Confronting Matriarchy and The False Premise of Feminism

2009-11-17
By

All of western culture is ruled by a vast and invisible matriarchy operating from the shadows so its actions are nearly invisible. The foundations of this Matriarchy are maternal authority and women’s Superiority Complex. From the moment of birth, men are taught to defer to maternal authority. As soon as they enter public school, they confront almost exclusively female teachers whose absolute authority over the classroom is enforced by what few men are part of the public education system. In high school, young males are usually exposed to a few male teachers whose own exercise of authority is quite different from their female counterparts. Male teachers often handle discipline problems in the classroom at a much lower level than female teachers, who tend to escalate matters to male administrators if their hegemony is challenged.

Men who marry usually find their wives expecting the mantle of maternal authority to be simply handed over to them by and from the man’s mother without missing a beat. It sometimes takes many battles for a man to make the point to a new wife that she is his spouse and equal, not his mother. Women who stubbornly insist on being slow learners on this issue set up oppositional and adversarial positions which often will poison the marriage over time. Women expect to be able to make the rules and simply expect men to obey them. Men who assert themselves and demand some degree of regard and consideration for their point of view will often have to fight the battle for recognition over, and over, and over.

When feminists realized that they were about to overthrow women’s own matriarchal power base with their initial anti-marriage and anti-motherhood stances, they did an abrupt about-face and embraced motherhood even more fervently than they had rejected it just a few years before.

Matriarchy has now taken over the court system as feminist “jurisprudence” has replaced objective facts with female feelings as the relevant criteria for determining guilt or innocence. A woman’s emotional state has even become adequate defense against charges of murder, and women have a multitude of emotional defenses, ranging from the abuse excuse to PMS, which literally allow them to get away with murdering men, children, and other women.

Matriarchy depends on shadow power. It must deny its power and function from the shadows. All matriarchal power stems from the maternal role and maternal authority, and the power to grant or deny sex.

Foundations of Female Power

1. The Mating Dance – Sexual Power

2. Maternal Authority – Moral Power

3. Control of the Education/Socialization system – Indoctrination Power

4. The Male Protector Role – The Power of Weakness

5. The Rescue Reflex – Victim Power

6. Unfair Fighting – Confusion Power,  Tantrum Power

7. Emotional Terrorism and Violence – Intimidation Power

8. Betrayal – Shock and disappointment Power

Foundations of Male Powerlessness -

1. Denial of Fear

2. Fear of Isolation

3. The need to convince, have credibility, be acceptable, receive validation.

As boys, men are separated from other males; fathers particularly, terrorized and isolated, and told that the only source of emotional sustenance and intimacy is with women and in sexual union. This places a great deal of power in the hands of women, which is difficult to resist the temptation to abuse.

As men confront the totally changed male and female roles that are the legacy of feminism, women are going to lose a lot of their historic moral power. Confronting the Matriarchy involves shedding light on its workings – naming the vague purpose behind the behavior intended to confuse and obfuscate.

Feminism is based on false premises:

* That, historically, men as a group or class had more power than women as a group or class.

* That the very structure of social institutions reflected this and gave all men more power than any woman

* That what was true of any man was true of all men

* That all men were responsible, culpable, and shared the guilt for any and all bad acts by any and all men.

* That all women are inherently good and smart, and all men inherently evil and stupid

False premises cannot lead to anything except false conclusions.  Actions and social policy based on these will not produce the desired results, but rather the opposite or totally unpredictable results.

The truth is that power within any society is not divided horizontally, but vertically.  Society is a pyramid structure with the majority of people at the base of the pyramid, and progressively fewer people the farther up one goes.  At each level, there was a subtle, complex, and dynamic balance of power between men and women.

From about the middle of the 2nd decade of life, through about the middle to end of the 4th, women have an inborn advantage in power based on the structure of courtship, the human mating dance.  Men must seek and court women’s favor in order to have an outlet for their drives to reproduce and continue the species.  Women are able to demand resources from men in return for this outlet, which implies that they demand for men to compete with other men for control of those resources.  The pea hidden under the rapidly moving shells of this sexual-power shell game is the fact that once men had these resources, they usually turned control of them over to women.

Now, women are being encouraged to compete with men directly for these resources, just like men compete with other men, as well as to hold on to the power to make men turn over the resources they have competed with other men, as well as women, to acquire.  It will not work, and it cannot work – because it attempts to deny, refute, and change the behavior and preferences of the majority of women.  First, it simply means that most men just have fewer resources to give to women.  Competition makes it a lot tougher to get them.  Second, the bar has been raised for women to expect MORE, while LESS is what is available.  Women are disappointed.  …Boo hoo.  Grow up and get over it.

While the short-term balance of power has shifted in women’s favor, justified by always being able to refer to a distorted interpretation of history to prove that women of today deserve such an imbalance to make up for things “suffered” not by them but by their ancestresses, it will not and cannot remain so for long.  Men will find ways to get their power back – and the number one way has been to decrease women’s power in the traditional ways that females have had power over men:  in sexual interaction and in social pampering of women, also known as “chivalry.”

As women invade men’s former spheres of power, and demand equal share, so do men push back against women’s traditional spheres of power – personal, particularly sexual, relationships.  When women bailed out of their traditional roles so did men.  If women had no need of a man to protect and provide for them, they certainly didn’t need commitments from men to do so.

Besides, commitments are only binding on one side – the male side.  Women were encouraged to see marriage as a form of “oppression” and leaving it as a form of “self-expression.”  The more astute and intelligent among men thought that just skipping over the “oppression” stage and letting women “self-express” from the get-go made much more sense.  Why cave in to a woman’s demands to get married when she is going to come in a few years to hate the man for allowing her to pressure him to letting him “oppress” her?  Makes no sense at all.  But, then, feminism refutes the very existence of something like sense as “patriarchal” or “androcentric.”

As women have gained power in the worlds of business and politics, they have lost it in personal relationships.  The old traditional notions of male-female interdependency were equally binding on men and women, and when women broke those bonds they broke men’s at the same time.  Like the old Joni Mitchell song, “Big Yellow Taxi” says, “you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.”  The men who adapted early and well to the new visions of total equality (and uniformity) were perfectly happy to let women support themselves, AND the children.  They gave women what women were asking for.  It just didn’t turn out to be what women wanted.

