U Not Gonna Like This

This Microsoft Word Document from International Men's Network:

In modern Europe, we don’t quite have Bedouin storming in from the desert (merely millions of depressed migrants trying to slip through the gates), but the tendency towards barbarism is an active force all around us. Hence the formula for overthrowing a Western society must be not “storm the walls” but “organize your own barbarians” within the walls. Those who hate European civilization know that it cannot be taken by direct assault. It must thus be captured from within. This was the plan adopted by many revolutionaries, most notably, of course, by Marx who constructed a new and hostile tribe within the West called “the proletariat.” They could be made into a revolutionary tribe by equipping suitable people (industrial workers for example) with a unified consciousness, so that in every transaction they understood themselves as a collective. They were being victimized by the oppressive bourgeois. Like the guardians in Plato’s Republic, these revolutionary insurgents had to be taught to be docile within the movement while snarling at those without.

Marx provided the model for all subsequent movements aiming to take power. His “make your own tribe” kit was found useful by nationalists, anarchists, and many brands of socialist. Hitler made the most creative use of it by playing down victimization and representing every Aryan as a superior type of person. It took the world in arms to get rid of him. But before long, revolutionaries discovered that a revolution based on the proletarian tribe only really worked if you were dealing with pretty unsophisticated peoples—preferably non-Europeans who lacked all experience of freedom and genuine political life. In socially mobile European states, the workers mostly found better things to do with their time than waste it on revolutionary committees and the baby talk of political demonstrations. Something new was needed.

It was provided by such socialists as Mussolini and Lenin who adopted the principle of the Praetorian Guard: a tightly knit vanguard party, which could use the masses as ventriloquial dummies and seek power on its own terms. This development was part of a wider tendency towards the emergence of oligarchies ruling through democratic slogans.

In the course of the 1960s, a new tribe was established that also sought to overthrow the Western citadel from within and had notably greater success. This was Betty Friedan’s radical feminists. It was a tribe constructed out of women who had taken some sort of degree and were living domestic lives. Technology had largely liberated them from the rigors of beating, sweeping, and cleaning, while pharmacology had released them from excessive procreation. In tactical terms, radical feminists made one innovation that has turned out to be crucial to the destiny of the West over the last half century. They suppressed almost completely the idea that their project involved a transfer of power and operated entirely on the moralistic principle that their demands corresponded to justice.

What lay behind this momentous development? It is a complicated question, but I think that Diana Schaub understood the essence of it in her essay “On the Character of Generation X”

This from Minute Men Founder Jim Gilchrist:

The United States of America has been the beacon of freedom throughout the world, empowering people whether great or common, rich or poor, strong or weak, to speak up with confidence, expressing views and vocalizing their beliefs.

When priceless free speech is suppressed by force, threats of violence, or intimidation, then the cornerstone of our Constitution begins to crumble and eventually the entire foundation of our nation, long coveted as a nation governed under the rule of law, comes tumbling down.

When such a freedom is replaced with tyrannical bellowing and "mob rule", then only the demons of disorder are allowed to speak and the voice of a nation is muted. It is my greatest fear that in the market place of ideas the voice of free Americans will be stifled by the disease of "politically correct paralysis".

The abolition of freedom of speech carried out against The Minuteman Project speakers and Columbia University's Republican Club at Roone Auditorium on October 4 is but a symptom of a deeper national infection; an infection of complacency that numbs the American people into the belief that freedom, especially freedom of speech, is reserved only for the meanest thugs wielding the biggest clubs.

Ignoring blatant violations of this irrevocable right only sets a precedent, encouraging more of the same, what ever the venue may be, until all beacons of free speech are snuffed out, including print media, talk radio, television and the internet.

This from Men's News Daily:

Worshippers of the communist principle (Cultural Marxists and secular humanists) are the enemy combatants who, while posing as patriotic Americans, are by deed waging a second civil war against the America of our Founders and traditional values Americans. With their disguises removed and their contemptible goals revealed it becomes clear as to why traditional marriage and Christianity are under a brutally relentless assault. It likewise focuses the light of truth upon the underlying motivation of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who lashed out at parents on Nov. 2, 2005. In the ruling handed down by these black-robed totalitarians, it was declared that the upbringing of children, “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door…There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children (and) parents have no due process or privacy right to override determinations of public schools…” These despots, who view children as chattel of the State and parents as sperm/egg donors, emphasized that the parents, “fundamental right to control the education of their children is…substantially diminished.” (Judicial Supremacists Lash Out at Parents, Phyllis Schlafly Report, Eagleforum, 2005)

America’s bastard children—Cultural Marxists and progressive secular humanists—are following the strategic plan for the overthrow of America that was designed by Marxist theoreticians such as George Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci of the Frankfurt Institute, a Marxist think-tank. According to plan, revolutionaries are dechristianizing America and sexualizing and dumbing-down her children while simultaneously encouraging kids to rebel against their parents. They are subverting the Rule of Law and Constitution, undermining national security and weapons-defense systems, working to erase our borders, preventing the US from drilling for much needed oil, colluding with Islamofascists, and provoking unassimilated immigrants into open rebellion. Additionally, they have created the abomination of special rights groups whose ‘special rights’ are enforced by quota systems, psychopolitical ‘sensitivity and diversity training’, Stalinist speech codes and fascist hate-crime laws. All of the aforementioned lend themselves to the disintegration of society and the unleashing of chaos…necessary prerequisites for revolution.

This from Cool Tools 4 Men:

A man recently emailed AngryHarry.com to say how the boy scouts now have to admit girls, but the girl scouts don't admit boys, and indeed boast that they are a "female only space".

Utterly unbelievable!

Indeed, if you look at the boy scouts page you will see that the page is dominated by a series of photos which run down the centre. Now, in those photos there are actually MORE girls than boys!

Its the same in sports: the male sports teams are often now admitting women, and women are allowed into the men's changing rooms, but not vice versa.

And when you think about it, that is evidence that men do NOT resist women's goals to move into any particular area of activity. Women claim that men stop them from doing things, and that there is a glass ceiling. But that shows that basically anything women ask for from men, they get almost immediately.

Women are always claiming that for years they have had to "fight hard" in order to be allowed to do things. But where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence of the tough battles they've had?

As Belfort E Bax said, the claim of *female oppression* has NEVER been proven by the scholars, nor has it been verified by historians.

In fact, I would say that the march of girls and women into the domains of boys and men has been characterized more by the LACK of male resistance.

(Also see my old article: The destruction of male space )

here is the article that is being referred to:

The destruction of Male space

By Darren Blacksmith

Toiling away in my little corner of Southern England you might think that listening to the radio would be a harmless experience, free from the evils of the feminist agenda.

Think again.

My local radio station is cram-packed with 24/7 man-bashing, and while a lot of it is subtle, it is powerful in its consistent repetitiveness. Example - the ads. All advertisements, no matter what the product or service, seem to follow the same basic template. A stupid, ignorant, lazy or laughable man says something which is then corrected or sneered at by a competent, professional, intelligent sounding female. The pattern works one way only, the women are always the smart and confident sounding one, but never dumb and laughable.

This simple pattern repeats itself over and over in a million different permutations for each and every product and service.

Here's an example of an ad currently doing the rounds -

Stupid male voice: "Hi, I’m Jim! D’ya come here often?"

Strong, competent female voice: "This is Jim, Jim Bore. He hangs around fitness centres chatting you up and being sweaty."

Stupid male voice: "Feel those abs!"

Strong, competent female voice: "But now you don’t have to worry about Jim Bore because there's a new fitness centre just for ladies, etc, etc..."

The message is clear and simple - men are so idiotic and repulsive that you wouldn’t even want to go to a fitness centre where they are allowed to be members, so you can now join a female-only one in order to escape their vile presence.

This little ad showcases not only the dumb male/competent female theme but also another trend in British (and Western) society - the growth of female-only places at the same time as the destruction of male-only places.

There is a growing number and variety of female-only services, not just gyms and fitness centres, but female-only colleges, insurance companies, clubs and societies and a vast array of female-only funding and prize-giving schemes to support women in every field of work and endeavour where they are trying to muster the energy and commitment to work as hard as men.

At the same time as this growth of female-only places and services, we are seeing the frenzied and unfair destruction of every place that men and boys have traditionally gone to spend time being themselves and not worrying about females. Boys-only schools are a proven method for improving the education of boys (which is currently at a low, thanks to the feminist controlled teaching profession which usually gets very annoyed at any suggestion that they should actually be educating boys), yet there is no move to promote them.

The cub-scouts must now admit girls as well as boys to its ranks, completely changing the very nature of this once innocent and character-building organisation. And God forbid any male social or sports club that allows its members to relax without women around. Nothing seems to arouse the hysterical indignation of the feminist lobby more than the idea that men might wish to practice a few games of golf in peace without a bunch of women fannying about the course. Just imagine if the female-only fitness centre radio ad had been for a male-only golf-club. Like this -

Dumb female voice: "Hi, I’m Jane. D’ya come here often?"

Strong, competent male voice: "This is Jane, Jane Bore. She hangs around golf clubs trying to chat you up and being annoying."

Dumb female voice: "Check out my butt!"

Strong, competent male voice: "But gentlemen, now you don’t have to worry about Jane Bore because there's a new golf club for men only! Etc, etc..."

