*Why is it men that generally pay for dates?

*Why do men traditionally take most of the initiatives?

*Why do some women expect men to buy them so much stuff on Valentine’s Day? Why do so many women expect flowers, spa treatments, boxes of chocolate, and other gifts from men? Don’t men also deserve these things? Shouldn’t Valentine’s Day include both genders?

*Why do women generally expect men to buy them wedding rings? Are men not “special” enough to also get a ring?

*Why do divorced men commit suicide 10x as often as divorced women? Don’t women feel as much heartbreak after divorce?

*Why are 2/3 of breakups initiated by women? Are men less “likable”?

*Why are men traditionally objectified as disposable protectors, heroes, or breadwinners when many females seem to receive love based on their looks alone?

*Why do many women expect to be the ones to feel “protected” or “taken care of” like a princess or “damsel in distress”? Can’t a man expect these things too?

*Why are there so many more homeless men than women? Are homeless men less likely to marry and earn a woman’s love?

*Why is “chivalry” generally something that women expect from men?

*Why is the man the one expected to be the disposable “bodyguard” to get up at night if there is a loud noise?

*Why does society as a whole seem to have more compassion for “women and children” than men?

*Why do many women expect “crying privileges” and a shoulder to cry on at any moments notice? Why do many women perceive a man’s tears and vulnerability as “weakness”?

*Do women have any “protective instincts” for their men in the same way that some people claim that men have “protective instincts” for their women? If not, does this imply that women love men less than vice versa? After all, we tend to put more effort into protecting the things in life we value more.

*Do women love their children more than their husbands? Is a woman’s “chivalry” generally reserved only for her children (or pets)?

*Why does a man have to “earn” his way into a woman’s bed? Why are some men willing to pay for a prostitute while women would never sleep with a gigolo even for free?

*Why do men (much like job applicants) compete with other men to impress a woman(when she gets to play the role of the choosy employer)?

*Why are so few women or feminists willing to get in the trenches and help do society’s dirty work to help reduce male injury, male disposability, and the longevity gap?

*Why do women and feminists seem to care more about the glass ceiling than the glass cellar?

*Why do women and feminists seem to care more about the so-called pay-gap (which is a myth) than the female-dominated spending gap? Why do some women expect to spend most of the money that the man made?

*Why are there seemingly so many more chivalrous male feminists than female masculists?

*Why do many men treat women as “queens” when many women treat men as “worker bees”?

*Why are so many men “took to the cleaners” after a divorce? Don’t men have feelings like women do?

*How many women are willing to support a stay-at-home husband (and let him spend a large portion of her money)?

*Why do “tomboys” and “daddys girls” seem to be considered charming or cute while “mama’s boys” and “jill girls” seem to elicit images of laughing stocks that still live with their parents and are too “unmanly” or “lazy” to deserve a girlfriend?

*Why aren’t women sometimes made to feel “efemilated” by their mates in the same way that men are sometimes made to feel “emasculated” (it is telling that “efemilated” isn’t even considered a real word)? Why isn’t there a phrase “take it like a woman” to go with the phrase “take it like a man”?

*Why do many women (and men) seem to have pink ribbons on their cars for breast cancer awareness at the expense of also rallying for prostate cancer awareness? Is women’s health more important?

*Why do some women find it easier to slyly “support” or “thank” a man for engaging in dangerous work or war instead of actually showing real thanks by actually doing some of the dirty work themselves (after all, actions speak louder than words)?

*Why do some women not allow metrosexuals the same fashion privileges as themselves? Why are the mens departments so much smaller than the womens departments in many clothing stores?

I know I am generalizing a bit, but I think in general men are traditionally socialized to think of themselves as “less than” women and women are socialized to think of themselves as the proverbial “prize” to be fought for. As such, men could very well be at least half the problem for this less-than-savory state of affairs. At any rate, A first date with a woman can almost seem like a job interview to a man. It seems like many feminists and women want the good parts of traditional roles coupled with special treatment with their new roles. This is not progress….it is traditional and age-old expectations of pampered entitlement.

As for men, I think they need to drop that macho facade and demand better treatment for themselves (and other men). Machismo may indeed be a form of brainwashing to keep men “in their place”. Men are not disposable wallets, and shouldn’t expect to be treated that way by other men or women. They are human beings. I think society should advocate a “new chivalry” where we all protect and care for each other.

I think it would behoove men to consider if it is really worth it to love someone else who might not love them back equally. If a man is willing to “take a bullet” for his true love, it only seems fair that the woman would be willing to do the same for him.

Gender roles hurt us all. Feminists have made their case for equality. Now masculists have to continue doing the same (if true equality is the goal). True equality involves equality in relation to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If this is indeed a goal of any given commonwealth, this means helping society close the life expectancy gap, disposability gap, female sentencing gap, spending gap, and establishing equal opportunities for finding joy. It might behoove masculists and feminists alike to join forces in achieving this goal. After all, it seems to me that most people are mindless robots who could essentially care less about masculism or feminism.

Note: This essay originally appeared in Transitions, a publication by NCFM.

More government controls, we are told, are necessary to solve problems such as skyrocketing health-insurance prices, lack of competition among insurance companies, the inability of workers to keep their insurance policy when switching jobs, etc.

Really?

Then why do giants of the computer industry like Google, Microsoft and Apple compete vigorously without a “public option”? Why do we have such plentiful, affordable food without a government “food insurance mandate”? Why does laser eye-surgery, which is not covered by Medicare or government insurance laws, get better and cheaper all the time, while the price of health services the government is most involved in, skyrockets?

The answer is that these other markets are (comparatively) left free–while health care has been manipulated by government “solutions” for decades. Thus, our health–care discussion should focus, not on how government controls can solve our problems, but on how government controls have caused our problems.

Take for instance the common complaint that individuals can’t keep their health insurance when switching from one job to another. The only reason so many individuals can’t keep their insurance in the first place is that they get it through their employer–a phenomenon that was institutionalized by the government post-WWII through tax laws that make individually purchased insurance far more expensive. We don’t face the same problem with car or home insurance when we change jobs because we don’t buy it through our employer.

Or consider the general phenomenon of skyrocketing prices for health insurance. The ways in which the government drives up prices are many and gory, but here are a few.

State insurance-mandates force companies and individuals to buy policies covering all sorts of expensive treatments they wouldn’t otherwise buy coverage for: chiropractic care, psychiatric care, prenatal care. Every such “benefit” means higher costs. Those who would prefer just to purchase insurance against medical catastrophe and pay for everything else out of pocket are prohibited from doing so.

More broadly, since the 1940s, on the idea that health care is a “right” that others must provide, the government has made Americans collectively responsible for each other’s health care, whether through collectivized employer plans or through Medicare; thus, on average, “every time an American spends a dollar on physicians’ services,” explains health economist John Goodman, “only 10 cents is paid out of pocket; the remainder is paid by a third party.”

People consuming medical services on other people’s dime consume a lot more. Prices are further driven up by numerous restrictions on the supply of medical professionals, such as protectionist licensing laws that prevent doctor’s assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and paramedics from competing with doctors on services they are well qualified to perform (fixing minor bone breaks, diagnosing the flu, etc.).

When supply is artificially limited, and demand artificially increases, prices explode. (Any system promising “universal care” experiences this–the much-vaunted “affordable” European system just deals with it by severe rationing.)

This is just a fraction of the story of how government has mangled the market for health care–a story any honest discussion of health care needs to study and learn from.

Then we will start to hear proposals for a truly progressive idea: a market in health care where the individual is responsible for his own health, the medical profession is truly free to compete for his dollars, and the government has been removed from the equation–the private option.

Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues.

I’ll stay sozzled for the rest of my life, dulled to the ongoing hallucination to the north. It’s getting bad up there. Worse than blotter-acid gollywoggles in a shopping mall full of cops.

See, everything is coming unglued al norte, and everything is for sale, like a garage bazaar when somebody dies. You’ve heard that Mexico is corrupt? Nah. Little leaguers, small frijoles. It’s not that its heart is in the right place. Nobody’s seems to be. Thing is, Mexico couldn’t organize a backyard barbecue, but the US…ah, zat ees anozzer sing. In the US corruption is systematized, orderly, massive. Gringos go about national putrefaction with Teutonic efficiency. But only the big boys get the boodle.

It’s like Violeta says: In the US, corruption is only for the rich. Mexico is democratic about it.

Washington, I tell you, is nothing but a cloud of looters swirling around the country’s fly-encrusted cadaver. Aint it so? I ask you. Everybody wants to drain money from the federal udder, from the sour dugs of the great hydra-titted monster that dwelleth all bloated within the beltway. All you have to do is think up some crackpot scam, sell it to an affirmative-action bureaucrat with glazed eyes, or pay a commoditized Congress to buy it, and the lucre flows.

Do you know about the Pentagon’s spy-bot bugborgs? A swell rip. The colonels are going to grow insects—you know, wasps, beetles, crawly things—with circuitry inside them, so you can control them, maybe with something like a TV remote, to spy on terrorists. Or us. Do you think the little chitin-packaged horror buzzing around your window is just looking for whatever it eats? No. Some psychopath with a joy stick at Langley is watching you through its glittery eyes.

You think I’m kidding, don’t you? Check here.

Come on, ‘fess up. You were just thinking that’s where you wanted your money to go…weren’t you? Can’t fool me.

Something is wrong with my office. Things don’t seem as vertical as they were a moment ago. I’ll have to talk to the contractor.

These days in the great squirrel cage north of the Rio Bravo, everybody hates everybody else. How is that? Not along ago America was sane and agreeable, given the dismally low base line for the human race. It was my favorite country. You had slingshots and BB guns and monster-block Detroit iron punched out to more cubes than Rubik’s wettest dreams, and sock-hops and happy simple-minded rock-and-roll. And Wild Irish Rose. It was a pretty good America.

But somebody has pulled its cork. Now blacks hate whites hate browns hate women hate men hate Christians hate Musselmens. High-school girls either starve themselves or vomit right and left, and the boys come to school with semi-autos to design adolescent hecatombs. It will probably be an event in the X Games before long. The country has gone wigged out. I figure somebody must have put something in the drugs.