Men, damn fools that many of us are, first ignored feminism expecting it to go away and collapse from its own internal contradictions and refutation of reality.  And, more than a few of them quite liked the idea of free, uncommitted, sex.  What followed was an absolute orgy of pretense and counter pretense; lie and counter-lie; manipulation and counter-manipulation.

Today, many women are finally waking up to what they have lost due to feminism.  And, more than a few are calling to have it back.  Sorry, grrls – when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, all the kings horse and all the kings men, couldn’t put things back together the way they were, ever again.

There has been a fundamental change in social values.  These values reflect the statistical average of the acts based on those values which result from billions of tiny and seemingly inconsequential decisions each day.  A woman, who decides to let man-bashing hate speech fall stupidly out of her mouth in an otherwise empty head, drops one more drop of poison into the well of relationships that everyone must drink from.  A man who overhears her likes women just a tiny bit less.  A man who might have otherwise considered asking her out on a date, decides that he really doesn’t want to date a man-basher, so the opportunity for a positive interaction between them gets passed up.

Older men now tell younger ones “DON’T get married.  DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.”  The anti-male bias in law which has been used to temporarily shore up the loss of social controls of irresponsible male behavior has been used so extensively against responsible men, that more and more they just avoid situations where they might be vulnerable.

And, as women get angrier and angrier over having to live up to the demands of the new world that FEMININE-ism has created for them, they just keep escalating their war on men and boys.  And men just keep moving farther away from women, and liking them less and helping them less.

For more than 2000 years, Aristotle’s erroneous medical theories, his false premises, led physicians to bleed their sick patients with leeches and instruments.  The treatment itself became the cause of the disease, and more people died from too much doctoring than died from too little.

FEMININE-ism is bleeding the life out of society because its premise is false.  Maleness is not the root of all evil, as they say, any more than blood was the source of disease instead of vitality, but the root of at least half the good in the world.  Women are not universally “the fairer sex,” although they probably were more moral when society demanded of them that they be, but are the root of at least half the evil in the world.

The result is that FEMININE-ism has blinded society to female evil and male good.

False premises cannot lead to anything but false conclusions.  Blindness to evil makes one totally vulnerable to it, and blindness to good removes it from one’s life.

4,513 views

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    On behalf of Men’s News Daily a hearty welcome to our newest contributor, Zed.

    I have been familiar with his work for a number of years and I trust readers will find his contributions insightful, incisive and right on the money.

  • http://www.standyourground.com poiuyt

    It is always to be remembered that the conversation of our movement is one that is appropriately to be had and continued amongst males.

    Invoking feminism only gives the matriarchy further reason to laugh at men for the simple fact that it were men that betrayed and undersold males to them.

  • julie

    I personally give this a 10 out of 10. Very good. IMO

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    Wow!

    Excellent piece, Zed.

  • Snark

    Excellently written article.

    And the part about how men, being confronted with so much male-bashing, come to like women less, and want to help them less, very much ties into what I was reading this morning at http://counterfem.blogspot.com.

    When the personal became political, the social contract between men and women was dissolved. Where women launch such attacks on men, any social obligations men had towards women are rendered void; and how one deals with women may be freely decided through one’s introspection, no longer through externally existing social codes, which can now only be coercive as they are to the detriment of one of the two involved parties – namely, men.

  • Paul

    As far as marriage is concerned I hope that the Humpty Dumpty egg has indeed been smashed to pieces. Young men certainly are told by older fools like me not to marry. But is this enough and will it in the end work?

    Feminism is far more slippery that we might hope and containing it can be like holding a jelly. If men turn away from women and there is no more marriage then the feminist state will counter by ensuring all the benefit of marriage accrue to women even if they are not married.

    So we see married women’s ‘rights’ being given to women who cohabit. This is just the start. To cohabit will become reduced to having had any association with a woman. Even if there is no association at all then the feminist state will simply appropriate all it can get from men by force.

    It helps if you see women not as human but as a parasitic organism like a fungus growing on an otherwise health tree. Actually I don’t see them that way and I prefer to look at them as a cancer; since for sure they destroy maleness.

  • http://www.rip-factor.com/formen.html Richard

    “Men, damn fools that many of us are, first ignored feminism expecting it to go away and collapse from its own internal contradictions and refutation of reality. And, more than a few of them quite liked the idea of free, uncommitted, sex.”

    Feminism supported free, uncommitted sex???

    I must have fallen asleep that day in Sociology 101.

    It seems to me like feminists have always been men-haters, heterosexual intercourse haters, and often lesbians.

    Am I wrong about this?

    Can somebody site me some quotes from feminists that support the idea that feminism somehow supported “free, uncommitted sex”?

  • DonnieH

    Paul said: “If men turn away from women and there is no more marriage then the feminist state will counter by ensuring all the benefit of marriage accrue to women even if they are not married.”

    Well, where are those benefits going to come from? Men seeking to marry and have a family have traditionally worked hard to overproduce- to earn enough money, not just for themselves, but for their family as well. Men often work even harder to gain financial status to attract what they’ve been led to believe is a better quality mate. The end result of this system is men working themselves to death to earn the money their wives spend. Feminists call this “patriarchal oppression”.

    A man forsaking that model, and going his own way, rapidly learns how easy it is to earn enough money for his needs and desires. No overproduction, no hyperproduction (unless he wants to for his own reasons- like building an early-retirement superfund). Society has funded the pseudo-marriage benefits from the value arising from the over- and hyperproduction of men. I’m guessing those funds are going to go away as more and more men earn “just enough”. Another thing I think will happen is that, as more and more women support themselves with their own earnings, these women will become less and less enthusiastic about having The State confiscating their earnings and handing them over to another woman. An interesting side issue is that a woman who might otherwise have married a good, solild, overproducer will probably have less disposable income to spend on herself as a single wage earner. Can I get a big “Hooo-Ya!” for feminism?

    The loosening of female sexual morals (and a big THANK YOU to the feminists for that one) has made it easy for single men to enjoy a better sex life than many married men traditionally have had. No committment, no investment, and lots and lots of variety, if desired.

    I agree, all the King’s horses and all the King’s men aren’t going to put marriage back together again any time soon. This should be interesting. Oh, I almost forgot. Most of the +3billion women in the world are younger, nicer, smaller, more feminine, and better cooks ;-) than the perimenopausal Anglo women pushing this stuff. I hope the aging Anglo women that have been telling men they’re like bicycles to fish for the last several decades like cats.