I think such an ad would be ripped off the airwaves in about an hour. Single-sex places and services are now fine, but only for women. It is totally incomprehensible to women that straight, ordinary men might wish to relax and enjoy male-interests (such as competitive sports) without women around. Just because they bitch and gossip and scheme when they form together in women-only groups they assume men do the same.

Women may feel smug that they have succeeded - as they always do - in getting what they want by destroying the male-only places, and developing the female-only ones, but their evil schemes are about to backfire on them. Men have to go somewhere.

Increasingly less likely to spend time in social and sports clubs, and turned off by bland, female-controlled TV that portrays us as imbeciles, we are spending more and more time online. We are finding information and entertainment more to our tastes via the computer screen. And here, free from feminine control, we are networking, sharing information and slowly and quietly underground, the men’s movement is growing powerful and deep roots.

Found this post at the Don't Marry Forums it's a story from MSN Money:




Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University's Robert Putnam, one of the world's most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".

The core message of the research was that, "in the presence of diversity, we hunker down", he said. "We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us."

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history", but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic".

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. "They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," said Prof Putnam. "The only thing there's more of is protest marches and TV watching."

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends.

His 2000 book, Bowling Alone, on the increasing atomisation of contemporary society, made him an academic celebrity. Though some scholars questioned how well its findings applied outside the US, policymakers were impressed and he was invited to speak at Camp David, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the "importing" and "exporting" societies, and that trends "have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed".

In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."

here's a follow up comment on this story:

kris
« Reply #1 on Today at 7:46pm »

Toronto, Ontario Canada is testament to what this professor is implying.

Walk down the streets of Downtown Toronto on any given day and you see all sorts of ethnics on the streets.

Although Los Angeles is mentioned as the largest ethnic city, I believe the ethnical make-up of that city to be limited mainly to Afro-American, and Hispanic.

In Toronto Canada, although the population is not as large as Los Angeles, our ethnical make-up consists of Chinese, Jamaicans, Afro-Canadians, East/West Indians, Pakistani's, and Somalians.

Each year, 250,000 more immigrants come into this country, most of which come from shitty 3rd World piss-holes. Of those, 65-70% will settle in Toronto.

The variety of ethnicities are so grand that each one of these cultures has it's own ethinic "enclave" set up within the Downtown core. Most span a radius of at least 10 city blocks, the largest being the Chinese population which is just HUGE!!!!!

Such enclaves have allowed immigrants to move into Canada and not have to assimilate with the rest of the citizenry. It's been documented that in some cases, there are people who've been living in these enclaves since they came to this country over 20 years ago and still don't speak a lick of english!!!!!

Over the past 15 years, the politicians have noticed a phenomenon that's been dubbed "WHITE-FLIGHT". There's been a huge outflux of white people from the city's core moving out to the suburbs. The influx is more ethnicities to the city from crappy countries ::) The result is a devaluation of property prices in some areas of the city as the neighbourhoods are no longer desirable due to increased reports of gun-crime, prostitution, and drug dealing.

Some of the Government set-up social programs started taking notice that there are no more white people left living in the city. On one television program, one of these groups decided to venture out of the city and canvas one of the neighbouring suburbs located about 60km north of the city of Toronto. The purpose of the trip was to knock on the doors of homes in various areas of this particular suburb and try and get the inhabitants to come out to the local highy-school and take part in an "ethnic" food-fare and meet people of different cultures. The group was SHOCKED (to put it mildly), from some of the responses they received when they approached some of the owners of these homes. Most of the neighbours wanted nothing to do with multiculturalism. They were quoted as sayin they were "Generally fed-up with having multiculturalism shoved down their throats every day, and that they escaped the city to get away from multiculturalism all together"!!! Some people went so far as to say they would do whatever they could to discourage what was happening in Toronto, to start happening in their quiet little town.

It's also true about people of the same culture not trusting each other. Most who've come here had a tough time adjusting to Canada so when a new-comer from their own culture enters the community, the older generation tends to screw over the newcomer's. The mentality is "I came here 10 years ago, got screwed over and had to adjust, so why should YOU be any different!"

The kind of support you'd thought would exist by living in your own cultures enclave does not infact exist. It's quite the opposite.

At my company, I work in a department that is dividend into 10 smaller groups of anywhere between 7-9 employees. In my group there are 8 people. In my group there are 2 white people (including myself), 2 orientals, 2 Somali's, and 2 East Indians. I get along and socialize with my ethnic co-workers, however, in no way would I go out and socialize with them outside of the workplace. One of the Somali employees who's generally not happy with her job has gone as far as to tell me that the reason she isn't going anywhere in this company is because of her skin colour! I've had other enthnicities at this company say stuff like this to me in private in varying degrees. I always wondered why they'd say this to a "white" boy such as myself. I've discovered that for the most part, they say it because they can as they know that as I am white, that any contridiction I would have to what they were saying would be viewed as being racist or bigotted, so they have free-range to say all sorts of disparaging bullshit to me in subtle ways as I can't give them a fair response or else I could risk offending one of these piss-ants and get fired!

One time, one of these fuckers took it too far. This one ex-employee who worked in my group a couple years back was having a conversation with an oriental female co-worker who sat next to me at the time. He was a Paki-Muslim. He was telling her about a History course about Adolf Hitler that he took in University. This chick came from Hong Kong and only studied a couple years in Canada, so she really didn't have much historical knowledge about WW2. She asked him what was Hitlers main goal in WW2. He gave her a brief run-down and mentioned that Hitler was exterminating Jews. She then asked why he was killing the Jews. He responded that Hilter didn't trust Jews and that he was trying to create a pure Arian race. When she asked what "Arian" was, his response was "A race of white people with the characteristics of blonde hair, and blue eyes" Then he just totally blew me away when he then turned and pointed at me and told the oriental girl "People that look like Kris"!!!!!!!!

Since that time, I can give a flying fuck about multiculturalism. What ever feelings of indifference I had before that point, was replaced with shear utter disgust. The fact that my supervisor was within ear-shot of this conversation and said nothing spoke volumes about what my "rights" were.

Fuck these people! They have no sympathy from me.

Orginally posted at ZachEverson.com:

December 2, 2003
Diamonds are for suckers: How De Beers transformed diamonds into a symbol of love
By Rita Beauregard
Guest columnist

“I’m continually amazed at the high price of diamonds, essentially rocks. So I looked into it…. Basically, ever since the late 1930s, people have been beautifully fucked by De Beers into thinking marriage = diamond.”
— David Ray Carson, a graphic designer from Minnesota

In 1938 the De Beers mining cartel signed an exclusive agreement with N.W. Ayer, an American advertising firm — and one of the most brilliant advertising and public relations campaigns was born. De Beers, N.W. Ayer, and J. Walter Thompson (an advertising and public relations firm that joined the team in the 1960s) transformed diamonds from marketable gems into symbols of love, glamour, and success — while forever linking them to courtship and married life.

The truth about diamonds

Contrary to popular opinion, diamonds can shatter, crack, discolor, and lose value. And they are not rare. In fact, diamonds have been plentiful since 1870, when huge deposits were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa. 3 Diamonds are now mined in several African countries, as well as in Russia, Australia, and Canada. At first, De Beers controlled 90 percent of the diamond market and, by controlling supply, was able to maintain the illusion of scarcity — and keep prices high. Now De Beers controls about 66 percent of the market. The newer players have not challenged De Beers’s artificially inflated prices, however, as they benefit from them too.

The initial strategy

How did De Beers create the diamond brand? And, more importantly, how did it sustain it? De Beers controlled supply and used research-based behavior-change strategies to build demand. And it sustained demand by monitoring its business goals and objectives, as well as market trends, and adjusting its strategies accordingly.

Ayer’s initial strategy was to strengthen the association between diamonds and romance. For young men, they set out to instill the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women were encouraged to view diamonds as an integral element of courtship.

Tactics under this strategy included:

writing (or re-writing) scenes for Hollywood movies that injected diamonds into romantic relationships between men and women

giving diamonds to movie stars to use as symbols of indestructible love

placing celebrity stories and photographs in magazines and newspapers to reinforce the link between diamonds and romance

using fashion designers to talk on radio programs about the “trend towards diamonds”

asking the British royal family to foster the romantic allure of diamonds (Britain had a large interest in the diamond industry)

commissioning artists like Picasso, Dali, and Dufy to paint pictures for advertisements, conveying the idea that diamonds were unique works of art.

Within three years of the launch of the first De Beers campaign, diamond sales in the United States increased by 55 percent and an estimated 80 percent of wedding engagements in the country were consecrated with diamond rings. Looking back, Ayer noted that the campaign marked “a new form of advertising which has been widely imitated ever since. There was no direct sale to be made. There was no brand name to be impressed on the public mind. There was simply an idea — the eternal emotional value surrounding the diamond.”


Maintaining demand

Each year, De Beers and Ayer refined their approach, conducting research to explore consumer attitudes and identify psychological determinants and barriers to diamond sales. In 1947, Frances Gerety, a copywriter at Ayer, came up with “A diamond is forever” — a message that is still fresh 56 years later. “Forever” also implied that diamonds should never be sold, but rather handed down to a female descendant. This perception prevents large portions of the public from selling its diamonds, which maintains De Beers’s hold over pricing. In subsequent years, campaign tactics expanded to include:

arranging for lecturers to visit high schools across the country, reaching thousands of girls in assemblies, classes, and informal meetings with messages about diamond engagement rings

developing “Hollywood Personalities,” a weekly service that provided key newspapers with descriptions of the diamonds worn by movie stars

commissioning a series of portraits of “engaged socialites” to create prestigious role models for middle- and lower-class women.