The world is swirling strangely about. Maybe I’m at the focal point of some galaxy-wide gravitc anomaly. I can’t be held responsible for what I write. Everything is somebody else’s fault. A verse come to mind from a song somebody wrote. Me, actually.

“I’m a metrosexual, meek, mild, and ineffectual/My girlfriend takes karate, stands up to use the potty/
We’re gender-confused to the tips of our shoes/The all-new American couple.”

Hey, I think it’s great. Copyright applied for.

Maybe it’s a good thing John Wayne is dead. He’d have to wax his chest and talk in a squeak.

I was in Nepal a month ago hoofing it in the Himalayas. Them’s gret big mountains. A guide pointed to a herd of monkeys and asked did we have them in the US. Yes, I said, chiefly in the White House but many in Congress. Oh, he said, here too.

This is good booze, is Padre Kino, cost-benefit wise. Only the extremely poor here drink shaving lotion. I wonder whether anyone shaves with padre Kino.

But here’s the real problem. America has ceased being exactly a country. Instead it is like a professional-wrestling grudge-match with no rules and everybody throwing everybody else into the audicence. Think about it. The place is going broke enough to live under a bridge, but the military spends like a drunken corporal on yet more clownish wars against pissed-off peasants. The military contractors grow fat. Corporations, supposedly American, bolt for China. Wall Street pillages what is left like Timurlane on a roll. Universities, no longer much more than enablers for loan companies, rape the young. This is going to last?

We’re gonna pay for this. Like Milton Friedman said, there’s no suchthing as a frijol. If he didn’t,he should have.

But corruption. Take the drug racket. In Mexico it’s messy and splashes a lot, with narcos gunning each other down and spraying hemoglobin everywhere because they don’t have the brains to cooperate. In the States, druggery organized and peaceful and everybody gets his cut.

The train ain’t got no driver and no tracks. Congress is a subcommittee of the Knesset and crooked as kite string in a ceiling fan, the Supreme Court an unlicensed morgue, and the president a shiny ball with pretty teeth bouncing around in a corporate pin-ball machine.

What’s really slick is how the criminal element in DC has fogged the alleged mind of that vast, sprawling, larval critter, the public. Tell those salt-of-the-earh suckers out there that some hideous danger crawls ever closer, tell them you are going to protect them, and you can pick their pockets till there’s not an ounce of meat left on their bones. Think buzzards circling a dying horse. I don’t think there’s enough Padre Kino in the world.

I mean, I keep reading that half the population believes that Iraq dropped those tower things in New York. So much for an informed public. (I’ve never understood why conservatives are so upset about the towers, since they would happily nuke New York if they could. So would I.)

There’s no hope. A staff-weenie McSoldier named McChrystal is running the War on Islam, and Hillary, who speaks nothing but English and has never lived outside the country, is Secretary of State. Alligator mouth and hummingbird ass, both of them, as we used to say down South.

I’m going to send out for another liter of the Padre. Or maybe switch to chloral hydrate.

In the United States, feminists believe if a woman suffers from mental illness, the cause must be oppressive patriarchal culture. These women become unwittingly subjected to a rouge brand of therapy called “feminist psychology.”

Over the years I’ve come across cases of women in domestic violence shelters who became unwitting Guinea pigs at the hands of feminist psychology practitioners. These are their heart-rending stories.

In West Virginia, Eileen P. had been diagnosed with a mental disorder and prescribed psychotropic medications. The pills interfered with her sleep to the point that she eventually stopped taking them, lapsing into flare-ups of abuse.

One day in 2007 Mrs. P. became physically abusive of her husband. The police were called in and she was taken to the YWCA Hope House domestic violence shelter in Charleston.

Once ensconced at the facility, Mrs. P. began to fret she wasn’t getting essential psychiatric help. “Several days later, I notified my pastor, Reverend Linda Duncan, of my whereabouts. Reverend Duncan, in turn, told my husband,” Mrs. P. later attested.

So her husband asked the Mental Hygiene Commissioner to order an examination, directing the sheriff to escort Mrs. Pope to a hearing the next day.

But when the sheriff pulled up to the shelter, the staff claimed they didn’t know her whereabouts. As a result, Mrs. P. missed her hearing, sadly concluding, “This prevented me from getting the professional assistance I desperately needed.”

Throughout her 3-month shelter stay, Mrs. P. did not receive any professional counseling or medications for her mental health condition.

In nearby Virginia, Mrs. J. went to Bethany House of Northern Virginia, hallucinating about make-believe domestic violence attacks by her husband. When the case went to court, the judge noted her precarious mental state and ruled she was not a victim of abuse.

Thereupon the spiteful woman responded with a teach-you-a-lesson lawsuit, alleging her husband had stolen secret government documents and shipped them off to India. The claim was so preposterous that a psychologist concluded that she was suffering from paranoid delusions.

Eventually on January 8, 2009, Judge Charles Maxfield ruled Mrs. J. had perjured herself by filing a “diatribe of complaints about the integrity” of her husband, thus subjecting him to “Kafkaesque litigation.”

A thousand miles away in rural Oklahoma, Mrs. H., mother of five, was afflicted with a severe mental condition that required anti-psychotic pills.

Sometime in 2005 Mrs. H. became enamored of the notion that she and the children were being abused by her husband. County officials investigated the claim, later clearing the man of the allegation. In July of that year, the woman’s family had her admitted to a local mental health facility.

But staff at the SafeNet shelter in nearby Claremore decided they knew better. Instructed to never question a woman’s vexations, the staff went judge-shopping. Over the next year the shelter obtained five restraining orders against the woman’s husband, never once presenting a scintilla of proof of abuse.

Mrs. H. was eventually discharged from the mental health residence and sent to live on her own. But her condition remained unstable, so SafeNet employees traipsed to her house to make sure she swallowed the medicines.

After countless months of baseless accusations, Judge Gary Dean ruled, “Mrs. [H] is a person with serious mental health problems…After approximately 2 ½ years of extensive counseling, through Safenet and other sources, the Court can see no progress on the mental health issues of the mother.” The Judge also decreed the shelter director refrain from “any contact with the children at any time.”

Recently Mr. H, now divorced from the distraught woman, filed a $6 million lawsuit against the shelter for the incalculable harm it inflicted on him and his children.

Mrs. P, Mrs. J, and Mrs. H are now freed from their shelter tormentors, no longer subject to the vagaries of feminist psychology. And they are the lucky ones.

Because as you read this editorial, thousands of mentally-ill women languish in abuse shelters, battered by the tired feminist bromides about patriarchal oppression. The “help” they receive consists of consciousness-raising classes led by man-hating women whose sole qualifications are a degree in Womyn’s Studies.

One can only hope that more salutary lawsuits are in the works. Only then will abuse shelters begin to hire employees whose qualifications are rooted in objective science, not gender ideology.

Thus the GOP could continue in its delusions of relevancy, while clearly abdicating any real qualities of leadership. Simultaneously, it would be helping implement the liberal agenda that in reality was orchestrated to empower the Democrats. Meanwhile, the disillusionment among the base of Republican voters would eventually cause a political collapse of the party.

By 2009, it has become undeniable that the plan ultimately worked, although some unexpected events along the way delayed, for a time, the Democrat effort to seize total control of the United States Government. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 briefly shook the nation from a former complacency that had enabled the wayward and corrupt Presidency of Bill Clinton.

President Bush, having embarked on that misbegotten “new tone” effort at finding “middle ground” with the left during his first eight months in office, was suddenly confronted with the reality of the Islamist threat, and had to redefine himself and his presidency as one committed to the reestablishment of a safe and secure American homeland.

The public focus on this aspect of his agenda proved to be a saving grace, circumventing the landslide of Republican losses in the 2002 mid-term congressional elections that inarguably would have ensued, had the Bush White House and Republican Congress been characterized solely by his contemptible pandering to the left, the resultant increase in the size and scope of government, and the inevitable bloating of the national budget that followed.

Nevertheless, the tides of public cynicism eventually caught up with Bush and the Republican Congress. In 2006, America thoroughly repudiated the direction in which these GOP “moderates” had taken it, giving control of both the House and Senate to the Democrats.

Failing to discern the message sent by the electorate in the starkest of terms, the unrepentant GOP continued on its disastrous course. In 2008, with the prospect of archliberal “Republican” President John McCain further sabotaging the conservative movement from within, frustrated and disgusted voters bolted, allowing Barack Obama to assume the nation’s helm by default.

Yet a close examination of the subtleties of the McCain political debacle reveals the truth of what heartland America was expressing during the past two major elections, and what the GOP needs to acknowledge if it is to turn the political tide back on the left. So far however, it does not seem to be getting the message.

John McCain lagged badly in the 2008 pre-election polls, except for the brief period after he had chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. And had the McCain campaign spotlighted her bold and distinctly non-erudite ways, instead of becoming embarrassed by her and attempting to minimize her prominence in his campaign, the outcome of that race might have been entirely different.

Since that time, with the Republican Party in a shambles, Palin and grassroots conservatism have clearly undergone a renaissance. Yet among the Republican “elites” this reality has not yet been comprehended. The mood among conservative Americans is one of outrage and frustration at the status quo, generating an incredible energy and commitment to do something about it.

It is crucial to understand that this groundswell is not about cult followings and personalities, and by her own words, Sarah Palin knows this to be true. Admittedly, the prospect of her appearance at any rally can guarantee an enthusiastic crowd of thousands. But ultimately, such gatherings are not about her. On numerous occasions, far larger crowds have assembled across the nation at “Tea Parties,” and other protests, without any such notable figure on hand as a draw.

Likewise, the sales of her newly released book “Going Rogue” are astronomical. But contrary to the deluge of liberal media distortions which falsely depict a public intrigue over the “He said/She said” squabbles within the McCain/Palin campaign, readers are far more interested in the principles Sarah Palin espouses and courageously represents.

Americans have come to the grim realization that their country and its government is being wrested from them, and they instinctively understand that it is up to them to get it back. Otherwise, the greatness of freedom and prosperity that they once knew will be lost forever.

This is the message that is motivating real America, and that resulted in the recent stunning Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the incredibly strong showing of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York District Twenty Three. Still, it appears that within Republican Party circles, the disastrous plan is to continue “business as usual.”

