In your picture of a “happy place”, Angry Harry, I have to admit that I might be unhappy. I am sorry but even as a woman, I want to have a job and to be independent. I really do not have any desire to stay home with the children and do housework. I’m not trying to disrespect people who do this (my father did this, he stayed at home with me while my mother was at work, when i was very young and needed taken care of), but let me just be honest, but it is not my calling.
This “happy place” did exist in the past, but why did it change? Because people were unhappy, and being treated unfairly! Calling the feminist movement a conspiricy to get more money and power and corrupt a “happy” society is like saying that during the civil rights movement, African Americans just wanted to disrupt the otherwise perfect, joyous society. This was obviously not true, these movements took place because people were being treated unfairly!

Also, you implied that divorced women are so just to suck up the government and people’s money. Violence against women is a very real thing! As is violence against men. Though divorces may be financially strenous it is emporing to people, espically women, seeing as during our country’s “happy place” phase women had no way to speak out against violence or disrespect, and were treated more like property that had no say. Women were told that they just had to “put up” with domestic violence, that it was to be expected, and that speaking out would disrupt the
little happy place utopia that had been built on subordination.
If anyone is obsessed with power, it would not be the feminist, but rather the one calling us “FemiNAZIS”, trying to create fear and hate in a picture of a woman who can support herself (gasp!) and does not need to rely on a man. THAT is being obsessed with power, that is blatantly trying to keep women down.

Men(and many women too) need to understand that feminism is equality, nothing more, it’s not something to be afraid of, and it is liberating for men as well(i.e. to be rid of stereotypes that men cannot express natural human emotions or else they are not “real men”).

I think, Angry Harry, that instead of being frightened off by the feminist movement, it would do you some good to join the fight to equality!

All demands of women should be labeled as “Rights”. Follow double standard to get demands approved by the Government under the name of gender equality and women empowerment. Let the Government know that women are potential voters and so their demands of harassing men should be approved. Increase the burden of responsibility on men and focus on women’s freedom and rights only.

Most of the tax payers are men,but very few $s used to solve mens problems instead donated all to women cause and GRANT to women organizations, to get Vote and Other favors from women.

These women organization are not only Agianst men and thier happiness,but they are after their money too.

This gender biase is with feminazis even before birth of boy child. Refer http://mynation.net/voice/pre-natal/ [ Gender biase even before Birth ]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2862169320080228

That United States politicians criminalize whatever behaviors they think is necessary.

http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm7.cfm

“Though traditionally criminal law did not reach into the home to punish domestic violence, today such intervention in the home is well accepted and steadily growing. Because we all welcome that remedial development, we have taken little notice of the legal innovations in misdemeanor domestic violence enforcement that are transforming the role of criminal law in the home beyond the criminal punishment of violence.”

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/116/1/2_jeannie_suk.html

That Feminism Spills Over into Family Law

http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjEyYjQ0YjY3NTMxZTNjZjcwODEzNjFhNDQ1Njc4ODE=

That now in the United States being a divorced dad is criminalized.

http://www.nomarriage.com/why_men_should_not_marry.html

If the United States is so free, then why does it have so many laws.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151&q=century+of+the+self

Yes it is a long series, but sometimes, just sometimes, the answeres are longer in the length of MTV.

Harry seem to be as Steve Moxon said in his book that the government is set on keeping men’s unity always on the back foot. Some feel this is the NWO, others don’t. Yet it is all too plain that at some point even a brainless leadership would be shere luck get something right, yet at present it seems they continue to make “all the wrong moves” as if on purpose.

They fear male unity and will do all in their power to stop it. They will put fathers against men, young against old and will enlist all the “useful idiots” in our ranks to push the same ideas that stop us getting closer to unity.

History is filled to the rafters with examples of men coming together and getting some of what they want done. It is only a matter of time, and it will take people like yourself laying the path to this unity. Men of both left and right must abandon “party before men’s rights”. It must be “men’s rights” before their parties.