Advertising and PR turn problems into profit

De Beers consistently used advertising and public relations to transform challenges into opportunities. For example, in the 1960s the company was overwhelmed with a huge supply of small Russian diamonds. The problem: all of its advertisements pushed rings with large solitary stones. So De Beers came up with the “eternity ring” — an equally expensive ring made up of many small diamonds — and launched a campaign based on the theme of recaptured love, targeting older, married women. The campaign was a great success.

Or take the example of “conflict diamonds,” smuggled from war-torn countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia. De Beers dealt with this issue by positioning itself as a clearinghouse for “conflict-free” diamonds. And even a “60 Minutes” report on conflict diamonds in February 2001, did not dampen consumer enthusiasm. The day after the episode aired, J. Walter Thompson conducted a survey to assess its impact on consumer attitudes toward De Beers and the diamond industry as a whole. The study revealed that the report negatively affected consumer attitudes toward De Beers, but not its diamonds: Among those surveyed, only about one-third agreed with the statement “De Beers is a reputable company.” But 70 percent agreed with the statement “De Beers is a company whose products I wouldn’t hesitate to buy.” In fact, De Beers fared better than the diamond industry as a whole — only 63 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “the diamond industry has products I wouldn’t hesitate to buy.” Joan Parker, director of the Diamond Information Center, concluded that the negative effects of the report would diminish over time.

De Beers still dominates a changing market

The diamond market is changing rapidly, but De Beers still dominates. In 2001, its ADiamondIsForever.com website got 200,000 visitors a month. Visitors spent about 20 minutes browsing the site, and most were from the target market: women, 18 to 34 years old. And although the U.S. Department of Justice has challenged De Beers’s business practices — there is an outstanding indictment against the company from a 1994 price-fixing case — it is difficult to challenge its approach to communications.

This from the AP and Yahoo News:

Lower standards help Army recruit more
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 9, 7:34 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.


The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.

The Army recruited 80,635 soldiers, roughly 7,000 more than last year. Of those, about 70,000 were first-time recruits who had never served before.

According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.

The Army said all the recruits with low scores had received high school diplomas. In a written statement, the Army said good test scores do not necessarily equate to quality soldiers.

Test-taking ability, the Army said, does not measure loyalty, duty, honor, integrity or courage.
Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a private research group, said there is a "fine balance between the need for a certain number of recruits and the standards you set."

"Tests don't tell you the answer to the most critical question for the Army, how will you do in combat?" Goure said. But, he added, accepting too many recruits with low test scores could increase training costs and leave technical jobs unfilled.

"The absolute key for the Army is a high-school diploma," Goure said.

About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving.

That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.

The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens.

Army Brig. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo said that adding more recruiters enabled the Army to identify more recruits. "We got the right people in the field in the right places in the right numbers," said Cucolo, the chief spokesman for the Army.

Army Tones Down Drill Sergeants
Oct 10, 4:56 PM (ET)
By PAULINE JELINEK

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hollywood may have to tone down its portrayal of the military's screaming, in-your-face boot camp drill sergeant. In today's Army, shouting is out and a calmer approach to molding young minds is in, says the head of Pentagon personnel. The Army says it has reduced by nearly 7 percent the number of recruits who wash out in the first six to 12 months of military life.

"Part of it is changing the nature of how it treats people in basic training," David S. Chu, undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said Tuesday.

That means "less shouting at everyone, in essence, which some of you may remember from an earlier generation as being the modus operandi," he said.

The changes started about a year ago, as defense officials looked for ways to make drillmasters more effective, said Lt. Col. Mike Jones, head of Army National Guard recruiting.

He said the old way was to "talk loud, talk often, get their attention" - shock treatment to teach discipline and mold the newly recruited civilian into a soldier.

But trainers found today's generation responded better to instructors who took "a more counseling" type role, Jones said, using strong tactics when needed but keeping them the exception instead of the rule.

The approach has had two positive results, he said: It has lowered attrition among those who go through training each year and has eased one of the greatest fears of recruits - their fear over whether they can make it through basic training.

Other changes aimed at improving graduation rates include such things as letting recruits with injuries or minor medical problems remain in the service, heal, and then go back to training. Before, an injury would have meant discharge, training officials said.

and that has laed to THIS:
We take gangstas
May 1, 2006
BY FRANK MAIN Crime Reporter

The Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings and Vice Lords were born decades ago in Chicago's most violent neighborhoods. Now, their gang graffiti is showing up 6,400 miles away in one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods -- Iraq.

Armored vehicles, concrete barricades and bathroom walls all have served as canvasses for their spray-painted gang art. At Camp Cedar II, about 185 miles southeast of Baghdad, a guard shack was recently defaced with "GDN" for Gangster Disciple Nation, along with the gang's six-pointed star and the word "Chitown," a soldier who photographed it said.

The graffiti, captured on film by an Army Reservist and provided to the Chicago Sun-Times, highlights increasing gang activity in the Army in the United States and overseas, some experts say.

Military and civilian police investigators familiar with three major Army bases in the United States -- Fort Lewis, Fort Hood and Fort Bragg -- said they have been focusing recently on soldiers with gang affiliations. These bases ship out many of the soldiers fighting in Iraq.

"I have identified 320 soldiers as gang members from April 2002 to present," said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department gang detective at Fort Lewis in Washington state. "I think that's the tip of the iceberg."

Of paramount concern is whether gang-affiliated soldiers' training will make them deadly urban warriors when they return to civilian life and if some are using their access to military equipment to supply gangs at home, said Barfield and other experts.

'They don't try to hide it'

Jeffrey Stoleson, an Army Reserve sergeant in Iraq for almost a year, said he has taken hundreds of photos of gang graffiti there.

In a storage yard in Taji, about 18 miles north of Baghdad, dozens of tanks were vandalized with painted gang symbols, Stoleson said in a phone interview from Iraq. He said he also took pictures of graffiti at Camp Scania, about 108 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Camp Anaconda, about 40 miles north of Baghdad. Much of the graffiti was by Chicago-based gangs, he said.

In civilian life, Stoleson is a correctional officer and co-founder of the gang interdiction team at a Wisconsin maximum-security prison. Now he is a truck commander for security escorts in Iraq. He said he watched two fellow soldiers in the Wisconsin Army National Guard 2nd Battalion, 127th Infantry, die Sept. 26 when a roadside bomb exploded. Five of Stoleson's friends have been wounded.

Because of the extreme danger of his mission in Iraq, Stoleson said he does not relish the idea of working alongside gang members, whom he does not trust. Stoleson said he once reported to a supervisor that he suspected a company of soldiers in Iraq was rife with gang members.

"My E-8 [supervising sergeant] told me not to ruffle their feathers because they were doing a good job," he said.

Stoleson said he has spotted soldiers in Iraq with tattoos signifying their allegiance to the Vice Lords and the Simon City Royals, another street gang spawned in Chicago.

"They don't try to hide it," Stoleson said.

Army doesn't see significant trend

Christopher Grey, spokesman for the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, did not deny the existence of gang members in the military, but he disputed that the problem is rampant -- or even significant.

In the last year, the Criminal Investigation Command has looked into 10 cases in which there was credible evidence of gang-related criminal activity in the Army, Grey said. He would not discuss specific cases.

"We recently conducted an Army-wide study, and we don't see a significant trend in this kind of activity, especially when you compare this with a million-man Army," Grey said.

'Lowering our standards'

"Sometimes there is a definition issue here on what constitutes gang activity. If someone wears baggy pants and a scarf, that does not make them a gang member unless there is evidence to show that person is involved in violent or criminal activity," Grey said.

Barfield said Army recruiters eager to meet their goals have been overlooking applicants' gang tattoos and getting waivers for criminal backgrounds.

"We're lowering our standards," Barfield said.

Found this post at the Eternal Bachelor:

Zero Volts

As many have noticed, the Sixteen Volts blog was recently taken down with an apology apparantly delivered from Ilkka Kokkarinen. It seems his job may have been at risk because he dared criticise feminism and other socialist/liberal ideologies (amazing how liberal "anti-fascists" are as fascistic as...well, fascists.)

Mr Kokkarinen has insisted that he closed his site down of his own free will and claims he does not want anyone to make him out to be a victim of censorship. I can't really confirm any theory on the guy's personal decision because, whilst I enjoyed reading Sixteen Volts and traded links with Mr Kokkarinen, I never personally corresponded with him.

But something is obviously very fishy about all of this, and I'm not just talking about the whiffy stench of the unwashed cunts of fascist fembots on a censoring rampage.

This article, for example, makes it clear the feminists demanded he STFU and stop being so mean and nasty as to not bow down and worship the Matriarchy.

An anonymous American student alerted the Women’s Centre, mentioning that she is a computer science student and software engineer and that she had stumbled across Kokkarinen’s blog and was concerned.

The Women’s Centre responded by posting her note outside its office.

“If I were a student at Ryerson,” she said, “I’d be very interested in reading some of the things he (Kokkarinen) has to say before deciding whether or not to take his classes.”

@He is not the first anti-feminist and he won’t be the last@, said Huda Assaqqaf, 22, women’s centre orientation.