In the upcoming Illinois Senate race, as well as the Kansas District 4 Congressional race, “moderate” (read: liberal) candidates are being preselected and anointed by the Republican Party leadership, thereby virtually guaranteeing a repeat of New York District 23, which ultimately fell to Democrat Bill Owens. No doubt, this preposterous “scheme” is being pursued elsewhere.

America is not, and will never be, inspired and motivated by a GOP strategy of diluted liberalism, especially when the full strength version is available right across the aisle. If the Republican movers and shakers can muster the courage to field and support truly conservative candidates, America will rally to them. It would be a tragedy if they once again “fumble” at such an opportune moment.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

For some reason, a disproportionate amount of the major oversimplifications in the world today seem to occur where feminism and the not-so-gifted meet. Having a preset notion of men being bad and responsible, with women being good and victimized, can lead to all kinds of weird theories on how certain issues are a feminist issues, even though they quite obviously are not.

One such issue is climate change. For now, let’s leave aside the whole discussion about the severity of climate change or whether it even exists. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the issue. However, I do recognize idiot simplicity when I see it. The first argument of people who argue that climate change is a feminist issue goes something like this:

Men own more cars and men use airplanes more, therefore men are more responsible for climate change.

The complexity of this observation is that of a four-year-old. Now, I don’t want to insult four-year-olds, because at that age it is quite an astute observation. But when it comes from an adult it leaves a lot to be desired.

Why do men drive cars and travel in airplanes more than women? Well, the traditional division of labor between the sexes is that the man is responsible for producing resources and the woman is responsible for taking care of the children and the home. That division of labor is far less rigid these days, but it is still very much present. So is it any surprise that men need to travel more? In order to support their families, and to keep society running, men (and women) need to travel as part of their work. Proceeding to blame men for this is not very well thought through, since we all benefit from the work these men do, not only the men themselves.

Pointing fingers at one sex for performing its gender role could be done in the other direction as well. I could claim that men should be allowed to use more electricity than women since men have invented and built wind turbines, hydropower and solar power. But then I’m punishing women for performing the gender role that they have traditionally been expected to fulfill, which is just as silly as the less-than-gifted feminists who claim that men are to blame for climate change.

A whole different argument that tries to connect feminism and climate change is that women need to be empowered so that birth rates fall in underdeveloped countries. Now I am all for empowering women in poor countries, just like I am all for empowering men in poor countries. However, do birth rates decrease from only empowering women?

To understand the situation better we need to ask ourselves why people in underdeveloped countries have more children in developed countries. The most obvious explanation-and one that has consistently been demonstrated to be true-is that people continue to have lots of children as long as they will need those children to be supported in old age. Therefore, the best way to decrease birth rates is to encourage the process of industrialization and modernization in poor countries, so that less children are needed per family, and so that contraceptives are freely available for all couples. You can empower women all you want, but if you deny a country its continued development (which requires empowered men), then you are likely having a weak impact at best.

You know that a political theory, such as feminism, has gone past its expiration date when it is desperately trying to find a problem that actually needs its solution.

Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues and gender liberation beyond feminism.

Well, there’s one veterinarian who deserves pause for recognition. His name was Nels Konnerup. He recently passed away at age 92.

Born in Everett, Washington on December 4, 1916, Konnerup was shaped by the crucible of the Great Depression. He survived it the old-fashioned, American way: faith and family, himself and his parents, hard work, rugged individualism. For the remainder of his life, he would lament Americans’ slow surrender of responsibility from the self to the federal government.

Konnerup put himself through college at Washington State University. His subsequent contributions were numerous, with a resume of rich distinctions, including uniquely valuable service during the Cold War.

While many players fought for freedom during the Cold War—ambassadors and admirals, soldiers and secretaries of defense—Konnerup served the way he knew best: veterinary medicine. Circling the globe at a rate of 50,000 miles per year, he developed remarkable methods for pest control that saved the crucial livestock that fed billions from Asia to Africa to Central America.

In China from 1946-47, Konnerup boosted Chiang Kai-Shek’s attempts to prevent Mao Tse-Tung from transforming the world’s most populous nation into a giant killing field. He arrived with thousands of doses of vaccine for Rinderpest, a cattle disease with very high mortality. He quickly discovered a fatal problem missed by the bureaucrats in Washington: the lack of refrigeration at Chinese villages and farms. On the spot, Konnerup developed a clever method for preservation and delivery of the vaccine, applying a “rabbit-adapted attenuated vaccine,” which he had been employing in Australia. It worked. He established a vaccine production laboratory in Nanking.

Unfortunately, other factors eventually triumphed in China, as Mao emerged victorious. The communists kicked out Konnerup and his colleagues—but kept his vaccine. Of course, they implemented something far more destructive than Rinderpest: Mao’s Sinification of Marxism. Through collectivism and wealth redistribution—a triumph of ignorance that was the antithesis of Nels Konnerup’s creativity—Red China exterminated tens of millions of human beings. Communism slaughtered what Rinderpest could not—by leaps and bounds.

Konnerup went elsewhere, serving the U.S. government in several capacities. He was a secret weapon in ensuring that Marshall Plan aid to Europe, once delivered, was not eaten by flies and ticks. Think about it: American aid saved a starving post-World War II Europe. At the political and diplomatic level, it was the product of President Harry Truman, of Secretary of State George Marshall, of an isolationist Republican Congress that stepped to the plate and cut a badly needed check to our allies; all of this not only fed Western Europe but kept it out of the throes of Soviet communism.

And yet, once that vital aid was underway, it would have died if the livestock it sought to replete was destroyed by disease. Here, too, Nels Konnerup did what he did best: He had responsibility for the health of over 60,000 head of livestock destined to Europe by steamship. No small task—but one he pulled off.

After that, Konnerup served Douglas MacArthur and the U.S. military government in Japan. Like MacArthur, he also went to the Philippines; there, he helped resolve the malnutrition wreaked by rodent damage. Both Japan and the Philippines were crucial Cold War allies.

In retirement, Konnerup kept his fertile mind busy. He wrote letters to editors and columnists who raised his ire. Somewhat of a curmudgeon, among his pet peeves was the junk science and “flawed sophism” of un-scrutinizing “self-proclaimed and self-anointed environmentalists.” He was a man of real science and real environmentalism, not given to the bandwagon. He had little patience for the latest “crisis/emergency” treaty destined to shut down an industry or economy. He was skeptical of the newest claims of Armageddon by partisan politicians, amateur environmentalists, and assorted “nefarious nabobs.”

“Let there be integrity in definitions!” urged a frustrated Nels Konnerup.

Alas, an aging Konnerup continued to battle the eternal, insatiable progressive push for centralization and federal-government dependency that had vexed him since the 1930s. A eulogist at his funeral said: “Nels looked forward to the afterlife … because he expected to see FDR after he died, and gleefully anticipated poking him in the backside with his pitch fork.”

Nels Konnerup died where he began: in his native Washington state. There was no statue erected, no statement from the White House, no obituary in the New York Times, no CNN headline. There were, however, a lot of people, from Berlin to Beijing, who owed their health to this unheralded veteran of the veterinarian sciences, who showed that there are many ways to fight the good fight and serve your Maker.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand,” “God and Ronald Reagan,” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

The trigger for the ruling is an employee who objected to travel by plane and was subsequently fired for not doing his job. Consequences however, may be more in line with the observations of so-called “global warming skeptics” who have long-since recognized that Gore’s followers accept his message on faith, and spread “the word” as blind evangelists in contradiction to scientific fact. Far from being a religion of love an peace, its highest apostles characterize non-believers as evil and advocate force and violence as a means of control. Al Gore himself is seen as being in it for wealth and power.

Founders of western civilization, those who maintained and nurtured it, have consistently been objective thinkers – concerned about what is actually true and false, right and wrong, and what works and doesn’t work. Real religion played an essential role in directing people away from superstition and ignorance. A central element effecting western civilization was the rejection of the idea that particular human beings have devine rights. Equality, democracy, and universal human rights took hold.

If the final decision favors Mr. Gore, a new order will begin. Whenever propaganda has been sufficiently developed and implemented to have gathered a following, non-believers will be required to accept and adapt. Such a ruling would mean that Britains would be required, for example, to respect Hitler’s Holocaust and employees would get time off to throw rocks through windows at McDonalds restaurants. Politicians will become bishops in a new Church. It would in effect become illegal to be sane and reasonable.

Power shifts to create a new world order are quite popular today among the Political Class. We may be seeing the final phases of a shift back to the days when political leaders can force populations to treat them as Gods and rights will be replaced by pseudo-religious obligations.

Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan — not to mention General Douglas MacArthur — must be rolling in their graves at the sight of Barack Obama genuflecting to Japanese Emperor Akihito.

It was a supreme act of weakness, a lowpoint for the US presidency, a voluntary denigration of America. Should anyone be surprised? Of course not. Barack Obama is consistent. Yet, every time this president removes a brick from American integrity, people are surprised. Amazing. Denial is a powerful force.

Obama’s Feminine Side

Do you remember the “special inaugural issue” of Ms. magazine, in January 2009? I’ll never forget that image, and the danger to men that it conveyed. Talk about showing Obama’s feminine side! It was a harbinger of things to come.

In mid-February, a few weeks after Inauguration Day, while chatting with Bill O’Reilly at Fox News headquarters in New York City, I predicted that Barack Obama would become the most female-centric president in history, a threat to men’s rights. At that time, Bill wanted to give Obama a wide berth in all areas. His riposte was along the lines of: “You might be right. Let’s see what happens.” I hope you’re convinced now, Bill.

Fast-forward to October 30, 2009, when the White House issued a list of visitors to the executive mansion since Inauguration Day. It’s no coincidence that Kim Gandy, ex-president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), visited 14 times — 14 times in 10 months. Why? Obviously, to demand that Obama dance to her feminist tune. Result? He obliged her — in spades (see “Time for the GOP to Man-Up”) — making him a “Gandy dancer.”

Railroading American Men

The original gandy dancer — before Obama, that is — helped build and maintain America’s railroads in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thousands of these workers, in a rhythmic “dance,” used long levers called gandies to position the heavy steel rails for nailing to wooden railroad ties. Hence, the term was born.

Unfortunately, the Gandy-Dancer-in-Chief is also laying tracks across America, railroading American men along the way: He knows that the quickest way to weaken America is to marginalize its men.