  • Paul

    DonnieH – point taken. But I would not rule out men being slaves who are forced to work. Don’t think that freedom will be any part of the female feminist future. I can easily envisage men living in dormitories in camps surrounded by a perimeter fence and only being let out to perform work.

    You think this far fetched? Well let’s just see. I know such a situation does not sound very productive but that will not matter provided women are at the top. Don’t expect even self interest to enter into female thinking. The utter destructiveness of women in their relationship to men is as yet only at its beginning. They would destroy themselves provided it destroyed us first.

  • sig

    The enslavement of men is hardly far-fetched. It’s already an absolute reality for most divorced men. And we shift toward becoming a totally Bolshevist state, you’ll find more links getting added to the slave chains, where not getting married will be compensated by some alternate form of vagina tax.

    This is a reality that will manifest if men allow it, largely it already has. And it will be propagandized as being “for the good of everyone”, etc., that men are controlled (perhaps literally imprisoned in labor camps) in such a fashion so their “aggressive tendencies” can be kept in check. What other aim could they possibly have considering all of the sick shit that is already in place…?

    Fortunately, I think there will come a breaking point as roll further along and things get worse. It’s already becoming obvious, and they cannot brainwash all of us though they certainly aren’t sparing any effort. Good article.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    I love this scene from the movie “300″….

    A diplomatic messenger has just asked the Spartan king Leonidas to surrender to Xerxes, the Persian king whose vast army stands ready to conquer the city. The messenger has asked Leonidas to present Xerxes with a gift of earth and water as a token of “submission” to the Persian king’s army. Enraged by the suggestion, the warrior king Leonidas draws his sword and prepares to kill the messenger for his insolence.

    Suddenly shaken, the messenger pleads with Leonidas to respect the common traditions of diplomacy: “No man –Persian or Greek — no man threatens a messenger!”

    For a moment, Leonidas seems touched by the messenger’s words. He seems to reconsider, and finally to appreciate the gravity of the murder he was about to commit.

    But one look from his wife, the queen, was enough to seal the fate of the Persian messenger. Diplomacy be damned. She nods her head at Leonidas, who accepts his instruction, and turns back to dispatch the Persian messenger with a lethal kick into a deep well.

    Leonidas has not just redeemed his queen’s honor, and her right to speak in Spartan society — he has gone far beyond those simple courtesies. Following a moment of personal indecision, he exercises her will.

    Was is das “Matriarchy”?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWS9PiXekE

  • allen tucker

    Equal rights – Equal fights…or worse than racism,( Separate, But Equal ) is the newly forming social construct of feminism,” Separated and Unqualified )…not a good future for any one, male or female and just down right dangerous…An answer to this position is External Reproductive Abilities (E.R.A.) This is the only way to revert the errosion of male opinion, socitially speaking. Chilvarist-feminist have slowly sold males out or have excommunicated males from any strong-healthy discourses that oppose females in the legal and-or public arenas. As a whole.and in order to offset the gluttony of, female only-opined children of today, is to have a counter balance option for males of a child raised with no female input at all…truely a move in the right direction – for all the right reasons. Laws need to be codified to protect these abilities before it becomes a reality NOW,..IS THE TIME PLACE LAWS ON THE BOOKS…NOT LIKE THE “MENS MOVEMENT”…40 YEARS LATER, AFTER THE FACT…BUT DO THIS ONE BEFORE THE ATTACK ! LAWS TO ALLOW FOR A MALES ABILITY TO REPRODUCE MINUS FEMALE INVOLVMENT. Ultimatley, this male capability is coming to a town near you, in your future…So why not prepare a legal place for men of this desire, ahead of opportunity disaster ? REMEMBER , BEFORE ITS FACT…ITS… SCIENCE FICTION…1st….

  • http://smallhold-pioneerpreppy.blogspot.com/ Connor

    The feminist doctrine has become so entangled in pretty much all American females minds that in the end only a total end of civilization will dispell it.

    We can blame early feminist or whoever but the two most dominant factors for the rise of feminism is/was a missplaced chivalry in old males who sit as judge on courts and still think the world works as it did 60 years ago or more and cheap energy known as oil.

    One rules against his fellow males because he never had to suppress his protective side and feels it is his duty to defend a woman and the other allows the strength and stamina of men to be cast aside and replaced by machines and other males using machines who require no personal interaction to give the female what she cannot give herself.

    Feminist have allied themselves with every minority and special interest group to lend credit to whatever claim they go after next always at the expense of the white male patriarchy.

    This state of affairs cannot last much longer gentlemen. Either by financial depression or the eventual loss of cheap energy the life span of feminism will be about 15 seconds after the lights start to go out.

    The world is still a dangerous place just temporarily held at bay and nature in the end has no use for feminism.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Mike

    The scene you linked to was the edited version that didn’t show the elements you spoke to.

    Here is the full version.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWS9PiXekE&NR=1

  • http://angryharry Rod

    I believe,
    female entitlement demands, will continue increasing.
    A basic requirement for a woman will be a luxury for a man.
    She will be competing against other females and will never consider a the average males well-being – ever.
    When the anglosphere starts to crumble more, under the weight of this female handicapping.
    We men will be blamed
    From men’s labor to woman’s life-style today.
    Tomorrow, – when her life-style employment is unsustainable and real laboring is needed to save our civilization, woman will scream and protest again.
    This time claiming they have been forced into the work place and away from their baby’s because of idle men.
    The state again, will step in to punish us for these crimes.
    It will be our fault again. It will be the exact same type of woman orchestrating the accusations ( the privileged ones).
    Young men will believe these bitches.
    It is our job to remember, teach and care about the younger members of our own kind.
    Is it possible that there are many woman, who only know how to operate by prostituting things.
    If not themselves then everybody else.
    And everything too.
    And of course that’s all men’s fault as well.
    We must never forget, – Rod.

  • Paul

    I viewed the video in Paul Elam’s post and saw what he described – the woman commanding murder with a slight nod of the head. The nod was almost imperceivable as if standing back from real responsibility, which of course it was.

    There was more. As the King mulled over the situation we where presented with his imaginings – beautiful wife, adorable children. All straight out of the Hollywood book of sentimental family clichés . This could be hardly more different than Life in Sparta where children when ejected out of the home and forced to live by stealing in order to toughen them up for war. Entry into manhood required Spartans to kill one of the underling Prols.