Damn right he won't be the last you arse-biscuit. Wherever feminists go there will be anti-feminists.

Incidentally, this is why anyone criticising feminism online is best off using a false name. Also, this kinda disproves feminist claims that this a Man's World and women are oppressed; women can go online and insult and moan about men all they want under their own names and with their photos for all to see, whilst if us men want to criticise feminism we have to use false names and keep out identities a secret, like the French Resistence or something.

Mr. Kokkarinen was promptly sent to sensitivity training
re-edumaction camp and posted an apology on his blog.

these are just a few of the comments on the situation:

At 9:39 PM, Joe said…
Being a computer science professor, the gaggle of feminists and looney lefties control any political decisions at the University administration. That is how they get a foothold in the Engineering and Sciences Department. Also, Canada has some of the most regulated speech laws of any western nation.

It seems, he has to go through sensitivity training to keep his job. So a sign of good favor, he 'voluntarily' took down his blog.

He didn't have any problems with his original blog, because it was in Finnish and not English.

With the encroachment of the Nanny State, we will all have to learn a secret langauge to speak our minds freely.

At 1:06 AM, mfsob said…

Before you guys vote to cut his balls off, look where this happened - in academia, where, anyone with more than a pea-sized brain knows, logic and common sense are ruthlessly extinguised and political-correctness and professional victimization are the rulers of the day. And this is the US - I know for a fact things are wayyyyyyyyyyyy more fucked up in Canada.

Just ONE example I have personal knowledge of - last year the "Wymen's Studies" professors (for some reason we need FOUR of these useless slags) decided to host a production of the Vagina Monologues, out of their own pockets. Then when they found out what it was actually going to cost, they went whining to their dean, who of course ponied up the majority of the $$$$$.

Another professor in the same department found out and was ticked off enough to write said dean and ask if he was also going to underwrite a performance of the Penis Diaries (which does not, to my knowledge, even exist).

The upshot? Within 15 minutes of the dean getting that e-mail, the professor was being sat down for a quiet chat with the Gender Equity Officer, who suggested that maybe tenure, in his case, was perhaps revokable after all, and wasn't his last performace review just a bit too filled with puffery that maybe should be investigated?, and ... you get the idea.

This guy did what he had to do to keep his job, in a field dominated by nutty, hormonally driven feminazis.

the best post:

At 8:40 AM, Captain Zarmband said…

What is it about the men's movement and blogs like Sixteen Thousand Volts that makes feminists so afraid that they have to use sneaky censorship and Gestapo tactics to remove them. If our point of view is so ludicrous then people would not sympathise, would view us as cranks and, therefore, no censorship would be required. The only reason the feminists use this censorship tactic is because they fear us and the know that we are right. We have rumbled them and their campaign to crush men and take away the few remaining rights that we have. The right of free speech is top of the Feminazi list. We in turn must keep on with the fight and crush them while we still can.

At 9:23 AM, Deepak said…

"With the encroachment of the Nanny State, we will all have to learn a secret langauge to speak our minds freely."

That language, sir, is HTML. Welcome to the internet, where anonymous males still reign supreme!

We have every reason to be optimistic, my disgruntled brethren. Look at the comments on that post; not a single one supports this decision.

Any ideology that loses touch with reality will eventually collapse in on itself. The lunacy will become incontestable. Our only job, as suggested by Friedrich Nietzsche and demonstrated by Dr. Kokkarinen, is to push what is already falling and laugh as it topples to the ground!

At 2:59 PM

Feminists simply cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. They are funded with Tax payers dollars in the US. And promote an idealogy easily refuted with facts. So they must censor opposing opinions whenever they can. In addition they are not breeding. So they must continually indoctrinate a new group of idiots to their Dogma.

The Forbes.com article and board has had calls to censor Michael Noer, castrate him, deny him sexual expression etc. Unwittingly the Career Gals are overwhelmingly showing Noer's article is 100% correct.
Khankrumthebulgar

At 5:41 PM, Anonymous said…

Nothing to prevent him from starting a new blog under an assumed identity (per Duncan's observation).

I'm telling you people you can't be nice with the femicunts and their coWhorts in the press and govt. Keep being respectful and polite with them and you'll nice yourself right into a nice cage and a nice matching dog collar.

NO WARS were EVER won by being nice.

From personal experience, at close range, one thing I can say they are definitely afraid of is death. They know just below the surface they are worthless and could not survive on their own (e.g., society collapses, survival situation). Messages can be effective. A torched car here. A burned down television studio there. Could start off with hitting their infrastructure/property (their tools of repression). If they are too dense to get the message then escalation is necessary.

How many times do they have to keep kicking you guys in the balls before the gloves come off?

These are not nice people. Don't be nice to them. Those are courtesies extended to people who have earned it. Have they earned it from you? They spit in your face everyday and laugh at you.

Death Before Dishonor.

At 9:15 AM, Captain Zarmband said…
It now appears that the comments have been stopped on the Sixteen Volts blog. Lucky for me mine was the last to be posted.

This guy's forced confession is one that the KGB would have been proud of. You can tell these are not really his words as it's full of feminist shaming language.

This from the Times Online:

The Sunday Times
October 08, 2006
Nervous men kill off the office romance
Roger Dobson and Yuba Bessaoud

A SERIES of high-profile harassment cases has sparked the first signs of “segregation” in the workplace as relationships between the sexes are disrupted by mutual suspicion.

Men are self-censoring innocent compliments and office banter when in mixed company, killing off office romance, according to a study by psychologists at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The academics have identified the emergence of a “glass partition” between the sexes that, they say, is also damaging the career prospects of women.

Kim Elsesser, co-author of Glass Partition: Obstacles to Cross-sex Friendships at Work, published in the academic journal Human Relations said: “The unintended consequence of sexual harassment awareness is that women suffer from men’s uncertainty on how to behave.

“While it is mostly the men who feel restricted in what they say, unfortunately the career implications affect the women because the men have the power and women have a hard time befriending men.

“Just as the glass ceiling prevents women from reaching the top of organisations, the glass partition prevents women from making the friendships that could help their careers.” She said rules intended to discourage romantic relationships were also making it harder to form work friendships.

Sexual harassment cases can trigger changes in the rest of the workforce. Phillip Randall, 32, is a middle manager at a small financial services company. He had been working there for six years when he was accused of sexual harassment by a female colleague. He insisted on using a pseudonym because the case is still being investigated.

He said that the office atmosphere had soured. “It’s affected the liveliness of the whole workplace. It used to be such an enjoyable environment.

“The other staff don’t go out for drinks as a group. There is an atmosphere of ‘who can I talk to?’
They send fewer e-mails around the office because they are scared someone will take offence.

“It makes things difficult because as a manager you’ve got to relate to your staff.”

The academic researchers found evidence of one of the most significant shift in attitudes since the influx of women into the workforce in the 1960s.

They found that 75% of male workers constantly considered the risks of being accused of sexual harassment when talking to female colleagues. Humour was considered one of the most risky areas.

Conversely, only 5% of women said they had to watch what they said around men but 66% noticed that men seemed inhibited. The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 41 professionals.

Jane Mann, head of employment at Fox Williams, a City law firm, said sexual harassment legislation in the UK was creating similar patterns.

“People are much more wary of banter in the workplace and much more concerned about whether they are saying or doing the right thing.

Update Tuesday, October 10, 2006:

I just checked the Eternal Bachelor and here's his comments on this story:

For starters, this isn't news. Furthermore, how the fuck does not making "friendships" prevent career advancement? Friendships may help, but generally, in the real world, you get promotions by working hard, not by being mates with the boss. I've known bosses promote guys they didn't really like on a personal basis much, but simply because those guys bought in the profits. If women think they can get to the top by just friendships, it's clear where they're going wrong! Finally, note how the whole thing blames us men, us nasty evil men daring to not fraternize or flirt with female colleagues just because we might get done for sexual harassment! If we're friendly with women, we're evil sexual harassers, if we don't, we're making them feel left out.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Nothing new there.

And here's what was posted in the comments section:

Christopher in Oregon said...

I'm employed by a government agency, and let me tell you, the sexual harassment policy is nothing short of insane.

ANY physically contact, including the slightest brushing up against a woman in passing can be grounds for termination. Any unwelcome look, if deemed sexual or leering by the woman, is grounds for termination. ANY unwelcome comments, not necessarily sexual, that make a woman uncomfortable, are grounds for termination.

Any "homophobic" comments.

In short, anything you say or do in their presence can get you fired. Even if they hear about your comments second hand. Last year, we had a husband/wife couple who are both working here kiss in passing. Nothing sexual. Just a peck. A woman screamed sexual harassment, and this couple almost lost their jobs. Their kissing made this other woman "uncomfortable".

WTF?

When is a woman NOT uncomfortable? Or pissed? Or....

When at work, I almost never speak to women. I never smile. I never discuss my personal life. Religion. Politics. Anything. Only business. I am never alone with one of them. I keep a distance of at least several feet away from them at all times.
I treat women like the enemy, because, in fact, they are the enemy.
They always have been.

Christopher
6:31 PM

Viking said...
I can certainly see how the lack of male/female fraternization would have a negative impact on a woman's ability to advance...