Have you seen one male talking head on TV speaking out about Obama’s unconstitutional adherence to the feminist agenda, to his railroading of men? No, you haven’t — and you won’t. And, Obama knows this.

Sadly, the typical male reaction to Obama’s Gandy dance is: “Hand me another beer; give me that remote.”

As Iraq needed a surge to survive, America badly needs a manhood surge to survive. Where is this surge? Men seem content to let women, and their Chief Feminist, railroad them. Silent, anonymous grumbling is futile; only strong action will work. Memorizing NFL stats and watching extreme fighting are not examples of strong action.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

In geometry, we learned that two points make a line. Well, Obama has produced enough points to create a feminist constellation — all while men at home, at work, in universities, in the media, and in government have looked the other way. Still trying to please their mommies, their wives, their girlfriends, perhaps?

At what point will men decide they’re mad as hell, won’t take it anymore, and stand up for themselves? Based on current behavior, I predict never.

Obama can’t railroad men unless they consent — and, by default,  they do. Until men play a new tune for Obama, he’ll keep dancing to Gandy’s tune and keep bowing to NOW’s demands. All aboard!

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, speaker, and author of 115+ articles and Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719), and a forthcoming book for women. The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Your World with Neil Cavuto.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

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.

As a masculist and scholar of mens psychology, I have often witnessed a less-than-savory mindset in the mens movement….which is the macho (a.k.a. brainwashed) propensity to “play the hero” and ignore man’s own oppression and highly preventable social problems that restrict their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In psychology there is a cognitive bias called “learned helplessness” where an organism “learns to be powerless” even in the face of hope, mastery, control, potential change, coping strategies, options, and resources. Below you will see self-deprecating statements of a so-called masculist who refuses to seek a better life for himself. Next to these statements you will also see a potentially typical statement by a female feminist. Notice how the feminist statement is much less prone to make similar excuses in order to acquire more “chivalry privilege”. It is my belief that one of the impedences of the men’s movement is man’s propensity to “play the hero” and “suffer in silence” whereas females often might “play the victim” and “suffer loudly”. Not only is chivalry a form of anti-male sexism, but it is curious how some feminists expand chivalry to not only mean “women AND children” but rather “women ARE children”. After all, there are two types of people in society who are pampered, protected, and kept from harm….women and children. And when it comes to safety, protection, health, and pampering, it is women who are privileged.

My stance is that women are NOT babies, and men are NOT disposable (where a “new chivalry” should extend to man, woman, and child). Male machismo backfires by giving off the false impression that men lack empathy, vulnerability, tear ducts, and are incapable of feeling pain……..after all, some vegetarians make an exception and justify eating fish because “fish don’t have feelings”. I can’t help but suspect that some feminists (and men for that matter) apply similar logic to justify misandry and male-disposability in both love and war (and it should be noted that all is NOT fair in love and war….at least for males). And these issues are very real. It is the so-called “big tough” men who comprise the vast majority of the homeless, the prison population, those who face unfair dating expectations (like spending money on dates, wedding rings, flowers, spa packages, and other creature comforts), those who face unfair bread-winning obligations, those who are victims of violence, those who face domestic violence bias, those who face custody/divorce bias, those who complete suicide, those who experience sentencing bias, those who experience chivalry bias, those who experience pay-gap myth bias, those who are victims of the female-dominated spending-gap, those who face false accusations, those who end up as job fatalities, those who fall prey to the longevity gap, those at the glass cellar (the bottom of the corporate ladder), those who endure emotional suppression and the lack of “crying privileges”, those who experience health funding bias (like prostate cancer vs. breast cancer), those who are war casualties, those who are under semantic bias vis-a-vis gender politics, and those who are objectified based on their success, status, machismo, earning potential, and heroism.

Scenario:

So-called male masculist (with learned-helplessness): “Male disposability is biological destiny. A female egg is more valuable than the millions of worthless male sperm. Men are destined to protect child-bearing women. Men are also naturally more violent, which explains the higher suicide rate, job fatality gap, the glass cellar, and the higher prison population. It is the way of things….just as men are destined to be the providers and protectors of women. Besides, it is unmanly to complain, cry, or whine about it”. Notice how “machismo” can be so self-deprecating and manipulative. I am reminded of the “Stockholm syndrome” where male “slaves” become convinced to fall in love with their “captors”….in a certain manner of speaking (at least that is what female masculist Esther Vilar might say).

So-called female feminist (without learned-helplessness): “Rape is NOT biological destiny. Rape is NOT a rare but predictable byproduct of male-competition and the survival of the fittest alpha-males fighting for opportunities to copulate and extend familial genotypes and phenotypes. There is NO excuse for rape. It is the PATRIARCHY that leads to the raping of women. We need to stop this madness. The same can be said for a woman’s oppressive expectation to be ‘chained to the stove’. We need change! And we will fight men to get it.”

My input: One may learn a lot about how men and women are expected to behave by reading these two pieces of discourse. Notice how the so-called male masculist is trying to sound intellectual and logical, and yet following the traditional restrictive decorum to “suffer in silence” and “take it like a man” and making excuses in the process. Notice how the so-called female feminist is essentially doing the opposite….she is NOT accepting the status-quo as the proverbial “way of things”. She is voicing the victim-status of women loud and clear….and perhaps attracting a plethora of alpha-male feminists to come to her rescue in the process. Despite “feeling” liberated and sophisticated, the man is still brainwashed into “playing the hero” and the woman is brainwashed into “playing the victim”. It is my belief that men need to complain more….and women need to complain less. If there is no biological excuse for rape, then why should there be a biological excuse for male-disposability? I for one don’t buy it. Men and women alike have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I realize that not all men are brainwashed by machismo. And not all women are brainwashed by princess-syndrome and entitlement. But things can change for the better. We just need the fortitude to “unlearn our helplessness”. Men and boys for too long were brainwashed into being disposable cannon fodder, bank accounts, protectors, and feeling-less robots meant to earn money for others to spend. It is time to DEMAND a better life for ourselves. Machismo brainwashes men into thinking that it is shameful to “pamper yourself” like a woman and treat yourself to the finer things in life. I say it is high time that men get to experience the “indulgence” of spa-treatments, fancy chocolate, health benefits, job safety, scented candles, female breadwinners, protection from war, improved prison conditions, kid-glove treatment by the courts, domestic violence refuge, crying privileges, emotional expression, and other forms of pampering. Men are NOT disposable. If men keep repeating that expression millions of times the world just might listen. Men need to overcome this “learned helplessness,” “Stockholm syndrome,” and the “nature/nurture attribution bias”. And they say chivalry is dead (as if it were a bad thing). I say chivalry is FAR from dead, but it certainly should be. Feminists have “taken back the night”. It is now time for masculists to “take back the day”. There is a new moon on the horizon, and that moon is the sun. Day-light will come again!

Unfortunately for men, however, there is still little in terms of checks and balances within the politics of gender discourse (despite the men’s movement being around since E. Belfort Bax published his 1913 tome The Fraud of Feminism). The explicit and salient reason for the unchecked power of women and/or feminism seems to be manifested in the full range of double standards that have been discussed at length by many courageous men’s rights activists. The question of import to be drawn from all this, however, is this: What psychological forces (implicit or explicit) sustain the anti-male double standard in society? I believe there are at least eleven cognitive biases (not including argument-biases such as “poisoning the well,” “appeal to emotion,” “straw-man” etc) that have been acknowledged over the years in the field of psychology and beyond that can be applied here as forces that help sustain this anti-male double standard. Two of these (misandry and patriarchy-theory) deal directly with men, and the rest are more general biases that can still be applied to men. I feel it is of import to add that I feel it is very rare that any of these 11 anti-male biases are adequately discussed in the mainstream politically-correct university milieu.

Misandry: Misandry (general hatred of men) can certainly cloud a person’s cognitive logic, and make it easier to endorse, perpetuate, and justify anti-male double standards. Even in situations when people deny any hatred of men, some of this anger may be implicit.

Semantic bias: Semantic bias occurs whenever language is skewed and differentially presents some groups as superior over others. Some feminists have alerted us to the ways in which the English language can at times be one-sided and biased to women (terms like mankind). Less common, however, is discourse on what words/phrases can be anti-male (such as man-slaughter or men-at-work which both imply that it is only men who experience undesirable afflictions like death and work). This semantic bias is also manifested in how the rules of gender discourse leave men at the door. It is indeed interesting to note that the term “masculism” is seldom acknowledged as a real term in mainstream media (one exception is Wikipedia). Similarly, the term is flagged by some, if not all, computer spell checkers. This is not to say that the word is seldom used. However, the term is usually esoteric only to men’s rights coteries who have the inclination to challenge feminist assumptions from “behind the scenes” or “behind closed doors.” Ipso-facto, the term is relegated to a men’s rights movement that seems to take place from afar or under the radar of the university and media “thought-police.” The problem is that the very term “feminism” is sexist (at least on its own). Feminism is a female word, with a feminine prefix (fem-inism). This can implicitly create the taciturn illusion that feminism = equality. This is similar to how gender-feminists insist to define sexism in strictly female terms (despite men obviously being one of the two sexes)! Perhaps from the beginning a term like “gender-ism” could have been used instead of “feminism” to study the restrictive forces of both the male and female gender roles. This could have established academic checks and balances from the onset without perpetuating the male-perpetrator/female-victim dichotomy and the double-standards that burgeon therein.

In-group bias: This is one of the more obvious biases, but it bears mention. In-group bias can be defined as follows: “the tendency to favor one’s own group” (Meyers, 2005). Another way this concept can be expressed is when a group takes credit for success while avoiding responsibility for failure. In relation to anti-male bias, I believe that gender-feminists are the most prone to utilize this bias. When they ignore issues like battered husbands, male suicide, male homelessness, male job injury, and unequal prison times for equal crimes (or blame these issues on men), and at the same time endorse items like the “Battered Women’s Syndrome” or the “Violence Against Women Act,” we see a “shadowy” in-group-bias emerge which certainly reinforces anti-male double standards. There is more than a mere modicum of power to gain in the way that gender-feminists can monopolize on being the victim-class and allow themselves to be privy to its entitlements. This is indicative of why the saying “play the victim” became an actual catch-phrase and political strategy while the phrase “playing the perpetrator” did not. “Victim Power” is indeed a catch phrase of “Princess-Syndrome.”