    Far from embodying warm family sentiments Sparta was one of the most cruel societies ever to have exited. That is why we have the word Spartan to describe a sever existence.

  • http://google cdub

    “There has been a fundamental change in social values. These values reflect the statistical average of the acts based on those values which result from billions of tiny and seemingly inconsequential decisions each day. A woman, who decides to let man-bashing hate speech fall stupidly out of her mouth in an otherwise empty head, drops one more drop of poison into the well of relationships that everyone must drink from. A man who overhears her likes women just a tiny bit less. A man who might have otherwise considered asking her out on a date, decides that he really doesn’t want to date a man-basher, so the opportunity for a positive interaction between them gets passed up.”

    Wow, I just had to comment on this blog, and on this paragraph in particular. I can’t really say it any better but this explains so many things about how messed up relations are between men and women these days.

  • Lola

    What I can´t understand is why you all put the blame of the problems of our civilization ONLY in feminism.

    Feminism searchs for a simple thing:
    equality for men and women, same fees, same rights,
    As I am a convinced feminist, I want to get my own money directly form my work I don´t need a man´s support, but it doesn-t mean he is evil or unnecesary.
    It is a question of equal rights, that´s all.
    If I am with a man, it´s because I love him and respect each other, not because he is my provider.

    Never, never in my whole life could undersand why are you so angry for that.

  • Andre Lieven

    “Feminism searchs for a simple thing:
    equality for men and women, same fees, same rights,” Lola.

    And, there’s the Big Lie. No, it does nothing of the sort. Feminism demands MORE for women, and LESS for anyone who isn’t a woman, like men and children.

    Given that feminists are happy with 60%+ of college students being women (But, when women were only 40%, it was a “crisis”…), they’re happy with women getting child custody over 80% of the time (Only in the cuckoo land of feminism can 80-20 be called “equality”.), given that feminists continue to LIE about DV (Close to half is committed by WOMEN.), and wages (Women DO get equal pay for equal work, work hours, years on the job, equal qualifications…), it is clear that feminism IS pure selfish and dishonest misandry.

  • Lola

    ¿feminism is pure misandry?
    well, that´s your opinion (personal, particular one).
    Feminism has brought dignity and strength to women of the poorest countries worldwide, where they had no rights.

    There are many branches and different visions of feminism, feminism of the difference is one of the most revolutionary as well as world changing filosophy.
    Misandry?
    What about misoginy of Patriarchy?
    What about hate to women of its legacy?
    (take a look at whatever the laws in last century)
    When they approved the human rights, it was about men rights (women where strongly submmitted to husband)

    We just talk about respect and justice to our job and our professions, that´s all, And if I want to promote, don´t call me ambitious.
    Or it is impossible to a woman being ambitious??

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Andre

    And, there’s the Big Lie

    True, one of the biggest whoppers of all time.

    But I think out of your sense of fairness, which feminists would assert you don’t have, you have been too generous with them.

    Feminists are not “happy” with any of those things. Even as women outlive men and are less often the victims of the top killer diseases, and while they enjoy a federally funded office on women’s health where no such office for men exists, feminists still decry the need for even more attention to matters of women’s health. In this and so many other areas they routinely claim that prejudices clearly favoring them do not exist.

    As sound research continues to empirically demonstrate that half of all DV is committed by women, feminists respond by demonizing and engaging in character assassination on both the academics who author papers on the matter and men’s advocates who disseminate the statistics.

    The more extreme of their ilk make death threats and bomb threats against those involved in the research, as we saw with Richard Gelles, Suzanne Steinmetz and Murray Strauss. We witnessed the same thing with Erin Pizzey when her work revealed how many women instigated violence and other chaos in the home.

    There are a thousand more examples. I am sure you are aware of them.

    Feminists are happy with nothing but total hegemony. Feminists are, to the idea of equality, what carcinogens are to the idea of defeating cancer.

  • DonnieH

    Lola’s “What aboutery” is epic.

    Yes, what about the laws of the last century, like “The married woman’s presumption” or the gender double standard in condonation of adultry laws? The Evil Patriarchy- insisting that women get in the lifeboats first. Hilarious. Thanks for the laughs!

    Oooohh, ooohh, oooh! Can we talk about the history of voting next? Pleeeeeeaaase!!!

  • http://www.rip-factor.com/formen.html Richard

    Do not argue with a feminist or a woman who has been tainted by feminism.

    They have scrambled eggs for brains.
    You cannot unscramble an egg.

    Good demonstration of this – their claim to the “Anorexic Epidemic” in America.

    Look around – there is no anorexic epidemic – there IS an obesity epidemic.

    Feminists fabricate all kinds of nonsense – they take extreme cases in history, and try desperately to convince people that they were in fact commonplace.

    Just ignore them.

    Do not dignify their comments with a response.

  • Lola

    Justa take whatever laws regarding civil status of a married woman in past century and tell me. (France, Spain, England)
    This was no lie but the reality.
    Feminism has brought equality, and like most of human movements, it has good things and bad things, but YOU JUST CAN´T talk about discrimination on men and forget hisorical apartheid of women from education, family heritage, and over all things from a paid job; that is what frightenned most men, our economical independency.
    Why so many efforts to keep us under your economical domain?

  • Lola

    Are you adult people in here?

    I ask it because of your childish responses…

    1) Oooohh, ooohh, oooh! Can we talk about the history of voting next? Pleeeeeeaaase!!!

    2)feminist have scrumbled eggs instead of brain
    Has any of you gor the University?
    or more
    Has any of you reached 18???

  • http://www.rip-factor.com/formen.html Richard

    @Lola: This is what she typed:

    2)feminist have scrumbled eggs instead of brain
    Has any of you gor the University?
    or more
    Has any of you reached 18???

    I rest my case.

    Looks like her brains are a little more scrambled than normal today!

  • http://www.unitywall.com TXM

    Zed said, “The men who adapted early and well to the new visions of total equality (and uniformity) were perfectly happy to let women support themselves…”

    I think that living well is the best revenge, gentlemen. There is a positive side to divorce, or to permanent bachelorhood. It doesn’t cost much money for a single man to live his life. He can still have great sex, and even intimate friendships with women.

    This is not an easy road. It is difficult finding sex parnters sometimes, and friendships with women wax and wane. Most importantly, it is not good for a single person (male or female) to raise a child alone, although there are ways to make that work too.