“Trick me once shame on you, trick me twice shame on me”

We have some people tricked so many times and stubbornly preaching the same BS, as if stubborness is a virtue.

Excellent.

A few comments:

Although your column deals with government interests vis-a-vis relationship breakdown between men and women their are other powerful private (as opposed to public interests-the government) interests that have gained from this breakdown-in fact these powerful private interests work in concert with the government, e.g., they are partners.

I am talking about Big Business.

They have gained hugely from this breakdown.

How so?

Well first, let me explain how they work together in concert with the government.

The government acts as the front-man for Big Business. Most people incorrectly believe that Affirmative Action was imposed on business against it’s will. Not so. Affirmative Action did force business’ to ramp up hiring and the promoting of women. And culturally the Women’s Movement sold this idea of going into the workforce as advancement for women. But the net end result was that over a very brief period the labor supply increased dramatically-approximately doubling. This forced down wages for almost everyone. (Big Business saw this potential before everyone else did.) And in real terms incomes are down-way down. Today most families now need two incomes to survive. And today in may cases that is now barely even enough to make ends meet (especially when also factoring in the tax burden!) The cost of everything is way up-especially housing (even with the bursting of the housing price bubble recently). The incomes of ~90% of “married with children” working women is within $5000 of the household tax burden! These women are really just working indirectly for the government. And someone else is watching their children while they are at work-yet another group that benefits, day care centers-and another expense for families. When one is, in effect, working to pay off the government…well that is not called “advancement”-it’s called slavery. And all these challenges caused by the government entices people to look to the government for more assistance-which the government loves. Who else is going to help?

And doubling the labor supply and keeping men and women at odds creates more single person households. Today in America the “never married” demographic is the highest it has ever been. Today in America, families that are made up of the original biological mother and original biological father make up ~25% of all families in America!

All these single men and women is GOOD for business too. More cars to sell. More refrigerator’s to sell. More condo’s to sell.

But all of this is not sustainable indefinitely. At some point there is no more to extract via taxes. At some point there is no incentive to better your own life. At some point having a family in America will become a huge burden (perhaps we are already there)for both men and women (and a very dangerous one at that for the men).At some point there are more people riding in the wagon (or want to)-then there are people pulling the wagon.

At that point the house of cards comes falling down.

We are, in my estimate, 20-30 years (at most) away from this endpoint. Perhaps sooner depending on the current financial crisis. No one can really say for sure exactly when the endpoint arrives-the point of no return.

But what I can say for sure is that, that day of reckoning WILL one day arrive.

2.
Political parties, left or right, are the organised machinery from which democratic power emanates.

3.
Our movement, the mens movement has to start pumping its activists into all political parties as insider aggitants.

4.
The worse the political party has been to matters of intrest to our movement, the more aggitating MRA activists, such a party requires as insider counter revolutionaries. That is as insider decontaminants of feminism and excess liberalism.

5.
We have no other legitimate means …

["Big government aside, what about oversized articles on MND? My eyes hurt!"]

Sorry about that. I am well aware that I tend to drone on for far too long, but, I do have my reasons!

["I think he’s wrong here, about the supposed conspiracy to break up families by a self-serving government interested in creating more government."

"The people, men, women and children, want no fault divorce, separation, even isolation, compared to disfunctionality of relationships they can’t escape."]

1. I don’t think that women would want these things if they were being treated like the men are currently being treated. Indeed, women would soon sing a very different song if they had to endure the loss of home, children etc.

2. What about the huge effects of fatherlessness on youngsters? Are they to be ignored? Do these youngsters not count? If my memory is correct, MOST youngsters do NOT want their parents to divorce. Indeed, for most youngsters, losing a parent to divorce is worse for them than if that parent had died. (Research from about 8 years ago.)

3. Something that I left out of my piece – to keep it short!! – was the fact that, whether or not you agreed with various government policies on ‘relationships’ (e.g. no fault divorce) the MAIN point of my piece was that government is intent on breaking down these relationships – not for the good of the people, but for itself.