Patriarchy theory: When vague constructs like “oppression” or “privilege” are measured with only one yardstick (and taught as fact) by gender-feminists (or other patriarchy theorists), bias will inevitably emerge. Patriarchy theory uses physical properties (pay-gap, male physical strength, etc.) as the only criteria, standard, or context upon which to measure gender-related depravity. But a masculist, evolutionary, or existential theory may suggest that the most accurate yardstick to measure “oppression” with is one that ascertains the actual level of true happiness between the genders. Sometimes “oppression” may indeed be best measured by asking who smiles more or who actually dies more prematurely. “Power” and “privilege” are not only vague constructs, but very abstract ones with different meanings for different people. In other words, we are powerful/privileged when we feel powerful and privileged, and other people are powerful/privileged when we perceive them as being powerful or privileged compared to us. Ergo, “power” seems to be indeed relative (i.e., in the eye of the beholder). In a nutshell, patriarchy-theory not only reinforces the anti-male double standard, but it attempts to justify it. When patriarchy-theory, in-group bias, and misandry interact anti-male bias may be even more likely.

Correspondence bias (also known as the fundamental attribution error): This can be defined as follows: “The tendency to focus on the role of personal causes and underestimating the impact of situations on other people’s behavior” (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). Correspondence bias, in the context of anti-male bias, means that some people (especially gender-feminists) may be more prone to blame negative societal conditions on men’s dispositions while ignoring the situations that can make men act out in negative ways. For example, I believe that sometimes people tend to view female prisoners not in terms of them being bad people, but more in terms of how bad situations made them that way (a sympathetic view). With male prisoners, however, society may tend to view them not as products of a bad environment, but rather as bad products themselves (an unsympathetic view). It is as if the nature/nurture debate is applied differently to men and women for political gain.

Heuristics (availability and representative): The availability heuristic can be defined as follows: “a cognitive rule that judges the likelihood of things in terms of their availability in memory. If instances of something come readily to mind, we presume it to be commonplace” (Myers, 2005). Likewise, the representative heuristic can be defined as follows: “the tendency to presume, sometimes despite contrary odds, that someone or something belongs to a particular group if resembling (representing) a typical member” (Meyers, 2005). In the context of men’s rights, the availability heuristic can occur when universities and the media play up all the violence that males do via hyperbole and exaggeration. “Rape hysteria” is a common example of this. This not only creates unrealistic fear and anxiety in women but it also lends itself to the representative heuristic where men are stereotyped as domineering, power-oriented, and feeling-less antagonists. Insofar that the media portrays males in a negative way that shadows the actual base-rate statistics of male behavior this is an indicator that mental heuristics are being used in a biased manner that help perpetuate the male-perpetrator/female-victim dichotomy and the double-standards therein.

Biases resulting from cognitive dissonance: Cognitive dissonance theory can be defined as: “The theory that holding inconsistent cognitions arouses psychological tension that people become motivated to reduce” (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). In other manner of speaking, we are sometimes motivated to justify our “negative” behaviors in a way that will alleviate guilt or anxiety resulting from our inconsistent value-system. For example, when we do something we regret but intellectually justify the decision to preserve our sense of psychological safety we may be guilty of cognitive dissonance (the concepts of “sweet-lemons” or “sour-grapes” are well-known examples of cognitive dissonance theory). In addition, the well-known Milgram Shock Experiment and Zimbardo Prison Study are classic examples of social psychology that reveal how “mean-spirited” feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are potentially justified by people via certain forms of self-serving cognitive appraisal processes. In the context of men’s rights, gender-feminists’ use of patriarchy-theory may indeed be indicative of a cognitive-dissonance bias. The notion of patriarchy itself can indeed be used as a way to alleviate any residual guilt (or cognitive dissonance) that would normally be associated with other forms of bigotry. To put it more simply, few of us want to acknowledge ourselves as being sexist or racist in any way as these are aversive terms. But gender-feminists can alleviate this discomfort by intellectually justifying their feelings and behaviors vis-à-vis men. This can essentially give them carte blanche to engage in male-bashing and utilize anti-male double standards without guilt or remorse!

Just world phenomenon: This “bias” can be defined as follows: “the tendency of people to believe the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get” (Meyers, 2005). Applied to men’s rights, this bias occurs when people believe that men (as a class) deserve negative treatment under the law (or elsewhere) because of their own shortcomings. Common examples include when people have little sympathy for the male-only draft by saying that “men start wars” or when people have little sympathy for prison rape because “prisoners deserve to be punished anyway.” The Just world hypothesis may also lend itself to entitlement dependency in some women, because “good people” are seen to deserve more than “bad people” (which may also help explain the materialistic spending gap and the societal acceptance of male death and disposability in general). Insofar that people believe in the presumed moral-superiority of women compared to men, and use that belief to reinforce double standards, they are biased from a just world phenomenon mindset.

Behavioral confirmation: This can be defined as follows: “A type of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people’s social expectations lead them to behave in ways that cause others to confirm their expectations” (Myers, 2005). In relation to men’s rights, this bias may in fact reinforce anti-male double standards. For example, when men are expected (and treated) by society to be masculine, unfeeling, chivalrous, and non-complaining this may indeed elicit the expected masculine behavior and prevent men from taking action to fight against the double standards against them.

Confirmation bias: This can be defined as follows: “The tendency to seek, interpret, and create information that verifies existing beliefs” (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). In the context of men’s rights, this bias may be especially relevant to gender-feminism. Insofar that gender-feminists utilize the evidence that supports patriarchy-theory but then disregard the facts that do not support it they are guilty of confirmation bias. An example of this is when they disregard all the literature about male victims of domestic violence because it does not support their belief system, i.e., patriarchy-theory, whose dictum declares males as an oppressor class. Also, some gender-feminists also use the correlation that most prisoners are men in attempts to justify the premise that men are naturally “more violent” than women. But alas, correlations do not imply causality, and there may be other forces (such as situational pressures) acting on men that lead to disparities such as the prison ratio.

Learned helplessness: This can be defined as follows: “A phenomenon in which experience with an uncontrollable event creates passive behavior toward a subsequent threat to well being” (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). To put it another way, this biased way of thinking refers to when a person (or group) learns to feel helpless (lacking control or self-efficacy) even in situations where there really are resources indicative of control and mastery over negative situations. Ironically, people that suffer from learned helplessness can actually oppress themselves via keeping themselves down. Vis-à-vis men’s rights, the victim-dictum of patriarchy-feminists indeed may be a manifestation of learned helplessness, especially when women are taught that they are powerless victims of men. Insofar that women actually believe patriarchy-theory (i.e., that they are powerless when they really do have resources of mastery), they are biased into a learned helplessness mindset. This reinforces anti-male double standards by putting an over-abundance of emphasis on the male-perpetrator/female-victim dichotomy.

This concludes what I believe are eleven of the most relevant cognitive biases that help sustain the anti-male double standard, which in turn creates a lack of checks and balances in academic gender politics. As discussed, I believe that many of these are used diligently by gender-feminists who practice patriarchy-theory. However, to say that it is only gender-feminists who fall prey to these biased cognitive appraisal processes is presumptuous. I believe that many of these are also practiced by people who do not actively identify with gender-feminism or patriarchy-theory (and perhaps never heard of these things). In other manner of speaking, I believe that society in general and as a whole is very susceptible to many of these biases against men. Insofar that we are a society that does not endorse sexism, it may prove to be a pragmatic idea to look at the extent to which we perpetuate anti-male double standards via these forms of bias.

References:

Myers, D. 2005. Social psychology (8th edition). McGraw Hill: Boston.
Brehm, S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. 2005. Social psychology (6th edition). Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.

(2009-11-16) by David John Marotta

Both mindless eating and mindless spending rely on our subconscious need to follow scripts to pace our consumption. Community plays a huge role in regulating our financial destiny–either a path of savings that builds real wealth or a path of spending that leads to impoverishment.

In one study cited in Brian Wansink’s book “Mindless Eating,” people were invited several times to a lunch of pizza, cookies and soft drinks. They were watched both eating by themselves as well as in groups of four or eight. When the subjects ate alone, researchers used a baseline that allowed them to categorize people as typically light or heavy eaters. Interestingly, when people dined in the groups, the quantity they ate changed.

Light eaters ate more in a group, and heavy eaters ate less. Both kinds of eaters conformed somewhat to the average pace and quantity of the group’s consumption. Mindless spending works the same way.

If you tend to be a conservative spender, shopping in a group can easily entice you to buy more than you would normally. Conversely, if you have trouble saving money, taking along a frugal friend will help you resist. In fact, following the lead of penny-pinching friends or family can help you evaluate your own lifestyle and change the way you view money.

Millionaire couples may have very little in common except that they all answer “yes” to these three questions: “Are you frugal? Were your parents frugal? Is your spouse even more frugal than you are?” A culture of frugality builds a lifestyle of wealth. You subconsciously learn an appropriate lifestyle from those around you.

My wife and I formed our spending habits right out of college. Our first community of friends earned very little. Their lifestyle made even ordering pizza an extravagance. Combined with the example of my parents’ depression-era thrift, we started saving and investing early.

In contrast, if your parents golf at Farmington or play tennis at the Boar’s Head Country Club, you may struggle to maintain a frugal lifestyle. If your friends live rich, you will too. Your spending scripts will be based on comfort and convenience. You will get the deluxe model with all the features. And you will invariably buy the added service, protection and accessories.

Spending money just to socialize with friends is an especially common trap. Teenagers who work all day for minimum wage and then go out for dinner and a movie can easily end the day having spent more than they earned. Meals out in expensive restaurants with elaborate appetizers, drinks and desserts add both to the bottom line as well as to your waistline. Consider inviting friends over for potluck and a game night, and everyone might afford to send their children to college.

Spending money is contagious. If you go to the mall and a friend is hunting for the perfect purchase, it’s easy to get caught up in the excitement. If you want your turn in the spotlight, you have to be shopping as well. Even if what you buy is small, the expense still depletes your finances.

And if you don’t spend money or you resist going to the fancy restaurant or the full-priced movie, you risk being perceived as cheap. You may even worry that your friends won’t invite you because you spoil the party.