Without the opportunity to accuse men of sexual harassment, and thereby remove potential rivals and at the same time gain leverage over the organization, a woman might actually have to compete with her peers on the basis of productivity alone, an obvious disadvantage. Also, for the better looking women out there, it also removes much the opportunity to for her to "ply her feminine wiles" in order to gain favor. It's obviously a conspiracy to keep women for using those attributes that they are stronger in such as the ubiquitous communications skills, people skills and/or soft skills.

ditchthebitch said...
I have been avoiding women in the workplace now myself for the last 2 years- it's nice to finally see an article about this- just to know I'm not losing my mind or think I've been over-reacting to the possible danger all this time. I saw this gag on Saturday Night Live a few months ago that was a mock up of a 'sexual harassment education' film that employers show their employees- it showed a balding, overweight guy walk up to a woman typing in the office, and she just said, "no," before he even said anything.

Then a more attractive, younger guy walks up in his underwear, starts grabbing her breasts and everything's just peachy. The narrator says along with it spelled out on the screen, "To avoid sxual harassment accusations- be attractive. Don't be unattractive." The real point is, though, even if you ARE attractive as a man, it still doesn't matter- what if you're just not all that bright when it comes to talking to women? Sure, it sucks, but that doesn't mean that you should be fired and the company SUED.

Plus- bottom line, just not knowing what a woman MAY find offensive isn't even the tip of the iceberg- she could simply misinterpret an innocent comment because you didn't put the accent on the syllables just right- not to mention the fact all the massive false allegations by women simply to cash in- makes women in the workplace LETHAL to a business.

The solution is simple- if women mixed with men in the workplace causes a threat of sexual harassment, then who do you think should be the ones to go? Who do you think is more necessary anyway to any business? Do you really think that if all the women in workplace left tomorrow it would really make any real difference?

Businesses have always thrived off the testosterone drive of males and the resulting competitive edge-women legally forced their way into the workforce and not only are they poor at production, they are a liablity. Absolutely- all men should completely avoid women in the workplace unless they absolutely have to speak to them- women are insane and the risk is just too great. Maybe as a result women will begin to finally leave the workplace and we can have things back to normal.
7:11 PM

Days of Broken Windows said...
I'm glad this information is finally being validated, because I have been avoiding women at work for years for this very reason.

But I want to stress something to the regulars: The women most likely to accuse are those who dress the most provocatively. That's because these women LIVE for drama.

The Internet has exposed this -- because there are many women on My Space that post sexy pics of themselves, then complain about that in their My Space blogs!! This is called creating chaos, and it's men who have to pay when this happens in the workplace.

For an example, go here: http://www.myspace.com/trishjr31
8:01 PM

and the clincher......

phoenix said...

And how do you think it makes us men feel, to have to walk around on eggshells and work like robots at work? Wait, you just don't care, because we're men? Yeah, I thought so. I hate work because of women. Women still gossup and say inappropriate things to men, other women, or on the phone, so I don't see how it impacts them. It's the men that are basically isolated. Women spend their time spying on men too so that you can't even surf the web at some jobs.

I remember a job I had as a temp awhile back. It was 2 men other than me, and they worked at the front. I worked towards the back with all women. The women would occasionally take shopping breaks together and act like we couldn't live without them. When they were gone, everything ran extremely smoothly. When they were there, they'd bitch about how much work there was, say really stupid and innappropriate things the entire time, make fun of each other, cause drama, etc. They'd whine that we weren't working, meanwhile they'd sit around and gossip. I remember once a few of us were talking about sports, this one woman got extremely mad at us. I think we talked for about 10 minutes, whereas these women would spend hours and hours talking. They hypocrisy was just ridiculous.

I would much rather get into a physical fight, and then relax and be friends with someone rather than be the victim of a long emotional/verbal assault that women specialize in. It's amazing to me that courts can on the one hand claim a man verbally abusing his wife assaulted her, but on the other completely ignore nagging and whining and belittling from the woman towards the man. Men are just absolutely not even allowed to defend themselves, they're being forced to be defenseless victims.

Why do women need protection? The only thing they would need protection from men is in physical force. The government and workplaces prevent that. If anything, men need to be protected from women's emotional and verbal abuse.

I should have become a construction worker, or sanitation worker. What is the point of higher education? I'm a lot dumber now that when I was younger and could pursue subjects on my own.

I'm now stuck working with women, have less intelligence, and am surrounded by people that think a bullshit piece of paper costing tens of thousands of dollars is the measure of intelligence. Most women are like that poster in another thread, Patricia. Absolutely no mental activity occurring, the use of pre-"learned" patterns rather than acquiring and adjusting to the specific situation, shaming language and put-downs, appeals to previous "accomplishment" of academia. What's it all for?

Why does anybody need 6 figures? mid-5 figures are plenty enough if you live on your own, and there should be plenty of jobs that pay that much. Society is doomed when more and more men realize this. We always pushed ourselves for women, but now women are making themselves worthless, and actually harmful to us.
8:14 PM

This from What Men are saying about "Women":

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Polishknight

I just had a man from Nigeria laugh and say (on his own initiative, not anything I prompted him for) that women in the states get angry or do nasty things for no reason (apparent to him.) He senses that they’re constantly in battle mode and has learned, after coming here, to treat them like a wild animal and watch every move he makes around them.

That only makes me wonder how men in the states think having lived here all their lives!

This from International Men's Network:

A REPLY TO DEVVY KIDD
By Graham Strachan

Devvy Kidd charges that America has lost its manhood, by which she
means men prepared to defend women and children against the advancing
global tyranny [Devvy Kidd: Where Have All The Men Gone? June 5,
2002, www.newswithviews.com].

"Today the men in this country," she writes, "sit around watching
mindless trash like Survivor or Friends on the boob tube, instead of
shouting down the roof against state and federal systems that are
utterly and completely rotten beyond redemption. Systems and agencies
that are putting their women and children into a state of involuntary
servitude for all their lives. Instead they sit back with nary a
whisper while state and federal judges to uphold this carnage against
the people. Why is this?"

One might have thought the answer was obvious - the predictable
result of the attacks on men and masculinity that have come from the
feminist movement over the past two decades, with the backing of the
state, and with the acquiescence of the vast majority of Australian,
and American, women. And while Ms Kidd might wonder where the men
prepared to defend women have gone, one could suggest they have gone
where the women prepared to defend men have gone – into the pages of
history.

While millions of men have died protecting their families (or so they
believed), they have never regarded themselves as sacrificial
animals. Their protection of women and children always came at a
price, a price wiser women in the past understood. Men would protect
women and children, provided women and children gave them something
worth protecting. That needn't be much: a little respect, love, and a
home to defend. Men would stand by their women and children, so long
as their women and children stood by them. Take away that mostly
unstated bargain, and one is left with a social problem.

So when feminists started calling men `male chauvinist pigs', there
might have been some women's voices raised in defence of men. If
there were, they were few and far between. When newsagents put on
sale diaries with women on the cover screaming, "All men are
bastards", women might have protested at the blatant sexism. They
might have demanded the diaries be withdrawn from sale. Instead they
bought them to show how `liberated' they were, thereby endorsing the
claim.

When men were accused of being involved in a `vast male conspiracy to
chain women to kitchen sinks' and to turn this into a `male dominated
society', there might have been protests from women at this obvious
absurdity, but there weren't. What about from the mothers who were
training the future crop of alleged conspirators and women-enslavers -
their own sons? Nothing.

When it was revealed there was a war against boys in the school
system, aimed at turning them into placid little neuters, did their
mothers storm Parents and Citizens meetings demanding a fair go for
their sons? Hardly. Instead they believed the `teachers' who told
them male aggression was a form of social psychosis requiring
treatment. Toy trucks and guns should be taken away, and boys given
dolls to play with.

A masculine man came to be regarded as an insensitive dolt – `macho'
was the term of abuse. The ideal man was a SNAG – a Sensitive New Age
Guy, in touch with his `feminine side'. Men should be encouraged to
cry often, and share their `deep inner feelings' as women supposedly
do. If only men were more like women, the world would be a much
better place, was the feminist mantra, and women generally stood
around nodding in agreement.

When the feminists pronounced that "A woman needs a man like a fish
needs a bicycle", did real women object? No, they were doubled up
with mirth. SO funny! When the feminsts proclaimed their aim was no
longer to `liberate women', but to `sink the boot into the groin of
the patriarchy', did any real women protest to say that wasn't what
they wanted? No. And when Hollywood started actually showing women
kicking men in the groin on screen as `entertainment', did women
object? Did they walk out of the theatres en masse? Not at all. They
made those peculiar `whoop, whoop' noises women make at male strip
shows.

Why was it that women generally didn't defend men through all this?
For one thing, they were too busy counting the spoils gained on their
behalf by the feminists. Such as affirmative action, because they
wouldn't have to compete so hard to get a job, and could blame lack
of advancement on men and `glass ceilings'. And Family Law, because
women were almost guaranteed three-quarters of the property and sole
custody of the children most of the time, simply by pleading
womanhood.

Did any women protest at the obvious injustice? Hardly any. In
Australia they started embellishing their custody applications with
false accusations of child abuse, so their ex-husbands would be
denied the right even to visit their children, ever. Feminist studies
appeared, showing fathers were not only unnecessary, but actually
detrimental to childrens' upbringing.

Did women rise up in defence of men over these scandalous claims? Virtually none. Nor did they object when the feminists accused men of deliberately causing wars so they
could have the pleasure of being blown to pieces fighting them. Come to think of it, there is hardly an evil on earth that has not been blamed on men by women over the past 20 years, with no shortage of coverage by the major media.