    There are holidays spent alone, nights spent alone, and sometimes the absence of children to give your life purpose. But there is also the abilty to travel extensively, even under difficult conditions. There is the ability to pursue your life’s passions, unhindered by criticism or demands to put your “selfish” desires away for the benefit of your family.

    Plus there is that really wonderful feeling of meeting a new woman, discovering her, exploring her… that’s tricky though, because you might fall in love and decide not to remain single!

    Like I said, a tough road. But not a bad road. The real question is this: Does the troubles and benefits of being single outweight the troubles and benefits of being married?

    Married men enjoy regular sexual activity (sometimes they do). They enjoy the birth of thier kids, and watching them grow up. They have the security of a spouse to manage thier personal affairs in the event of illness… etc.

    Married men also run at least a 50% chance of getting a divorce. 70% of those divorces instigated by women. No chance to appeal this breach of contract. 80% chance of losing his kids. 100% chance of having to pay either child support, alimony or both. Complete loss of status as a father. Forced to work at jobs he may or may not like in order to meet his obligations. Complete loss of control of the children’s discipline or the ex-wife’s behavior (including move-aways). Legal battles. False DV and child molestation claims, etc. Shall I go on?

    Its a simple cost-benefit analysis.

    It doesn’t matter what feminists want. Marriage is an arrangement that men freely enter into. They can choose not to enter into it. Thus, they have total control. What more could we want?

    I want to live well and be happy. I don’t think marriage is the right route for me.

  • julie

    Hi Lola,

    I hope you don’t start putting men down here because of their responses. They set up tactics for themselves to deal with women and you fit the definition of what that they will shut out. I know because I am the same as you. ;)

    But I hear you and I work actively for men’s rights. I was really happy to see you write that you don’t need a provider but want a man you love and you respect each other.

    I think you are the progress old school (non radical) feminists worked for. They married to have sex, my generation (40 years old) married for the children. You (I am gathering you are the next generation) will marry as equal and for love. And the majority of your generation are marrying equal. You have equal education (even though more women are gaining education as a special interest group which we need to swing back with men as a special interest group too) and you have equal pay for the same job and you can speak up as if both your words matter.

    Enjoy that Lola. But just try hard not to get sucked into the radical side of what women worked for. You don’t need to hang around bad men and you don’t need to blame the men in your life for choices you make.

    I wish you well in life. And if you come across some of your friends pulling men down, please do me a favour, and say, “Hey, that’s not fair, that’s not equality”.

    Warm regards.

  • DonnieH

    Dear Richard- my post was for others to illuminate the type of arguments feminists so predictably throw out. What-aboutery, combined with the unsupported assertion, is quite typical. So is justifying extensive and extreme bigotry against men by invoking the history of women’s voting rights, which is why I mentioned it. I always enjoy that discussion b/c it’s so easily obliterated :-) .

    So, before I sign off for the weekend, just for fun, which of these women were NOT allowed to own property, by law?

    1) Cleopatra
    2) Catherine the Great
    3) Madam de Stael (France, circa 1798)
    3) Isabella of Spain
    3) Elizabeth I of England
    4) Queen Victoria, also of England
    5) Martha Dandridge Custis, later Martha Washington (Mt. Vernon, circa 1758- I think every 5th grader in America knows this one, so hopefully some feminists might, too, but I won’t count on it)
    6) The Widow C. Richards (Louisiana, 1860- this one might surprise you)

    Extra bonus question: Of the six women above, some were heads of state (I almost included Marie Antionette in the above list, just so I could make a bad pun at this point), some were not. Of the women that were leaders of their nation, which one(s) did NOT take their country to war?

    Have a great weekend!

    - Donnie

    PS- shaming language (~has (sic) any of you reached 18, ~childish responses) is another tediously predictable tactic of feminists.

  • Lola

    Dear Julia:

    Of course I wouldn´t demean men; I want respect for everybody (male or female).
    As you have noticed, I am not a radical feminist at all; I strongly believe in equality (in rights of course, in terms of laws and social practices).
    I am against sexism. If you are a man and want to take care of your children…why not?
    If you are a woman and want to carry a professional life (and have children if you want)…why not?
    But on the groundings of deep respect, solidarity and common sense.

    Julia, us woman come from hard times, where it was forbbiden being a judge (Spain up to 1970)… my mother coudn´t.
    Now I am a lawyer thanks to feminism. And this is how it is. No lies.

    Warm regards to you too

    I am

  • Lola

    One more thing, Julia you said this:

    Enjoy that Lola. But just try hard not to get sucked into the radical side of what women worked for. You don’t need to hang around bad men and you don’t need to blame the men in your life for choices you make.
    ——————-
    Julia…Do you thing that most women are on the radical side???

    I simply don´t think so, Julia, not in my case, I liook around and only see women (and men) working hard to cope with works and families affairs.
    Regards¡¡

  • Mike S.

    Lola claims a woman was not allowed to be a judge in Spain up until 1970. I’ll take her word for it.

    The macho-est of nations with its glorious history of culture, conquest, and catholicism, and a proud legacy that is evident around the spanish-speaking world.

    Now, fast-forward 40 years from Lola’s 1970 “oppression” of women.

    There is no better example of what unfettered feminism can do. Spain has voluntarily emasculated itself. Its socialist government assures that it will never be a great nation again. It shamelessly turned tail and ran from its NATO obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan after terrorists blew up a few trains in 2004. They passed a law threatening jail for men who don’t do their share of the household chores. Their domestic violence laws are among the most draconian in the world and even more gender biased than England or the USA. Their career-orientated women have abandoned their social responsibilities by refusing to have enough children to maintain the population. The large broods by muslim immigrants ensure that the Moors will have the last laugh after all.

    And the bitter-sweet irony of it all……when Spanish women begin living under sharia law in the caliphate, they’ll learn what REAL oppression is and Spanish men won’t be bailing them out this time.

  • julie

    Dear Julia:

    ***Of course I wouldn´t demean men; I want respect for everybody (male or female).
    As you have noticed, I am not a radical feminist at all; I strongly believe in equality (in rights of course, in terms of laws and social practices).
    I am against sexism. If you are a man and want to take care of your children…why not?
    If you are a woman and want to carry a professional life (and have children if you want)…why not?
    But on the groundings of deep respect, solidarity and common sense.***

    This is what I thought you were about. It sounds reasonable to me.