By voicing your concerns, however, you may allow others to agree without feeling as uncomfortable. Truth be told, the person most worried about the expense is often the most secure financially. After all, wealth is what you save, not what you spend. And if your friends won’t adjust to help you meet your financial goals, maybe you need different friends.

A life of country clubs, facials and galas will obligate you to spend money. If your social life includes such activities, budgeting will be difficult. Your financial stability may ultimately require developing relationships with people who are more fiscally conservative. It’s your choice either to live rich or actually be rich.

Spending habits begin very early as we follow the lead modeled by our parents. In many homes, financial matters are a well-kept secret. Children are left to guess and infer from their elders’ actions and cryptic remarks. As a result many children learn habits that threaten their ultimate happiness and success.

George Kinder, author of “The Seven Stages of Money Maturity,” asks his clients to write an autobiography that focuses on their relationship to money and the beliefs they have acquired. This exercise can help you examine your ingrained assumptions about money. Belief is powerful. As people think, so they will act.

And if everyone around you is doing something, it seems normal. Consequently, one person in a family can’t single-handedly change the family’s financial DNA. Deeply entrenched traditions generally will overwhelm any one family member who tries to question them.

So galvanize the whole family behind budget changes. It takes explicit communication. Children as young as four years old can contribute and learn from the process. There’s no stigma attached to living within your means. If a budget isn’t a team effort, then one family member will end up holding the purse strings and everyone else will be resentful.

Both spouses must start on the same page and with the same degree of humility. Every financially struggling family has one partner who believes he or she is the careful one with money and that any financial problems are the other person’s fault. Most of the time, this generalization is untrue. It is relatively easy to be frugal by comparison if you abdicate all the spending decisions to your spouse. That way you can enjoy the results of spending without any of the guilt.

Serving as a role model in the family includes setting the pace and nature of spending. Learn to regulate when and how much money gets spent. Norms are set in the trenches of everyday spending, not in criticizing the number of presents on Christmas morning.

Even the most reclusive among us relies on spending scripts and norms to regulate when to open their wallet and when to refrain. If you are happy with your spending scripts, that’s great. But if you are trying to change them, you need a little help from your friends.

Behavioral changes are best reinforced when you ask everyone you know to help you make the change permanent. It takes explicit thought and energy within your social network to overcome mindless spending scripts. And it takes a consistent effort for at least a month or more before new habits begin to take root.

The task is challenging but certainly not impossible. And small behavioral changes can result in building significant long-term wealth. The reward of financial peace and security is worth developing a prudent and thoughtful lifestyle.

from http://www.emarotta.com/article.php?ID=363

Democratic support for the decision argues that a civil trial would be a demonstration of America’s might and moral certainty, and such a trial would be further confirmation that America’s justice system is the envy of the world. Republicans counter that demonstrating such civility toward foreign terrorists seeking to destroy America’s way of life is a servile and underserved accommodation which would provide a dangerous platform.

This Administration is loath to acknowledge the term “War,” particularly as is relates to religious extremists. Does this Administration feel this way because the extremists have bases in various countries and are funded from numerous sources scattered around the world, and therefore it is reticent to antagonize those foreign governments? Is there a concern that acknowledging a war would by inference mean an indirect war on countries from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia? Events wherein people using powerful weapons, funded with hundreds of millions of dollars, launch attacks against a country, its people, its embassies and other outposts, are not just “criminal acts,” they are Wars. Pretending that perpetrators of such acts are not “at war,” but are conducting a broad, concerted effort of criminality, flies in the face of rather ordinary common sense.

Civil trials pointing the guns of American jurisprudence at the most infamous terrorists to have ever committed crimes against America on its own soil will become venues that will launch a new crop of lawyers onto the international stage. Could we dare suspect the Administration believes that a New York City trial for these most visible terrorists will keep the “blame Bush” fires alive.

The loud crowing we hear about exposing the world to the American judicial system is disingenuous. The Islamic world already knows the American system is different from its own and doesn’t care how. Most Islamic countries are dictatorships, by any other name, whose leaders don’t much desire open societies, or an American style rule of law. They know it, we know it, and the rest of the world already knows it.

On the other hand, a civil trial, and the legal hams and egos who will run that circus will expose America’s espionage and intelligence systems, and methodologies. We already know waterboarding was used, however, we can expect that it will be used by the defense, and in so doing, once again revisit the application of such torture, purposely putting the previous administration on trial.

We should note that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the five suspects prosecutors would likely seek the death penalty. This is not a very definitive statement, but he had to reassure New Yorkers that they would not likely run into these killers while shopping on Park Avenue. We should also note that Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling, represents seventeen detainees of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. In time we will discover the true nature of such a conflict of interest. More importantly, given the nature of civil trials, the rights provided to (usually) American defendants, the discovery process and the eventual appeals process, American citizens will not find the hands of justice administering punishment on these fanatics until well over a decade has passed.

Fanaticism is deaf to all pleadings, be they judicial, political or personal entreaties. Pretending that a federal civil trial will be a victory against terrorism is flailing against an ill wind, and will accomplish little but inflate the self-righteous.

True and pure statesmanship should be untainted by idiosyncrasies of politics, or political provocation, however, this is evidently too much to ask for. This trial is guaranteed to become a proverbial three-ring circus. We may also become baffled as publicity ignites strange images on the streets of distant cities around the world, as lawyers play their games on this venue in New York freshly served up by the Administration.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post

The Carrie Prejean sex tape (made as a 17 year-old) story just broke. Word is that she is on video ‘giving herself a hand’ a la Harry Met Sally in that mall scene.  The stupidity on her part is obvious and described exactly tas such by Prejean herself.  Of course, anyone familiar with seventeen year-olds or who remember their own teenage years well know that bad decisions at this time in life are known to happen, only if it’s at the hand (NPI) of a high profile conservative, especially a woman, especially a beautiful conservative woman, well, let the draw and quartering begin.

What a strange irony that the ideologues who want to hand out condoms in schools, champion abortion rights, and denounce abstinence programs are having conversations like the one I recently witnessed between two like-minded friends:

Liberal One: “Well, I guess we won’t have Carrie Prejean as a moral compass any more.”

Liberal Two: “Gee, whatever will we do!”

Insert smug, sneering looks of self-satisfaction.

Actually, these two weren’t being critical of Prejean because she is a sinner with a rental halo, they were critical of her because she was remorseful.  Had she not said the occurrence was “the biggest mistake of my life” but instead celebrated it as “free-spirit, youthful self-expression, it’s my body,” (and been an Obama girl) and they’d made her their new poster girl.  Prejean’s greatest mistake, to the lefties, is that she’s a (conservative) person with a sense of shame.  Liberal critics feel superior because so long as their dog in the fight supports no higher (and vulnerable) values system, and yours does, they’ll never lose ground.  After all, you can’t fall off the floor.

Do I hold up Carrie Prenean as some kind of idol or an exemplary anything?  Not particularly.  But you have to admire her for stretching a single into a triple in terms of maximizing her fifteen minutes of fame.  She got low-balled by hag-boy Perez Hilton at the Miss USA pageant for having the same opinion on gay marriage as President Obama and, since then, she has had more face time on national tv than Vince the Sham-Wow guy.  Name me anyone else who loses three high profile positions (Miss USA, Miss California, clothing brand Sledge USA) in a handful months and is still a sought after and positively received by so many.

Let me state categorically that I like Carrie Prejean for some of the substantive, and some not, reasons.

She’s bright, articulate, has spine, a great rack, a beautiful smile, legs as long as a Mexican traffic jam, she stands for something and appears to be able to take a shot.  Pretty impressive for a twenty-two year old.  She doesn’t prop herself up as perfection nor does she ask to be anyone’s moral compass.  She does have a sense of right from wrong and aspires to what I believe are solid, integrity filled values even if the runner stumbles sometimes.  She messed up once as a kid (bfd) and has made good since- very good.  Let the losers cast stones.  The left would have you believe that you can only falter and be redeemed if you stand for nothing.

Love her, hate her- Prejean never claimed to be a porcelain saint.  The left put her there so they could pull her down like that Sadaam Hussein statue in Bagdad during Desert Storm One.  Then the media hacks- tools of the left- starting tearing her down with anything they could find, like making an issue of her breast implants.  Now, about those… and I speak for most men, I don’t care.  Her plastic surgeon should win the Nobel Prize because they are perfect.  In fact, if she rolled off a Detroit assembly line with artificial parts from bumper to absolutely stunning bumper, I guarantee you Chrysler would have never gone under.  This also pisses off smug leftists.  I think they’re getting tired of underarm hair, hemp clothing and Birkenstocks.

I’m ok with Carrie Prejean.  I don’t care that she’s not perfect.  In fact, I think I like that she wasn’t and isn’t some cloistered, benign hot house flower that’s never been anywhere or done anything. Does it freak me out that somewhere out there is also a photo of swimsuit model Carrie Prejean with part of her left breast visible?  Nah. (See the Nobel Prize thing above.) It bothers me more that one of leftist culture’s golden boys, talented scumbag Roman Polanski, ran out on a rape rap after plying a 13 year-old girl with champagne, drugging her with a quaalude and sexually violated her.  It bothers me more that liberal presidential aspirant, Breck Girl John Edwards, impregnated his videographer and denied it after putting himself up on his own pedestal during his presidential run, all the while trotting out his poor wife (with cancer) and children for photo ops.  I don’t recall my liberal friends delighting in either of those incidents.

Gee, now those things by comparison kinda make Prejean’s transgression look like a teenage,  victimless blunder that she doesn’t deny, that she openly decries and clearly regrets.  There goes that conservative weakness again- a sense of shame.

Actually, I think I should ask my two liberal friends to refresh me on that presidential pardon thing.  It seems that Prejean doesn’t need one but Polanski, well, ya, and Edwards, if he gets nailed for misappropriation of campaign funds, too, uh-hu, yup.  They both have millions, and, if they donate some to, say, the Obama presidential library when it’s time, perhaps they can walk like Marc Ritch, the biggest tax cheat in American history, did.

Those darn lefties… it really is true, you can’t fall off the floor.

