on the Canadian public and come out looking like a hero.

Even today, the Liberal party is infected with this anti-social disease. In the last election, which the Liberals finally lost, they campaigned for State Run Daycare! Need I re-point you to the quote about Lenin found earlier in this article? (The troubling thing is that even the "right-wing" Conservative party agrees with "subsidizing other people's children" by countering state-run daycare with directly giving people with children tax-payer money to subsidize childcare costs - definitely a Marxist ideal, from the supposed right!) Let's take notice of the "Mangina of the Year, 2006", previous Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae who's campaign buttons depicted the word "Bob" with the top of the female gender symbol making the "o" in Bob. And let's not forget Liberal MP, Maria Minna, recently screaching and hollering at Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper about women receiving $0.71 for every $1.00 a man earns. Hopefully someone with the great responsibility of representing "the people" is smart enough to know that such unfair wages have been made illegal well over 40 years ago - and if she is that smart, wouldn't she be willfully engaging in hate-inspired propaganda? (Hmmm... me thinks that is another hallmark of Marxism!)

Yup, Trudeau was a freakin' Marxist alright! And he infected not only the Liberal party with sick Marxist ideology, but the whole country as well!

It's a shame that my province is home to the newly named "Mt Trudeau." At least it wasn't Canada's highest peak. But still, degrading a beautiful British Columbian mountain with this moniker is truly a crime against nature.

I know of a steaming pile of something behind the barn that would be better fitting of the name "Mount Trudeau."

Anti-Sexism for Idiots

I came across the website "Anti-Sexism for Idiots" about a year ago, read it completely, enjoyed it thoroughly, and then let it slip from my mind. Recently, I stumbled across it again, and have decided to read it through over this weekend again, and thought that I would throw a link up - in case some of the rest of the you haven't surfed through it and are looking for something constructive to do with your time on a dreary January weekend.

Anti-Sexism for Idiots: http://members.iinet.net.au/~tramont/protruth/index.html

Here is a sample article from the website, which I particularly enjoyed:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~tramont/protruth/halfwit.html

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT

From their lofty moral high ground, feminists have applied women’s superior ways of knowing to gently remind us male heathens that we just don’t “get it”. I would like to return the favour. Here are some things that feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around.

Feminists complain about the under-representation of women in the workplace. They want to enjoy the same employment opportunities as men. They don’t get it that for men, work is not a hobby. They don’t get it that for men, work is not something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you, something you do to while away the hours. For the vast majority of men, not working is not an option. Men do not have the freedom to stay at home to rear the children if they like, or to do nothing particular if their fancy takes them, or to do the shopping if they’re bored, or to get a part-time job to make friends, or to watch the soapies to have something to talk about.

Feminists don’t get it that higher paying jobs aren’t generously bestowed on men out of the goodness of their bosses’ hearts, just because they are men. They don’t get it that if women were as efficient as men and as profitable as men to employ, then there would have to be something seriously, gravely wrong with any organisation choosing men over women, just because they are men. Feminists just don’t seem to understand that organisations function according to the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, and make those recruitment decisions most likely to benefit the bottom line. To do otherwise is to deserve to fail.

They don’t get it that if a majority of women don’t want to do certain types of work, then perhaps it might be a little difficult balancing the numbers. Feminists don’t get it that focusing on equal outcome instead of equal opportunity is not equality but bias. If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in government or in coal mines, what do you do if a majority of women prefer not to work, or if they prefer not to expend the same effort and commitment to their careers as what men are required to do? If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in parliament, what do you do if you can’t find women who want the job badly enough? Recruit check-out chicks? Or bored housewives?

Feminists don’t get it that mowing the lawn, or repairing the car, or painting the bedroom, is domestic work. They think that men do these things to get out of doing the dishes.

The statistics from the feminist website, Gender Gap in Government, will shock you. WOMEN ARE 52% of the adult population, yet even after over 3 decades of affirmative action, women have barely dented the ranks of politicians. Are women really be this lazy?

Feminists don’t get it that women's failure to participate is not due to oppression. Instead of blaming others for their own laziness, they should look inwards. Feminists' cherished statistics prove conclusively that even today, with all the affirmative action policies that have been enshrined in law, with everything that has been done to facilitate women’s access to men’s jobs without their having to earn them, women are still not pulling their weight. Feminists don’t understand that they have now provided us with proof of what we have known all along - that women are bone lazy, and that they never actually wanted to work.

Feminists don’t get it that when women have the escape-hatch of stay-at-home mom, they are more likely to pull out of the career paths that might otherwise lead to higher salaries. Stay-at-home moms are less likely to have the sort of career experience that pays well. The presence of the stay-at-home escape-hatch profoundly influences the choices that women make.

They don’t understand that only men fight wars, pollute environments and generally, do the dirty-work also of women, because women are too comfortable in the security provided by men to be bothered to do it themselves.

They don’t get it that the reason that the majority of people over 60 who are now living in poverty are women is that they are more likely to have been married to providers who are now dead.

Feminists don’t get it that when a woman dresses to be looked at, she’s going to be…… looked at. They don’t get it that when a woman dresses to lure, she’s going to be…… approached. Perhaps it's a bit too deep for them. It is a rather difficult notion well beyond feminists’ grasp, as it is founded in abstract, rational principles (rationality) foisted on everyone by The Patriarchy.

They don’t get it that women’s fantasies about being raped reveal a secret about women’s sexuality. They don’t get it that rape scenes in novels written by women for women derive their appeal from tapping into this private side of feminine nature. They don’t understand the connection between their thoughts and their longings or the duality that exists between being protected and being violated. Sure, feminists reassure us, rape is terrible and just because a woman fantasises about being raped, does not mean that she wants to be raped. What they don’t get is that women’s unspoken secrets can influence and justify (in their minds) the choices that women make, in fashion and in men. They don’t understand that the thrill of dressing to lure, to be desired, to be dominated and to be taken, can come at a price and so, has its responsibilities.

They don’t get it that when women choose wallets without character, they might finish up with characters who won’t share their wallets.

Feminists don’t get it that, when a man cheats on his wife, there is usually a woman who cheats with him. And no, it’s not because of something he put in her drink.

They don’t get it that when women say no and then give in to the types of jerks least likely to take no for an answer, other men are going to have a hard time believing that no means no.

Feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around the fact that, the women that enforce, supervise and participate in the tribal African custom of female genital mutilation are not, actually, men dressed in drag. And no, the fact that men generally do not participate in sacred women’s rituals (such as FGM) does not mean that innocent mothers, grand-mothers and aunties have had their drinking-water drugged by scheming patriarchs.

They don’t get it that when women wear fashions and apply lipstick and makeup in order to deceive men, they are not helpless victims of a Beauty Myth, but active participants, motivating companies to give them more of what they demand

Feminists don’t get it that blaming men for the oppression of women is like blaming mothers for the oppression of little boys. And little boys become men. They don’t understand that what goes around comes around.

They don’t get it that feminism is the princess syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. They don’t understand that feminism cannot exist without chivalry, without Patriarchy’s Galahads who have traditionally always done women’s dirty-work.

There is so much that feminists don’t get, one can be forgiven for wondering whether there is something inherent in the nature of femininity that precludes women from understanding the most basic, simple logic. With women’s silence and complicity while the injustices rage against men, we might forgive those who regard feminism as proof that women are less able than men in almost every sphere of life. You will have to be patient with them. You will have to remind them that feminism is not about women, but about chivalry, and feminist women demanding and extracting privileges from men. If feminist women are nincompoops, what does that make the men that so readily comply with their demands?