    ***Julia, us woman come from hard times, where it was forbbiden being a judge (Spain up to 1970)… my mother coudn´t.
    Now I am a lawyer thanks to feminism. And this is how it is. No lies. ***

    Well done working hard and for your achievement to become a lawyer. I am not sure feminism did that for you because I think you did it for yourself. Unless of course you were just handed the position which I don’t think happened. lol

    As far as you mother’s day; it wasn’t forbidden for women to be judges just like it wasn’t forbidden for women to work. There were no laws that stated women couldn’t do things.

    What happened is that society itself looked down upon it. Many women wanted to work even if it was a part time job to have a break from the children and many husbands wanted for their women to work if they wanted. If the woman worked society (women and men) would whisper behind the man and woman’s back saying things like, “Oh, the poor woman, her husband is forcing her to work” or “He can’t support his own wife, what an awful man”. And society made things hard for them. Both men and women were forced to live a certain way because of society. Neither had any power to change this until all broke loose in the 60′s. The young men and young women bucked the societal system. The young have been doing it every generation from at least the early 1900s.

    In the same way today society won’t let men free of their responsibilities. The wouldn’t even allow it when ‘girl power’ started which was meant to be ‘children power’ if the majority of those involved had their way.

    And so we only have girl power still where we are still looking at ways to free women from responsibility of the old such as having abortion available and childcare centres. This was planned from the 70′s feminists.

    ***Julia…Do you thing that most women are on the radical side???
    I simply don´t think so, Julia, not in my case, I liook around and only see women (and men) working hard to cope with works and families affairs.****

    I don’t think most women are radical. Thank goodness for that because I like women. I think we have lots of good about us.

    The women who become radical are the women who blame men for everything women are unhappy about. Everything is men’s fault. And they end up affecting society in such a way that they become the ones who are forcing people to live a certain way. We have to fight them ourselves for men (like my sons your age) to have rights. That’s really what is happening here. It is not you we need to fight but women who won’t let men have a healthy relationship with their children because they say, “men can’t be trusted with children even as fathers”. And other things such as “men getting care for domestic violence” and more.

  • julie

    Hi Lola,

    Comment # 33 was meant to read Dear Lola, (not Dear Julia)

  • DonnieH

    Had to pop back into the office for a bit . . . For any history buffs out there- the first female judge (justice of the peace) in the U.S. was Ester Morris, Wyoming, appointed in 1870 (women had the right to vote in Wyoming at that time) by the evil partriarchal oppressor John Campbell. Justice Morris died in 1902.

    The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, so a full half century before that, Ester Morris was not only voting, but also ruling from the bench. My gosh! How did she accomplish any of that without “feminism”?

    Trick history question: Did Judge Ester Morris ever get to vote to elect any Senator?

  • julie

    Hi DonnieH,

    Sometimes I forget how this is mostly an American site. America was well ahead of other countries and it is illuminating that women could vote there in 1870 and work as judges.

    New Zealand seems like Spain because our first female judge was in 1975. Yet women who owned property and paid rates voted from 1867. This was extended to all women in 1876. Men voted one election prior to women.

  • Jay R

    I get so SICK of hearing “without feminism I could never have ….” The folks who use this group-think device are generally ignorant of history — as Julie and others have pointed out here.

    More examples of this ideological idiocy: the Equal Pay Act mandating equal wages for women (not equal earnings!) was passed in 1963. The Civil Rights Act prohibiting sex discrimination was passed in 1964 — before “feminism” had gained any identity or power as a social movement. Were those mostly white, male Senators and Representatives who voted for these and subsequent laws benefiting women all “feminists”? Were the men who voted to grant universal suffrage to women all “feminists”? Absurd.

    Lola, you are able to be a lawyer thanks to …. PATRIARCHY, not feminism! Feminism itself would never have been possible, and could never have been sustained — even to the present day — without the Patriarchy which built and maintains the free and just civilization we enjoy. It was the Patriarchy’s legal, political, technological, medical, engineering, and scientific advancements that freed women from the “prison” of the home and their more limited (but secure) existences — and allowed them to become the bunch of impudent, uppity wenches they are today. ;-)

    All feminism has done is thrown a stifling blanket of hostility over gender relations, while seeking to keep men imprisoned by their obligations to women, and to keep women free of any real adult responsibility. Can you imagine how far we might have come if feminists had not high-jacked the existing human rights movement toward gender equality? Imagine if the Black Panthers had succeeded in convincing society that their message of hatred and violence represented all of black America, and you get the idea of how counter-productive feminism has been, and continues to be.

    These days, no one who doesn’t want to be the object of scorn and derision should identify themselves as a “feminist” or feminist sympathizer. Think about how professed members of the KKK, or the Black Panthers, should expect to be received … .

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    Lola, you are able to be a lawyer thanks to …. PATRIARCHY, not feminism!

    Well said and resounding with truth.

  • Andre Lieven

    Lola Says: (24) November 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am

    “Justa take whatever laws regarding civil status of a married woman in past century and tell me. (France, Spain, England)
    This was no lie but the reality.”

    It is profoundly dishonest to excuse injustice TODAY on the back of an injustice LONG AGO.
    People who try to do so, show that they don’t want justice (Because justice means no injustice is acceptable, at all.), rather, they want REVENGE. But, since revenge against oppressors long DEAD is not possible, they their desire for revenge over justice onto the putative descendents of the alleged oppressors.
    That’s rather… biblical, actually; Original Sin, and all that.

    ”Feminism has brought equality,”

    Repeating the Big Lie doesn’t make it be less of a lie. Let us know when men getting 50% of the college/university slots is on the agenda, or when women will agree to work as many hours and years as men do, on average, in order to EARN that equal pay…

    “and like most of human movements, it has good things and bad things,”

    Yes, it has some good things (Known as looting.) for women, and nothing but bad things for men…

    “but YOU JUST CAN´T talk about discrimination on men and forget hisorical apartheid of women from education, family heritage, and over all things from a paid job;”

    Yeah, actually, yes we CAN. Because it is NEVER right to excuse deliberate injustice NOW because of some injustive LONG AGO.