“Survey: Americans’ belief in global warming is cooling off,” according to Dina Cappiello, writing for AP. In a half page article, “Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 percentage points in just three years, a new poll says.” The poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Instead of a story examining any evidence of any changes in earth’s climate, the AP is feeding its readers a poll of people’s opinions, which are a result of rumor, web stories, idle chatter, “news” releases and anything but science or facts.

People promoting global warming were reportedly distressed at the story, and began thinking of ways to more massively convince useful idiots that the climate agenda is real, should be accepted, and the proposed tax increases and societal controls should be swallowed.

According to the story, one scientist blamed the drop in poll results on, “a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate,” and what he called a PR effort “to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public.” I am not making this up. He made no mention of data, omitted from news reports, that show the earth has been cooling. Melting ice caps did make the tale however.

Most striking, the editors left in a line that noted, “Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring.” Most global whining stories refuse to make any mention that there is doubt or exceptions to the popularized model.

A quick review of science history shows that enormous numbers of real discoveries start out as a vast majority of scientists holding a false belief, against a small fringe and hated minority that finds the truth and eventually brings it to the table against all odds. The flat earth, earth as the center of the universe, discovery of elements, understanding that fire isn’t caused by phlogiston and the ability of heavier than air machines to fly are among some obscure examples that spring to mind.

Also notable, the study found that people in the northeast and west coast believe in global warming more than people in the middle of the nation. This suggests that the study wasn’t studying climate beliefs at all, but was measuring gullibility and its distribution. No cause for such a phenomenon was discussed or is known, though California is often referred to as the land of fruits and nuts.

There are two basic hooks this kind of woman uses to keep men on a readily yank-able chain: the fear of loss and the need for approval. These are the two most powerful control devices in their arsenal. The worst part is that, in many cases, men unwittingly play right into their hands.

The Fear of Loss

The fear of loss is an especially powerful mechanism. It could be the fear of losing the relationship, fear of losing your children, your reputation or your money and other assets. Inducing fear, guilt, shame and a sense of obligation are how abusive women control you. If you’re afraid of loss and your wife/girlfriend/ex knows it, you’re basically at her mercy.

Abusive women will:

• Threaten you with abandonment. “If you don’t ’shape up,’ I’m leaving.”
• Threaten to alienate your children from you or deny you access to them. “If you don’t do as I say, I’m going to tell your son what a bastard you are” or “If you leave you’ll never see your kids again.”
• Threaten to destroy your career. “I’m going to tell everyone at your office what a sick pervert you are.”
• Threaten to take all your money. “You owe me. I’m entitled.”

Many of these women will implicitly or explicitly communicate that you’ll never meet anyone else like them. Let’s hope not. The resulting fear is that no other women will want you or find you attractive, which is nonsense. The reality is that emotionally abusive women are a dime a dozen. There’s nothing special about them—except for their highly dysfunctional and toxic characterological traits. You need to change your mindset. Perhaps by “losing” the relationship, you will, ultimately, “win.”

There are far better woman in the world who will treat you with kindness, respect, generosity and mutual consideration. You’re not lucky this woman “puts up with you;” she’s lucky that you put up with her. Being alone is better than being in an abusive relationship. If being on your own is too difficult at first; get a dog or a goldfish.

As for losing your assets, your children and your reputation, these are very real losses. However, if you’re persistent, you can regain and rebuild anything you lose. It won’t be exactly the same, but the longer you stay with this woman, the more you’ll lose—financially and emotionally. It’s confounding. Men are punished by the courts (i.e., spousal support) for staying in the marriage longer in an effort to work things out. You think you’re doing the right thing by hanging in there, but you’re actually giving your wife more power to hurt you when you finally divorce. Therefore, it’s better to get out sooner than later when you notice how lopsided, hurtful and inequitable your relationship is.

Kids are a tough one. You may well lose time with and access to your child(ren). On the other hand, consider what you’re modeling by staying in an abusive relationship. It’s better for a child to have one healthy and strong parent than two dysfunctional ones.

Exactly what are you afraid of losing? The abuse? The emotional withdrawal and rejection? Being made to feel less than? If this were anyone other than your wife/girlfriend/ex, would you want to even know this person? Have you challenged these fears with your intellect or are you being led by your “gut?”

When you fear loss, you need to stop “listening to your gut” and use your mind to reality test your fears. Abusive women are master manipulators who employ emotional reasoning that has very little to do with the facts of a situation. The emotionally based attacks also serve to confuse you and cloud your judgment. Therefore, when you’re afraid, stop listening to your gut and start reasoning with your brain.

Don’t just succumb to your fears; CHALLENGE THEM with your intellect, not the emotional reasoning that only reinforces them. More often than not, your fears are just distorted, self-limiting beliefs sown by your wife/gf/ex. By giving into your fear, you’re voluntarily walking into a cage and handing her the key. The truth is you have the power to release yourself. You will love again. You will find happiness. But you will only do so without this woman.

The Need for Approval

Another highly effective device abusive women use to control you is denying approval and acceptance. It’s natural to want to be liked and admired—especially by the person you love. Being criticized, demeaned, rejected and told repeatedly, “not good enough,” “you don’t measure up,” or that you’ve “failed again” is demoralizing. It also spurs you on to try even harder to please her and herein lies the problem: These women are never satisfied. Nothing you do will ever be good enough. She will never bestow upon you the kind of love and acceptance you seek.

You’re perpetuating a sick dynamic by seeking approval from someone who’ll never give it to you. Why? Because these women experience giving approval to others as a psychological and visceral loss. To tell you, “nice job” or “I appreciate you” somehow makes her feel less than and, as you well know, these women won’t tolerate that for a second.

Why does your wife’s/girlfriend’s/ex’s approval mean so much to you? Do you actually respect her and the way she conducts herself? A woman like this is an abusive, entitled and incredibly self-serving bully, so why do you care what she thinks?  Seeking approval from someone who takes pleasure in cutting you down is a recipe for disappointment and pain.

The Way Out

Don’t let her solicited and unsolicited opinions get to you anymore. Recognize them for what they are: Abusive control tactics. Your overall goal is emotional detachment, which means you’re not invested in the outcome of this relationship. Once you’re no longer afraid of “losing” or care about receiving her approval, you’ll see the balance of power in the relationship shift.

She will be less able to “get to you,” which is a good thing. You’ll begin to care less, which is psychologically freeing. You’ll become more immune to the traps she sets and she won’t be able to figure out what the hell is happening. As you step out of this dysfunctional emotional dynamic, she’ll escalate her nasty behaviors as she frantically tries to maintain control and bully you back into place. She’ll be uncharacteristically speechless when her tried and true control devices no longer work.

Just remember, the more you commit to taking care of yourself, the more embittered she’ll grow. She’ll accuse you of being “selfish,” “inconsiderate” and “uncaring.” This is a good sign—for you. Abusive women view any attempt you make at self-care and growth as a grave betrayal. How dare you do something positive for yourself? How dare you not let her make you feel bad?

The more you put your needs first, the stronger and healthier you’ll become and your attraction to this supremely unhealthy woman should diminish. Abusive women remain in control by keeping you disoriented, hurting and in a psychologically weakened state. This is why she becomes alarmed when she sees you taking care of yourself.

Even if you don’t initially believe it, the freedom from abuse you’ll gain by ending this relationship will eventually outweigh any material losses you incur. You need to realize that you don’t have an actual relationship with this woman; it’s an autocracy in which she’s the petty tyrant and you live to serve. Furthermore, a woman like this isn’t capable of true intimacy and empathy, which are prerequisites for a healthy relationship. Your happiness lies in the future with someone else; not her.

Sadly, you may well see your children less or suffer through watching your ex turn them into her human shields, protectors and weapons to hurt you. However, by staying in an abusive relationship you’re exposing your children to a very unhealthy model of adult relationships. Nevertheless, this is a heartbreaking choice for many fathers. It may cost you money and potentially damage your relationship with your children, but what’s the cost of happiness, sanity and freedom from abuse?

by Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD

Originally posted on July 27, 2009 at A Shrink for Men.

Private Consultation and Coaching

I provide confidential,  fee-for-service, consultation/coaching services to help both men and women work through their relationship issues via telephone and/or Skype chat. My practice combines practical advice, support, reality testing and goal-oriented outcomes. Please visit my Contact page for professional inquiries.

My Virtual Shrink

MyVirtualShrink is an alternative to traditional psychotherapy and coaching. It offers a wide range of non-gender-biased web-based interactive guided sessions for a variety of issues. For a 20% membership discount, enter this promotional code: JWLCSWPJVAY after taking the Smart Plan Assessment. For more information, please follow this link: Special Offer: My Virtual Shrink and/or email me directly at shrink4men@gmail.com.

Breast Cancer Treatment & Chronic Pain

Updated:  11/15/2009

The information in this column is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical advice or recommendations by the author.  Please consult with your physician before making any lifestyle or medication changes, or if you have any other concerns regarding your health.

BREAST CANCER TREATMENT & CHRONIC PAIN

Disclaimer:  As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher’s Biography

http://doctorwascher.com

Copyright 2007 – 2009

Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS

All rights reserved

11-8-2009:   Vitamin D & Breast Cancer Risk

11-1-2009:  Exercise & Prostate Cancer Risk

10-25-2009: HPV Virus & Risk of Breast Cancer

10-18-2009: Post-Cholecystectomy Syndrome (Symptoms after Gallbladder Surgery)

10-11-2009: Vitamin D & Falls in the Elderly

10-4-2009:   Surgery, NSQIP, Complications & Death

9-27-2009    Stress, Heart Disease, Exercise & Death

9-20-2009:   Vitamin D & Colorectal Cancer Survival

9-13-2009:   H1N1 Swine Flu Update

9-7-2009:     Green Tea, Aging & Lifespan

8-30-2009:   Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Diet & Fiber

8-23-2009:  Update on Prostate Cancer and Cryotherapy

8-16-2009:   Exercise Improves Lymphedema Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors

8-9-2009:   Breast Cancer Recurrence, Death & Vitamin D

8-2-2009:   Honesty, Dishonesty & Brain Function

7-26-2009:   Coronary Artery CT Scans & Cancer Risk

7-19-2009:   Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & Ovarian Cancer

7-12-2009:   Breast Cancer & Metformin (Glucophage)

7-5-2009:    Prostate Cancer & Green Tea

6-28-2009:   Air Pollution & the Risk of Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT)

6-21-2009:   Red Yeast Rice, Statins & Cholesterol

6-14-2009:   Bone Marrow Stem Cell Transplant & Congestive Heart Failure (CHF)

6-7-2009:    Diet, Soy & Breast Cancer Risk

5-31-2009:   Diet and Prostate Cancer Risk

5-24-2009:   Diabetes, Glucose Control & Death

5-17-2009:   Drug Company Marketing & Physician Prescribing Bias

5-10-2009:   Hemorrhoids & Surgery

5-3-2009:     Statin Drugs & Blood Clots (Thromboembolism)

4-26-2009:   Are We Really Losing the War on Cancer?