Now women – at least some of them such as Devvy Kidd - are starting to wake up that behind the feminist and other popular movements are some very ugly scheming people who want to destroy the institutions of civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage.

Accordingly, Ms Kidd wants men to resume practising their traditional role as protectors of women and children, and bemoans the fact that there don't seem to be any men like that around any more.

Well what did she expect? What did she think would be the outcome of the twenty-year war on men and masculinity? Did she think that at the end of the day there would still be men at women's beck-and-call no matter what? Does she offer any apology for the way men have been attacked for the past two decades? Does she even ask men nicely for their protection? None of these.

She launches yet another attack on men, this time for failing to do the `manly thing', and protect women and children against the coming tyranny.

"America," she proclaims in disgust, "has lost its manhood."

Really. Well if women want men's protection, they'd better start revising
their attitude to men - or go learn karate.

This from a site called The Perfect Law Of Liberty:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 87TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union

Extension of Remarks of Hon. John H. Rousselot of California In The House Of Representatives Wednesday, September 20, 1961

Mr ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, many people have becomed very concerned about the connections of certain persons involved in the affairs of the American Civil Liberties Union with Communist front groups. They are asking the question: Does the ACLU really promote adherence to rights guaranteed the individual by the Constitution?

Organizational Research Associates, the address of which is Post Office Box 51, Garden Grove, Calif., has prepared a pamphlet entitled, "The Truth About the American Civil Liberties Union," which I believe should be brought to the attention of every member of Congress and to the American public. Under unanimous consent, I include the pamphlet in the Appendix of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

"Masters of Deceit," J. Edgar Hoover, page 228: "Fronts probably represent the party's most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support. Like mass agitation and infiltration, fronts espouse the deceptive party line (hence the term "front"), while actually advancing the real party line. In this way the party is able to influence thousands of non-Communists, collect large sums of money, and reach the minds, pens, and tongues of many high-ranking and distinguished individuals. Moreover fronts are excellent fields for party recruitment."

Dr. Fred Schwarz, executive director of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade, "Communist Legal Subversion," page 75, HCUA: "Any attempt to judge the influence of Communists by their numbers is like trying to determine the validity of the hull of a boat by relating the area of the holes to the area which is sound. One hole can sink the ship. Communism is the theory of the disciplined few controlling and directing the rest. One person in a sensitive position can control and manipulate thousands of others."

One quick way to evaluate the ideology of organizations is through consideration of the statements and claims of their leaders. So it seems neccessary for a realistic appraisal of the civil rights policy of the American Civil Liberties Union that we develop the factual background of their prominent officials and leaders.

It has taken us months of painstaking research to prepare this pamphlet; it will take you only minutes to read it. So please read it and then pass it on and inform others of the information you are about to learn.

SECTION 1

These are a few of the past and present prominent officials and leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union.

1. Roger Baldwin, founder and guiding light of the ACLU for over 30 years, is now a member of the National Committee of the ACLU. Mr Roger Baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952). In an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934), Roger Baldwin said: "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental."

Entry of Roger Baldwin in the Harvard reunion book on the occasion of the 30th anniversary reunion of his class of 1905 (1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal."
2. Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU. Dr. Harry Ward has a record of over 200 Communist front affiliations and citations listed by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HCUA). Dr. Harry Ward was chairman of one of the largest Communist fronts to flourish in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy," which was placed on the Attorney General of the United States list of subversive organizations on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward is the author of "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books which clearly show Dr. Ward's love for the Soviet system of government. The California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, in their 1948 report, page 246, said: "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympaties of the members and sponsors of the "Friends of the Soviet Union."

3. Abraham L. Wirin, chief counsel for the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU, sometimes referred to as "Mr. ACLU."

In 1934 A. L. Wirin formed a law partnership with Leo Gllagher and Grover Johnson (reference: Daily Peoples World, Mar. 5, 1934, official publication of the Communist Party on the west coast). Mr Leo Gallagher ran for State office on the Communist Party ticket in 1936 and Grover Johnson, when asked by a governmental investigating agency if he had ever been a member of the Communist Party, refused to answer the question on the grounds that he might incriminate himself.

In 1954, A. L. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board of National Lawyers Guild (reference: Los Angeles Daily Journal, Jan 13, 1954). The National Lawyers Guild has been cited as a Communist Front organization by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) September 21, 1950. (Four years before, Mr. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board.)

From the archives the orginal Don't Marry.com Essay from Men Going Their Own Way:

Monday, 15 May 2006

The original essay from dontmarry.com. For anyone unfamiliar with the history of the site, the message boards were bombarded by trolls and spammed with pornography until someone complained and the forum was shut down. The site owner moved traffic to a forum on the site itself, and the level of traffic almost immediately exceeded the bandwidth allocation, effectively shutting the site down.

This website is not selling anything

The intent of this website is to help educate men about the realities of today's modern marriage. Please pass the word....

(Disclaimer: The author has never been married)

Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men

This writing seeks to educate men about the realities of what he may be getting himself into when he marries. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted. The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying, but to encourage them in communicating frankly their concerns and expectations of marriage with their potential spouses. The aim of this writing is to also enlighten women with some of the reasons why increasing numbers of successful eligible unmarried men, who otherwise prefer monogamous long-term relationships, are turning their backs on marriage.

Society automatically paints a stereotype on men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry.

They are labelled as:

a) womanizers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or

b) Selfish/childish/irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.

No other explanation is ever explored.

The cost of proclaiming your undying love
(aka: The tip of the iceberg)

Except in professional sports and presidential elections, women are given the same educational and professional career opportunities as men. Also, contrary to feminist propaganda, women do indeed get paid the same salary as men, given they are willing to work the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as their male counterpart. Despite this reality, many women come into a marriage with very little assets, and often, are saddled with substantial debt. In general, men are the ones who save and invest. (Don't believe me? Count the number of women of marrying age you know who subscribe to Fortune, Forbes, or Money magazine) A significant number of 20 and 30-something women spend most of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of clothing, purses, shoes, etc. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. (Yet ironically, in the media, men are the ones who are portrayed as reckless, irresponsible spendthrifts)

** Disclaimer: For the purposes of this essay, I will be generalizing about the potential circumstances and gender roles that can plague men in today's modern marriage. What is the exception and what it the rule is open to debate. Certainly not all (or perhaps even most?) marriages end up as described. However, the aim is to simply educate men of some of the potential outcomes that exist for today's marriage and divorce.

When marriage enters the picture, double standards and financial imbalances leave responsible men to pick up the slack. (And also fix the mess she may have made). For starters, men are forced (yes, forced) to spend their hard earned savings (or take a loan) on a diamond ring. Women justify this relatively nascent ritual (spawned by a brilliant 1940's mass-brainwashing campaign launched by DeBeers) by insisting a man wants to buy her a diamond. That it makes a man proud to proclaim his love and affection this way. Granted, some men may be this way, but there are plenty who seek a lifelong partnership and commitment, yet have no interest in buying diamonds. What choice do these men have? None! To many young men, the ring/wedding is a unwelcome landmine in their journey towards adult financial stability. To add insult to injury, (a recurring theme in marriage, as you will see), the man is now locked into a lifetime of insurance payments for this grossly overpriced jewelry. (Contrary to popular belief, diamonds are not rare, but their supply has been artificially manipulated) Some men are more concerned with realizing their dream of owning a home, and/or becoming financially stable enough to begin a family. Men worry about these matters, because, ultimately, it becomes their responsibility as well.

This just portends the things to come. Immediately after buying a ring, the man may be rewarded with demands of financing all or part of a lavish wedding.... (Depending on the size of his bank account.) The costs of today's weddings exceed that of a house down payment. (Or in certain parts of the country, the house itself) If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched from right from under him. Many men may object to spending this sum of money on a one-day party. (Or spending a year of their life planning it, when they could use the same time to further their career or education) However, what a man wants is really not of any concern.

Non-negotiable. A wedding is no longer for the bride and groom. As today's Bridezilla gleefully reminds you, "This is MY day". (Which ostensibly, gives her carte blanche to become selfish, irresponsible, and childlike) Are all women like this? Not at all. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. A man who balks at spending his entire life savings (or going into debt for) a ring & wedding & exotic 5-star honeymoon can be labeled a selfish cheapskate or not a "real man". (Meanwhile, what exactly constitutes a "real woman"?) In fact, if a woman leaves a man for suggesting they try to keep their costs under control, she would have full support from everyone around her. "She can do better than that"...."Clearly, he doesn't love her"..... etc. This is a sign of good self-esteem, and that she won't settle for anything less. Yet, in the same breath of this sense of entitlement, women proudly proclaim how equal & independent they are. However, can you imagine if a man demanded equal treatment? For example, demanding the woman buy him a boat, and a 2 week bear hunt in Siberia as a condition of marriage? This would be viewed as absurd, yet women do it every day. Marriage is a partnership, right? Please read on, my friend.

The injustices can go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If the man can afford to carry the entire financial burden, the woman can elect to stop working. (Regardless of how the man may feel about the decision) The day the woman stops working is the day all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets thrown onto the man's head. If the woman has racked up credit card debts, these are now his payments. If the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these also become the man's responsibility. (Stomach-churning irony = the man is stuck paying for her degree, and she's not even working anymore!!) And can the man object? Can he say, "No, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead." No, the payments can't be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself (Besides, that day may never come) Not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home. If he even suggested that she return to work to pay off her own debts, he would be chastised as bad father, endangering the welfare of his newborn. So, the responsible husband now compensates for the mother's freewheeling irresponsible past, and pays off all her debts. In yet another sick twist of irony, the husband may be paying off credit cards used to finance vacations and xmas gifts shared with previous boyfriends, etc. Buyer beware! This is the reward for today's man who works hard, makes sacrifices, plans ahead, and invests wisely. Again, this doesn't always happen. But by getting married, the man is certainly susceptible to being railroaded into this situation, because it is completely acceptable within today's accepted gender roles. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.

Marriage can mean career slavery
(aka: A good paycheck can mean career slavery)

Anyone who says "Slavery is dead" clearly has not contemplated the predicament of many American fathers. Webster's defines slavery as "the state of being under the control of another person." If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality, and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the men who have been left holding the financial bag find their options limited. They may find themselves stuck in careers they hate, or working for abusive exploitative management, working excessively long hours, working in jobs that are physically threatening, that have no growth potential, enduring prolonged commutes, etc. At this point, considering the corner he's been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any change in his own life. A husband may have been harboring delusions that once the wife was able to return to work, he would gain some flexibility to rectify some of the shortcomings in his own career (For example, changing careers or accepting a lower salary at a different firm, in exchange for better hours, shorter commute, and/or more fulfilling work, etc) But, a distinct reality is that he will continue to shoulder the financial responsibilities alone....A man's reward for working hard and getting ahead is to become trapped into his career, and shoulder the financial burdens of a family alone. Does it pay to work hard anymore?

If she stops working, she may never work again.
(aka: Caveat Emptor)

There are many debates about the merits of a stay-at-home mother vs. a working mother. My goal here is to simply educate the man on the unseen risks he is taking when he agrees to accept 100% of the financial burden to allow his wife to stay at home. Again, an informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

Every parent will agree that staying home with a child is back-breaking (and often mind-numbing) labor. Many new fathers will concede that it is much easier to go to work than to stay at home with several children. However, the greatest imbalance in efforts and contributions to a marriage can manifest once all the children are of school age. The house is now empty from 8am-3pm. The wife has 7 hours to herself, while the kids are at school, and the husband is at work. After a few years of hard work at home, many wives may feel entitled to "kick back." The good husband however, has worked those same years, has done his 50/50 of the housework, and is still working to support the family once the kids are in school. He is rarely afforded the same option to scale back his daytime efforts.

What motivation does the modern wife have to return to work? Very little. For several years now, the man's salary has been enough to live on. (Otherwise, she would have been working) Unless tight finances dictate that she must return to work, the husband really has little say in this matter. The wife can hide behind many different excuses in order not to work, despite having little to do from 7am-3pm:

"I'm busy with the housework"

It is easy to exaggerate the labors of daily housework. Yet, how long does it take to throw clothes into the wash, and remove them later? Vacuuming can be done in 1 hour a week. Grocery is another hour per week. A decent meal can be prepared in under an hour. Does all this add up to 7 hours a day? Note: This lie is not as persuasive as it may have been in the past, b/c in an age of later marriage, many men are already experienced in cooking & cleaning, and know what kind of effort it entails. (Note that not every stay-at-home-wife even does all these things.)

"I can't find a job"

She has been out of work too long, and therefore is unable to find a job. This may be true, but many men do not consider this risk when they agree to support her while she "temporarily' stops working. (Hopefully, now they will, and can make a more informed decision) Also, many wives may use this as a scapegoat to conveniently not even bother looking for any job. (Below, I describe how this can even be used against the husband in the event of divorce)

"It doesn't pay for me to work"

In the shortrun, the expenses of work (gas, lunch, clothes) may not make it worthwhile for her to go back to work. This may be true, but does this justify her playing tennis, while the husband toils away? Many couples may be too shortsighted on this matter. Initially, the cost/benefit numbers may not be ideal, but her returning to work will improve her job skills and network of contacts. (More so than strolling through the local mall every afternoon) Over time, as her career gets back on track, and she becomes qualified for better jobs, her salary should also improve.

It should be duly noted that some working wives view their salary as "personal spending money", and still expect the man to pay all or most of the bills. (What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours.) Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.
Even more unfair double standards that favor wives.

Cheating.

If a married man cheats, he's the scum of the earth.A selfish jerk who has jeopardized the family unit. However, when the woman cheats, she's conveniently portrayed as the victim.

Poor thing. It's for her empowerment, or to help her self-esteem. Worse yet, her cheating can be the man's fault. How? He doesn't compliment her like her new man does. Or he works too much. (Yes, the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and cars she may have demanded is now considered negligent. The man who may be working 2 jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered negligent)

When a woman cheats, the first thing people ask is what he did (or didn't do) to drive her into the arms of another man.

When a man cheats, no one ever asks the same question.

When a woman cheats, sometimes the reaction can be, "Oh, poor thing, I guess her husband wasn't delivering in the bedroom".

However, if a man cheats, no one ever stops to think...."Oh poor fella, his wife was horrible in bed."

Also, if a man happens to leave his wife for a younger woman, it is automatically assumed that he is a shallow sex maniac whose only motivation was to be with a younger woman. If his wife was lazy, or a reckless spendthrift, or verbally or physically abusive, or became grossly overweight, or was an incompetent mother, those realities are totally ignored.

Ostensibly, the only reason a man leaves his wife is to be with a younger, more attractive woman. (Never mind if she is a better match for him) Because apparently, that's the only factor that motivates these Neanderthals.

Prenups

If a man insists on a prenup, he is selfish and unromantic. However, when is the last time a woman who demanded a prenup was called "unromantic"? On the contrary, if a woman requests a prenup, she is fiscally responsible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenup, she has just shown her hand...) Why is it that a woman can refuse a prenup, and it's accepted. In reality, the man should be outraged that she is after a legal contract, and not love.

What is astounding is the hypocrisy of the reaction towards prenups. Women can conveniently assert that a man is unromantic if he suggests a prenup. After all, how can a man pollute true love with signing of legal paperwork! However, what is a marriage contract?

Women do not seem to balk at signing this legal paperwork, which entitles her to at least half the money a man earns, and obligates him to support her if the event of a breakup. Why aren't men allowed to note how unromantic this contract is? The distraction of bridal magazines, selection of dinner napkins, churches, wedding dresses, receptions, wedding showers, and honeymoons have clouded the legal reality of what men are getting themselves into. Marriage is as much an unromantic legal contract as a prenuptial agreement is.

Ironically, prenups were devised as a way to protect women. Nuptial agreements were popularized in the 19th century, mostly to protect heiresses from marrying men who were "out for their money." Until the Married Women's Property Act of 1848, a woman's property, upon marriage, was transferred to her husband. (Correct, )

"Stupid, Irresponsible" Men

Men are severely abused in our media, quite frankly. Just watch TV commercials/sitcoms and see how many reflect men as idiots. (If they had commercials like that about women, people would have a fit.) If it wasn't for their wives they would be lost "animals". Other commercials who make it appear that men act without thinking, impulsively and irrationally, and the wife is the brains of the family, which in reality is not always true. Even many women will agree, women often are the ones who act on emotions, and make judgment solely based on emotional attachments, rather then logic and reason. Almost every "couples budgeting" article will portray the woman as the one who has to rein in the man's childish spending.

Job Loss

If a husband loses his job and is having trouble finding work, the wife is justified in threatening to leave him. However, can you imagine the reaction if a husband threatened to leave a wife who was in the exact same position?? He would be crucified! If a man loses his job, the woman is justified in resenting the fact that the financial burden lies on her.

However, when is a man allowed to resent this very same predicament? If a man is laid off and cares for the household/kids, while the wife is working, he can be accused of not pulling his weight! Yet this is exactly the same situation that women demand more recognition for!!

Either role the man plays, he loses!

Traditional Roles

It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand a man make a certain salary, to be deemed "marriage material", and provide stability. Likewise, if a man demands the wife do the cooking/cleaning, he can now be labeled a sexist misogynist. If he asks her to carry her weight financially (just like he does), he can be criticized as an inadequate provider. What exactly deems a woman "marriage material"?

To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannys as their husband can afford. Yes, some wives stay at home, and hire someone else to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered "stay-at-home" mothers.

This is not all women, but certainly the odds increase if the man can afford it. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?
Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. The concept of the pampered wife is relatively new. America was primarily an agricultural economy even up into the 1920's. American wives contributed to the well being of the household by helping on the farm. A man needed a wife as an equal partner. It was not until the 1950's that the first generation of American wives began to emerge as dead weight. Perhaps this coincides with the spiking of the divorce rate in America. Perhaps men have become tired of giving so much, while getting so little in exchange.

Divorce
(aka: License to Steal)

50% of American marriages end in divorce, and 70% of these divorces are initiaited by women. All men should consult an attorney before marrying, and understand the implications of divorce, b/c they may participate in one whether they like it not.

Upon divorce, all assets accumulated during a marriage are subject to division. Even if the woman has not worked in years, and instead, has spent the last few years shopping and lunching from 7am-3pm, she is entitled to half of everything the man worked for during the course of the marriage. Is this fair? How many people would ever accept a job offer that stipulated that in the event of resignation, you would have to return 50% of every dime you were ever paid? No one in his or her right mind. Yet, men unknowingly agree to the exact same insanity when they sign their marriage contract!

"Assets accumulated prior to a marriage are exempt from a divorce." Yes, in theory. However, real life dictates otherwise. If funds from an account are commingled, it can become marital property. If even a dime from an account is spent towards the marriage, it can be considered marital property. Buy your child a lollypop from your own account, and a good lawyer will take 1/2 of it for your ex-wife when you divorce. If a woman moves into a home the man owned prior to the marriage, it is not safe from divorce. If she so much as hangs up a sheet of wallpaper, the home is now classified as marital property, and is subject to equal division. (Worse actually, the man can be ejected from the home) Is this fair?
Note: "equal division" is also somewhat a misnomer. Often, she can get upwards of 70% of assets, while the man gets the majority of the debts!! This, of course, is his reward for working so hard all these years. He can afford it, she can't b/c she was not working.
If you pamper your wife, it can be used against you (aka: No good deed goes unpunished)

Imagine yourself giving a homeless man a sandwich. A generous act, indeed. Now imagine your reaction if the homeless man sues you in court! The judge orders you to keep feeding the homeless man sandwiches, indefinitely, because he has become accustomed to your support!! This would be categorically absurd, yet this happens to men in divorce court every day. Instead of thanking you for paying her bills for all those years, you get the reward of legally having to keep paying her bills! Remember folks: No good deed goes unpunished.

After having children, many women demand to quit working and stay home. Before kids, many of these women may have been in careers they hated, working long hours, and enduring long commutes. It is the man's generosity and dedication to his own career that allows her to walk away from her hers. During a marriage, a man with a stay-at-home wife might work himself to the bone in order to support her. He will pay the mortgage, property tax, grocery bill, phone bill, cable bill, and electric bill. He also pays for her car, the gas money, clothes, and vacations.

As a slap in the face, the man can be punished for working hard enough to allow his wife the have the luxury of staying home with the kids. As noted above, after the children are in school, the wife may enjoy a life of leisure that is afforded to her by her man's hard work. In event of divorce, he can be legally obligated to support her for years to come. Because she stopped working and led a life of leisure, the ex-husband is now responsible for supporting her!!

History has a tendency of rewriting itself. Originally, a woman may have had a career that she may have hated, and was begging to leave. (In fact, that partially may have been her motivation to have kids in the first place.) But now, in her eyes (or her lawyer's eyes), she "gave up" her career for the man and his kids. His gift now becomes her sacrifice! Or, the story goes that he was threatened by her having her own career, and forced her to quit and stay home with the children. (How many men do you personally know that are upset at having a wife that earns a good living?) Many of these misleading stereotypes still run rampant in our society, and are routinely used to the woman's advantage during a divorce. As a result of her not working, regardless of whether she was minding the home or not, she remains a liability.

Generous, caring men who spoil their wives should certainly think twice about how this generosity can later be used against them. The phrase used in divorce court is "She has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle". A husband's reward for spoiling his wife today is the legal obligation to spoil her indefinitely. Buy her a luxury car today, and you may be obligated to buy her luxury cars after she leaves for you for another man! Yet...imagine a husband that became accustomed to eating a home cooked dinner prepared by his wife. Now imagine the courts obligate the ex-wife to continue cooking for him and his new girlfriend each night, despite being divorced! Inconceivable, but it happens the other way around every day!

The ultimate insult, however, comes when the man loses half of his life's assets even when she has decided to leave him. Yes, a wife can kick a man out of his own home, and have the courts force him to continue paying the bills, while she is sleeping with her new boyfriend in the very house the husband worked to buy! She can spend her alimony check on gifts for her new boyfriend! Are all women like this? No. Does the legal system support a woman who does feel entitled to this? Yes.

The risks are clear, but what exactly are men getting out of marriage? Many times, the reasons men get married are unfounded.

All the "classic" reasons why a man gets married are a myth.

(aka: Don't believe the hype)

"I won't die alone"

Wrong. The simple fact is, that one spouse WILL die alone. (Unless you both die simultaneously in a car accident.) Your spouse may die 15 years before you. Or you may be on a hospital bed for your last year. Yes, you may get visitors, but they aren't having the same thoughts as you are. You're contemplating your mortality, while they're wondering what pizza toppings the hospital cafeteria offers. Ultimately, we all die alone. Married or not.

Corollary: "I won't grow old alone"

Not necessarily. A marriage can self-destruct at any time. Your partner may initiate divorce at age 30, 35, 45, 50, 55, 60, etc. MANY married people end up in the same position (alone) as if they had never married at all. (But they enter their twilight years broke, as a result of being stripped of half of their life's assets, losing half their retirement/pension funds, and/or being assessed alimony payments) Also, experiencing final devastation from one divorce may preclude a man from ever marrying again. ie: He grows old alone (and poor)

Men are led to believe that not marrying implies a destiny of a solitary monk in a cave.

However, life is not so black and white. Not marrying does not mean you can't continue to date or have meaningful relationships throughout your life. There are plenty of single people in all age brackets. In fact, a bad marriage can be the loneliest of institutions, b/c most of your emotional outlet and companionship is concentrated into one person. Again, my aim is to educate young men in their 20's and 30's to the alternatives that exist in life. They should be aware that marriage is a choice, and is not the only path life has to offer.. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

"I'll get regular sex"

Not necessarily. There are plenty of "sexless" marriages. Talk to a few married couples that are honest about their relationship. One or both partners may stop wanting sex after kids. Also, it remains to be seen whether sex with 1 partner for 30 years is even a natural act, or just a man-made convention. Marriage is hardly a guarantee of regular sex, as many people are led to believe.

"I'll have someone to cook/clean for me"

Not necessarily. While a woman is perfectly justified in quitting her job in the name of staying home with the kids, she can also demand that the husband pay for a cook, a maid, and a nanny. This leaves a man to earn the money, and leaves him to pay for maintenance of household and children. Today's woman is empowered by not performing the traditional housewife duties, regardless of whether she is working or not. If a husband asks that his wife perform traditional household duties b/c she is not working, he can be labeled sexist or controlling, even if he is doing his "traditional role" of paying all the bills. (Besides, this is a stupid reason to get married. If that's what you want, then hire a maid)

"It's the proper religious thing to do"

Perhaps, but it is a complete farce to watch couples that haven't gone to church in 10, 15, or 20 years suddenly become church going regulars a few months prior to their marriage in order to gain approval of their church. (And in most cases, they don't step back into a church the day after their wedding) If you are not actively religious, why would you need your personal relationship to be endorsed by corrupt child-molesting, tax-exempt, money-soliciting, war-mongering thieves? (Who you will never see again) Religion today is nothing more than a way to socialize and network with neighbors on Sundays. Not a reason to be married. Of course, the Catholic church only allows you to be married once. So when remarrying, divorced people will get the marriage "annulled". A convenient man-made loophole to circumvent a man-made custom. A complete farce.

"I have to be married to have kids"

Really? Her ovaries do not physically need a contract at town hall in order to be fertilized by his sperm. Cro-Magnon man had children long before lawyers invented marriage contracts. Often, you do not need to be married in order to share health benefits. (Due to the gay rights movement) You do not need to be married to designate your partner on a life insurance policy. It's ironic that responsible parents who raise a healthy family, but never actually sign marriage paperwork, get less respect than ineffective/inattentive/incompetent married (or divorced) parents.

Having a lifelong, faithful relationship has nothing to do with being "married".

Owning beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being "married".

Raising healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being "married".

All these things have been done by gay couples for years now, without marriage.

In fact, with the advent of gay marriage, gay couples have proven that the only tangible
consequence of marriage is having a formalized seperation process.

Otherwise, nothing else has changed in their relationship that existed before "marriage".

You do need to be married in order to throw a extravagant 3 hour party, and share the same last name, however.

Besides that, marriage does nothing but introduce lawyers and phoney, crooked religious figures into your life. (People that otherwise have nothing to do with your life or your relationship)

Men need to stop and ask, "Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today's world?"

It is hardly a lifelong committment, b/c it can be reversed overnight.

Marriage was borne as a way for families to merge land/property, so maybe people should view it as just that. The rest of the hype is just bogus modern TV fantasy polluting the minds of today's impressionable youth, and a way to keep the $70 billion-per-year U.S. wedding industry chugging along. Perhaps the only criteria should really be "Am I excited to merge my finances with him/her?" Because, when all the fluff and hype are boiled away, that may be the only remaining reality. (Don't believe me? Spend a day in divorce courts, and you'll see exactly what is real and tangible about marriage. You'll also see women who signed the marriage contract under romantic pretenses who are now expert laymen attorneys who can cite case law. Boquet throwing ex-brides now embroiled in warfare to get everything that's comin' to them!) The rest are myths, lies, bold unsubstantiated promises, and maybes.....For better or worse.

The national divorce rate is 50%. (It's higher in some parts of the country, like CA) However, I ask you, consider of the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay. (Men who don't want to lose 50%, ....women who know they can't support themselves alone, etc) Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these, "forced marriages, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity. A shot in the dark, but I estimate the percentage of happy & monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture? Or even a raffle ticket? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday at the altar.

Conclusion

There is no conclusion.

The author is just as confused as you are.

Brothers, choose wisely ...