    Oh and the claim that the past was Good for men, and Bad for women is another Big Lie; Would all the women who were graciously allowed to grossly outsurvive men on the Titanic (97 years ago), like to give up their lives for the men who stayed to die, so that the women could live ? Uh huh, didn’t think so…

    See: http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm

    “that is what frightenned most men, our economical independency.”

    Wrong. But, it is not news that most women understand men very, very poorly, and don’t wish to expend the effort to actually LISTEN to any men, in order to reduce their studied ignorance.

    ”Why so many efforts to keep us under your economical domain?”

    That one IS funny; Given that 80% of non custodial MOTHERS get enforced child support from men, but only 20% of non custodial FATHERS get any child support from the Deadbeat Moms,
    this claim is exactly reversed.

    http://fathersrights.tripod.com/stats.html

    Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
    Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
    Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
    Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

    So, when are you grrls gonna pay up YOUR Equal Share ?

    To Paul Elam: Agreed.

  • Lola

    Patriarchy has coexisted with a slight-undergorund-domestic Matriarchy.
    Of course most women have supported Patriarchy in the past; (and today, at muslem countries and others)
    Because Patriarchy is partially based on biology (of course woman adore children and motherhood, I am a mother of two little sons); and fathers are more incined to protec and provide.
    That´s OK, no discussion.
    What I think is the wost think of Patriarchy is its obsesion to keep women out of REAL power (in general I mean, not queens or aristocracy), in order to weep married woman under control of their husbands.
    Obviously woman weren´t stupid beings at all, and get whatever their wanted by MANIPULATING their husbands.
    But Nowadays…
    Why should I to get something from my man manipulating if I earn my own money?
    I want my power to decide just as the same as he does. I don´t want to manipulate, I just want my piece of cake because I deserve it and because I work hard (double at home and at office).
    Now real power is shared, and this threatens men, they dón´t know how to cope with sharing power, they don´t know how to behave.
    I dont want someone to seve me at Titanic ???long time ago, I want someone who consider me equual in capacity and skills (thought less phisical strengh but stronger psicollogical one)
    don´t tallk to me about muslims getting me back at kitchen (all spanish man tell us so all the time). Let´s talk about today.
    today violence on couples takes 1 out of ten for man, One man dies and whilst ten woman die from same reasons domestic violence.
    La “ley de medidas contra la violencia de género” is a faulty law which doesn´t achieve its aims: protec woman at risk.

  • julie

    Hi Lola,

    ***Patriarchy has coexisted with a slight-undergorund-domestic Matriarchy.***

    lol, that’s funny. People think the men are running the show but really it is their wives chatting and planning at the hair salons, spas, beauty parlours, cocktail lunches and tennis clubs while their husbands at are work slaving away to pay for it all.

    Yep, it sure is an underground. Women could kill their husbands and just live off his life insurance if she wasn’t happy with him any more. Oh, what am I saying, they still can. :D

    ***Of course most women have supported Patriarchy in the past; (and today, at muslem countries and others)
    Because Patriarchy is partially based on biology (of course woman adore children and motherhood, I am a mother of two little sons); and fathers are more incined to protec and provide.
    That´s OK, no discussion. ***

    I like the way you state loudly “in Muslim countries” but quietly sneak in other countries which means America, Europe, China, Japan, the Pacific Islands, India and so on.

    I think it is a great discussion. The Patriarchy benefits women. I personally would say women insisted on it and the majority of women still do. But you are right to say the Patriarchy is only partly biological. Men don’t need to protect and provide for women. That can be changed.

    ***What I think is the wost think of Patriarchy is its obsesion to keep women out of REAL power (in general I mean, not queens or aristocracy), in order to weep married woman under control of their husbands.****

    It is not that the Patriarchy keeps women out of real power. It is just that the majority of women don’t want it. After the 60′s came feminism which was basically a whole lot of University school girls being foolish. “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” they chanted. But as soon as they grew up and started a family the placards and chanting were put away. They sure needed men.

    The only women available were mostly lesbians and boy, oh, boy, look how that turned out. Every women who was hurt by a man joined the ‘man hate gang’ allowing their sickness to run wild instead of being healed. Now they plan from the position of power how best to turn men and women against each other. And you are falling for it. I don’t think it is in the publics best interest for a lawyer to be a feminist.

    Lola, it would be best if you presented facts about domestic violence. 10 women to 1 man is too unbelievable.

  • Lola

    Julia:

    two important things I get form your last comment:

    1) This is one conlusion from it: you said more or less …It is not real what you are telling that many (don´t know if most at all) women in the past survived and deal with dalily life and laws and conventionalities by manipulating their husbands………………….
    Of course they did, it was almost the only way in some cases, they just adapted at how the world it was, I never put the blame in that behavior because Matriarchy hadn´t the power to change the status quo; but it was this way for sure, it is this way in many couples I know (I am forty, not as young as you think).

    2) “women are not available to bear power, they don´t want to”….
    ……………………
    That is the statement which annoys me most; Do you mean NO ONE woman are capable of decide or rule an enterprise, a region, a court or even a country????
    I know some of them don´t want to….but what about the rest??
    Look at me I am bossy (I know I am) and ambitious….I love my profession (and my 2 children)
    For good sake its 2009 and you are telling me I can´t be a boss because I am a woman and don´t want to????
    Really, really, you must be joking¡¡

  • julie

    Julia:

    ***1) This is one conlusion from it: you said more or less …It is not real what you are telling that many (don´t know if most at all) women in the past survived and deal with dalily life and laws and conventionalities by manipulating their husbands………………….
    Of course they did, it was almost the only way in some cases, they just adapted at how the world it was, I never put the blame in that behavior because Matriarchy hadn´t the power to change the status quo; but it was this way for sure, it is this way in many couples I know (I am forty, not as young as you think).***

    (40′s a great age)

    I could get into a whole lot about history for women. But I feel I am already overstepping the mark on this site with my comments. It is a men’s site afterall and us women can’t take over.

    Why don’t you look over some other threads and ask some questions. You are fortunate to find this site because it has a lot of men with knowledge on it.

    ***2) “women are not available to bear power, they don´t want to”….
    ……………………
    That is the statement which annoys me most; Do you mean NO ONE woman are capable of decide or rule an enterprise, a region, a court or even a country????
    I know some of them don´t want to….but what about the rest??
    Look at me I am bossy (I know I am) and ambitious….I love my profession (and my 2 children)
    For good sake its 2009 and you are telling me I can´t be a boss because I am a woman and don´t want to????
    Really, really, you must be joking¡¡***

    You’ve read past me. I don’t think for one moment women shouldn’t hold powerful positions. I just don’t think most women want it, that’s all.

    But you should talk to the radical feminists that run the human rights commissions around the world. They have big plans for women taking completely over. They say they want 50% of women in all power positions but very openly they will add, “If we can have it all, it would be great. Men had their turn”.

    I think it is very obvious I would never support a Matriarchy although I live in one. (NZ is feminised completely, every square inch of society)

    I think we should cap everything so that when women get to 50% the breaks go on. I don’t think radical feminism is the answer. It’s evil. And you are going to have to one day start thinking about you sons and their future.

  • Lola

    Radical feminism is AS BAD AS radical “machismo” (I think you say chauvinism)
    Both are evil, don´t know how or why you thing strong machism (like in deep Africa, swept by war, poverty and child abuse) is better than
    strong feminism. Never know.
    You see feminism as a menace, I see a menace in whatever radical ideologies (and strong and primitive patriarcalism is one of them)
    Regards

  • julie

    Lola

    ***Radical feminism is AS BAD AS radical “machismo” (I think you say chauvinism)***

    I agree.

    ***Both are evil, don´t know how or why you thing strong machism (like in deep Africa, swept by war, poverty and child abuse) is better than strong feminism. Never know.***

    I don’t think that a strong macho society should rule. You seem to think there are only 2 choices. That we only have 2 extremes to choose between when we have the majority in the middle. Nothing wrong with the middle ground IMHO. None of us have to take the extreme if we don’t want to and there doesn’t have to be a them and us or you against me.

    ***You see feminism as a menace, I see a menace in whatever radical ideologies (and strong and primitive patriarcalism is one of them)
    Regards***

    I am with you on seeing all radical ideologies as a menace in society.

    Feminine-ISM. Anything that ends in an ISM is already radical.

    The suffragettes turned to an ISM. The men did the work for the suffragettes to exist. The suffragettes changed maternity care, they cared about breastfeeding, they cared about children, they cared abut women working, they did a lot of good for society since the early 1900′s. Feminists didn’t just take what man had provided but took what suffragettes had provided. They did high jack the humanity movement. The suffragettes were the ones who started ‘girl power’ and they wanted ‘children power’. Just look how the feminists treated their own sisters before them. Look how anti a whole gender they became.

    http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-and-sex.html

  • julie

    Lola, make sure you read the link before coming back to me.

    http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-and-sex.html

  • http://google cdub

    Julie,

    I just wanted to say thank you. You offer rational, well thought out responses in your arguments. I can’t say I always agree with you, but then again, who agrees with someone else 100% of the time? I’m glad the MRA community has level-headed people like you on our side.

    In the coming years I think this poster, Lola, is going to have to take a fine hard look at what feminism really stands for and how it will affect her sons. I think only when she starts seeing her sons being short-changed or railroaded by Western society will more of these things start to sink in for her. I don’t question her love for her children, but her lack of education for true male opinoin & Western society’s failure to address the problems that men face. And if she sticks around places like MND, glennsacks.com, fathers and famalies, radar, ned holstein, mensrights.org, she will start to slowly see some of the injustices that are built into Western society that paralize men, which our media and government do not want to admit.

    Thanks again,

    Cdub

  • julie

    To cdub,

    ***I just wanted to say thank you. You offer rational, well thought out responses in your arguments.***

    I want to accept your thank-you but I can’t. I just speak from me and I just use men’s sites to learn. I am not on either side. It is me who is thank-ful to you.

    *** I can’t say I always agree with you, but then again, who agrees with someone else 100% of the time? I’m glad the MRA community has level-headed people like you on our side.***

    Like …. I am not on any side. I am a counter feminist.

    http://counterfem.blogspot.com/

  • http://google cdub

    Fair enough.

    Good luck to you.

  • julie

    cdub Says:
    November 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    ****Fair enough. Good luck to you.***

    I can sure thank you for that. :D

    Enjoy ….

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/2pac/ghettogospel.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxR4AweLeXE

  • Lola

    I know the real problems that men face as well as I know the real problems women face. I am a “family” issues lawyer and I see it every day in marriaget conflicts and divorce, and in harrashment, violence and another issues.

    I know men suffer,
    I know women suffer too, both.
    When there is a couple in troubles, it normally comes from both, wife and husband.
    It is nor fair for a father being separated from his children but it si not fair for a woman being hit or abused.
    There are profeteers everywhere men and women.
    I will never NEVER support a woman to accuse in false, but I´ll never support a man who maltreat or abandon his wife going out wiith another girl.
    And both things happens.
    there is a bunch of circumstances that makes it a lot complicated.
    But what I can only see is that the more rascal and swine is the one to win, unfortunately. and this is a man or a woman.
    A freelance man who abandons his wife and children, it is imposiblle to prove his gains (no court is going to sentence) and the declaration of bankrupcy stops the process, he can get “undelared income” and there is nothing to do.
    On the other side I´ve seen good men with problems to pay their children or to get a job or even out of their houses.

    I am against unfair unjust and bad people, not against men or women.

  • Monty

    Excellent.

    The paragraph about how boys are isolated from men at birth to instill emotional dependence on women is particularly painful to read. Because it is true.

    I am finally over it. Never been happier in my life – single. Why didn’t I learn this earlier?

  • gwallan

    @julie…

    You may recall that after the suffragettes “won” the vote for women – and it should also be remembered that the primary opposition to womens’ franchise came from women – they turned their hands to passing out white feathers to teenage boys.

    Now we force white ribbons on men and boys to shame them into more protection of women AND even inculcate pre pubescent boys with shaming at school.

    Make no mistake that the patriarchy rules and feminists remain their handmaidens as they have always been.

    The beat goes on. For some.

  • monty

    I am now 63. I supported feminism in the 60s. I read ead all the books, and believed in equality between the genders. It took a while to realize that women did not mean equality for men. So I grew up.
    I still mean equal is equal. It is women who get rabid when I treat them just as I treat my male friends. Women’s hypocrisy is incurable. Thank god many men and boys are waking up and claiming their rights. It’s about time.

  • http://TnMtnHome.com Y

    DNA has become the arbiter of questions of paternity. As more men claim their rights to and responsibilities toward their children, the mating games will turn toward developing life partners, I hope.






Search