For example, I have no doubt whatsoever that if relationship breakdowns were bad for ‘government’ then government would soon reverse its policies and urge people to stay together.

["What I don’t get, is why so many MRAs are right wing, and believe in the free market, but have problems coming to terms with a free movement of people in and out of relationships. It’s healthy! It breeds sexual competition, keeping men and women on their toes, and off the couch.]

Who says that stepping in and out of relationships is a good thing? LOL!

I see what you are driving at, and agree with it to a large extent.

But it is not stepping into relationships that I am complaining about.

It is being ‘encouraged’ to step **out** of them that is my beef!

Finally, as someone who knows something about education, there is no doubt ***AT ALL*** in my mind that the education of boys is *purposely* being scuppered.

Harry is right about most things, but I think he’s wrong here, about the supposed conspiracy to break up families by a self-serving government interested in creating more government. The people, men, women and children, want no fault divorce, separation, even isolation, compared to disfunctionality of relationships they can’t escape. This generation of adults from broken homes may be somewhat disfunctional (compared to those brought up in a happy home), but pre-break up family homes weren’t happy, so they split, and the remaining individuals are the pioneers – it was never going to be easy alone, but it will be easier for future generations of individuals as services improve, and attitudes catch up.

What I don’t get, is why so many MRAs are right wing, and believe in the free market, but have problems coming to terms with a free movement of people in and out of relationships. It’s healthy! It breeds sexual competition, keeping men and women on their toes, and off the couch.
My lodgers just told me they want to move out, to a nicer place across town. Do I complain they were encouraged to go by government policy making it too easy to end rent contracts, or complain of negative publicity for my part of town compared to their new one, etc? No. I get off the couch, fix the place up a bit (like I’d been meaning to), then tempt someone else (a free agent, at that). Exactly the same with relationships, the way the left wing feminist governments see it. They make it easier to break up relationships because it stems complacency in the population, who must stay in shape longer, or risk losing their partner to another fitter individual.

Harry’s right about all the ways particular victim industries have run away with themselves, and all MRAs know our job is to keep them in check with reality, and the knock on counterproductive effects of their propaganda, to avoid creating/perpetuating misandry which may devalue men’s perceived stock, causing artificially high levels of sex segregation, which is bad for everyone. But I believe the elite feminists are driven to create jobs for the girls, so at least they’re doing something outside the home, which is seen as a necessary step on the way to greater female economic activity, and hence, reduced sex segregation, and hence, greater evolutionary advantage, towards peace and prosperity. If/when the elite feminists throw the female economic activity principal away, then’s the time to ditch ferminism for good.

For your next mission, should you wish to accept it, you could distinguish what you mean by Government. You give sound descriptions of the hordes of ‘Departmental Empires’ but of course we don’t elect them as we do Governments. And that is the reason we get absolutely nowhere by encouraging political parties by voting for them. They are just the Mahoots ontop of the Elephants that rampage through our living rooms. One mahoot is just a little brown boy like all the others. They want to be in charge and want us to think that they are controlling the Elephants, but in reality they only have a good view over the masses.

People are impressed by the Elephants. Elephants are big and smelly. They are scared of the Elephants, no matter all the oooohs and ahhhs and smiles. The people don’t respect the mahoots. You don’t see the crowds giving buns to mahoots, now do you?

To stop the elephant shitting on the carpet and knocking the furniture over, we have to forget about the mahoots. Stop voting for them. Ignore them. Shoot the friggin’ elephants. The ‘Joe Bidens’ are only seemingly leading the herd, but the hurd has its own life; its own ‘Rules’. The mahoots just shovel shit most of the time.

The MRM need to become Elephant hunters. We need our set rules of our own. Perhaps we can start numbering them from Rule 9 sub section m) Para m, and maybe some of Rule 45. Old timers can carry on with the effective and well balanced Rule 303 of the Lee Enfield Act.