4-19-2009:    Exercise in Middle Age & Risk of Death

4-12-2009:   Can Chronic Stress Harm Your Heart?

4-5-2009:     Does PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer Save Lives?

3-22-2009:   CABG Surgery vs. PCI in Diabetics with Coronary Artery Disease; Sweetened Beverages and Coronary Artery Disease

3-15-2009:   Depression, Stress, Anger & Heart Disease

3-8-2009:    Coronary Artery Disease: CABG vs. Stents?; Swimming Lessons & Drowning Risk in Children

3-1-2009:    Aspirin & Colorectal Cancer Prevention; Fish Oil & Respiratory Infections in Children

2-22-2009: Health Differences Between Americans & Europeans; Lycopene & Prostate Cancer

2-15-2009: Statin Drugs & Death Rates; Physical Activity, Breast Cancer & Sex Hormones

2-8-2009:   Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & Breast Cancer; Stool DNA Testing & Cancer of the Colon & Rectum

2-1-2009:   Obesity and the Complications of Diverticulosis (Diverticulitis & Bleeding); Obesity, Weight Loss & Urinary Incontinence

1-25-2009: Prostate Cancer, Fatigue & Exercise; Does your Surgeon “Warm-up” Before Surgery?

1-18-2009: Cancer and Vitamins; Teenagers, MySpace and Risky Behaviors

1-11-2009: Exercise Reverses Some Effects of Fatty Meals; Vitamin C and Blood Pressure

1-4-2009:   Secondhand Smoke & Heart Attack Risk; Poor Physical Fitness During Childhood & Heart Disease Risk During Adulthood

12-28-2008: Stress & Your Risk of Heart Attack; Vitamin D & the Prevention of Colon & Rectal Polyps

12-21-2008: Breast Cancer Incidence & Hormone Replacement Therapy; Circumcision & the Risk of HPV & HIV Infection

12-14-2008: Vitamin E, Vitamin C and Selenium Do Not Prevent Cancer; Postscript: A Possible Cure for Down’s Syndrome

12-7-2008:   Generic vs. Brand-Name Drugs, Stress & Breast Cancer Survival

11-30-2008: A Possible Cure for Down’s Syndrome?; Smoking & Cognitive Decline; Calcium & Vitamin D & Breast Cancer Risk

11-23-2008:  Breast Cancer & Fish Oil; Lymphedema after Breast Cancer Treatment; Vasectomy & Prostate Cancer Risk

11-16-2008:  Vitamin E & Vitamin C: No Impact on Cardiovascular Disease Risk; Does Lack of Sleep Increase Stroke & Heart Attack Risk in Hypertensive Patients?

11-9-2008:    Statins Cut Heart Attack Risk Even with Normal Cholesterol Levels; Statins & PSA Level

11-2-2008:    Radiation Treatment of Prostate Cancer & Second Cancers; Sexual Content on TV & Teen Pregnancy Risk

10-26-2008:  Smoking & Quality of Life

10-19-2008:  Agent Orange & Prostate Cancer

10-12-2008:  Pomegranate Juice & Prostate Cancer

10-5-2008:   Central Obesity & Dementia; Diet, Vitamin D, Calcium, & Colon Cancer

9-28-2008:   Publication & Citation Bias in Favor of Industry-Funded Research?

9-21-2008:   Does Tylenol® (Acetaminophen) Cause Asthma?

9-14-208:    Arthroscopic Knee Surgery- No Better than Placebo?; A Healthy Lifestyle Prevents Stroke

8-23-2008:  Alcohol Abuse Before & After Military Deployment; Running & Age; Running & Your Testicles

8-12-2008:  Green Tea & Diabetes; Breastfeeding & Adult Cholesterol Levels; Fish Oil & Senile Macular Degeneration

8-3-2008:   Exercise & Weight Loss; Green Tea, Folic Acid & Breast Cancer Risk; Foreign Language Interpreters & ICU Patients

7-26-2008:  Viagra & Sexual Function in Women; Patient-Reported Adverse Hospital Events; Curcumin & Pancreatic Cancer

7-13-2008:  Erectile Dysfunction & Frequency of Sex; Muscle Strength & Mortality in Men; Cryoablation for Prostate Cancer

7-6-2008:  Sleep, Melatonin & Breast Cancer Risk; Mediterranean Diet & Cancer Risk; New Treatment for Varicose Veins

6-29-2008:  Bone Marrow Stem Cells & Liver Failure; Vitamin D & Colorectal Cancer Survival; Green Tea & Colorectal Cancer

6-22-2008:  Obesity, Lifestyle & Heart Disease; Effects of Lifestyle & Nutrition on Prostate Cancer; Ginkgo Biloba, Ulcerative Colitis & Colorectal Cancer

6-15-2008:  Preventable Deaths after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery; Green Tea & Colorectal Cancer; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) & St. John’s Wort

6-8-2008:  Vitamin D & Prostate Cancer Risk; Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) of Kidney (Renal) Cancer; Antisense Telomerase & Cancer

6-2-2008:  Acute Coronary Syndrome- Do You Know the Symptoms?; Green Tea & Lung Cancer; Episiotomy & Subsequent Deliveries- An Unkind Cut

5-25-2008:  Early Childhood Screening Predicts Later Behavioral Problems; Psychiatric Disorders Among Parents of Autistic Children; Social & Psychiatric Profiles of Young Adults Born Prematurely

5-18-2008:  Can Statins Reverse Coronary Artery Disease?; Does Breast Ultrasound Improve Breast Cancer Detection?; Preventive Care Services at Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Centers

5-11-2008:  Smoking Cessation & Risk of Death; Childhood Traumas & Adult Suicide Risk; “White Coat Hypertension” & Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

5-4-2008:  Super-Size Me: Fast Food’s Effects on Your Liver; Exercise, Weight & Coronary Artery Disease; Contamination of Surgical Instruments in the Operating Room

4-27-2008:  Stents vs. Bypass Surgery for Coronary Artery Disease; The “DASH” Hypertension Diet & Cardiovascular Disease Prevention; Testosterone Therapy for Women with Decreased Sexual Desire & Function

4-20-2008:  BRCA Breast Cancer Mutations & MRI Scans; Bladder Cancer Prevention with Broccoli?; Diabetes: Risk of Death Due to Heart Attack & Stroke

4-13-2008:  Breast Cancer Recurrence & Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT); Carotid Artery Disease: Surgery vs. Stents?; Statin Drugs & Cancer Prevention

4-6-2008:  Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), Pap Smear Results & Cervical Cancer; Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Infection & Oral Cancer; Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & the Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disorder (GERD)

3-30-2008:  Abdominal Obesity & the Risk of Death in Women; Folic Acid Pretreatment & Heart Attacks; Pancreatic Cancer Regression after Injections of Bacteria

3-23-2008:  Age of Transfused Blood & Risk of Complications after Surgery; Obesity, Blood Pressure & Heart Size in Children

3-16-2008:  Benefits of a Full Drug Coverage Plan for Medicare Patients?; Parent-Teen Conversations about Sex; Soy (Genistein) & Prostate Cancer

3-9-2008:  Flat Colorectal Adenomas & Cancer; Health Risks after Stopping Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT); Television, Children & Obesity

3-2-2008:  Medication & Risk of Death After Heart Attack; Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & Mammogram Results; Selenium: Cancer, Heart Disease & Death

2-23-2008:  Universal Healthcare Insurance Study; Glucosamine & Arthritis

2-17-2008:  Exceptional Longevity in Men; Testosterone & Risk of Prostate Cancer; Smoking & Pre-malignant Colorectal Polyps

2-10-2008:  Thrombus Aspiration from Coronary Arteries; Intensive Management of Diabetes & Death; Possible Cure for  Down’s Syndrome?

2-3-2008:  Vitamin D & Cardiovascular Health; Vitamin D & Breast Cancer; Green Tea & Colorectal Cancer

1-27-2008:  Colorectal Cancer, Esophageal Cancer & Pancreatic Cancer: Update from the 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

1-20-2008:  Testosterone Levels & Risk of Fractures in Elderly Men; Air Pollution & DNA Damage in Sperm; Statins & Trauma Survival in the Elderly

1-12-2008:  Statins, Diabetes & Stroke and Obesity; GERD & Esophageal Cancer

1-7-2008:  Testosterone Supplements in Elderly Men; Colorectal Cancer– Reasons for Poor Compliance with Screening Recommendations

12-31-2007:  Minority Women, Hormone Replacement Therapy & Breast Cancer; Does Health Insurance Improve Health?

12-23-2007:  Is Coffee Safe After a Heart Attack?; Impact of Divorce on the Environment; Hypertension & the Risk of Dementia; Emotional Vitality & the Risk of Heart Disease

12-16-2007:   Honey vs. Dextromethorphan vs. No Treatment for Kids with Night-Time Cough, Acupuncture & Hot Flashes in Women with Breast Cancer, Physical Activity & the Risk of Death, Mediterranean Diet & Mortality

12-11-2007:  Bias in Medical Research; Carbon Nanotubes & Radiofrequency: A New Weapon Against Cancer?; Childhood Obesity & Risk of Adult Heart Disease

12-2-2007:  Obesity & Risk of Cancer; Testosterone Level & Risk of Death; Drug Company Funding of Research & Results; Smoking & the Risk of Colon & Rectal Cancer

Dr. Wascher’s Home Page

(Click above image for TV36 interview of Dr. Wascher)

http://www.cancersupportivecare.com/surgerypain.php

(Anticipated Publication Date:  March 2010)

Dr. Wascher’s Archives: