Your Son Is Not Safe At College

Answering the the headline from the column fron Men's News Daily by Marc Rudov:

Is Your Son Safe At College


I cannot repost the article (copywrigthed all rights reserved.)

However....

In the comments section......




amfortas said,

Many colleges that teach Law have 'Moot Courts' where students can practice presenting cases. A sound MRM strategy would be to develop moot court practice for young men to sue girls, University Administrators, Professors etc. Civil action practice. Prosecutors like Nifong can hide behind their protections from prosecution but the rest cannot.
April 16, 2007 at 7:52 pm


donnieboy57 said,

i just caught myself last week in a moment of weakness. at the last second, i asked her if she would vote for hillary. when she answered "of course", i wished her gods speed and called the date off. she actually called me a women hating c..k sucker. i tell ya, i have to pay more attention to detail. that was close.
April 16, 2007 at 9:00 pm


scottkirk said,

mark rudov…as someone who was falselly accussed, and the false accusser was never even charged..
I would say youre assesment is about accurate….
Our universitys are in a gynocentriclly hysterical crisis to find more rapists..and they will keep lowering the bar of proof as needed to keep the hysteria funding flow coming on….
April 16, 2007 at 9:36 pm


Roger Knight said,

Good advice, Marc.

Unfortunately, you are 100% correct on this one.

Didn't a Texas grand jury recently charge a women for manslaughter and false reporting of a crime when she provoked her husband into killing her lover by screaming "Rape!"? She led him to believe a felony was in progress and he used his Second Amendment right to protect her!

Therefore, in addition to Marc's Rules, don't have sex with a woman who has a jealous boyfriend or husband.
April 16, 2007 at 9:53 pm



fourthwire said,

Spot-on, Marc. America's "institutions of higher learning" have become vipet's nests of organized, taxpayer-funded misandry as you eloquently point out. The feminists' war on men and boys has reached hysterical magnitudes and young men are most vulnerable to false rape accusations.

As we see in the Duke false rape accusation, there will apparently be no negative consequences for Crystal Gail Mangum. Her name has been shielded through the MSM.

There apparently have been no adverse consequences for the 88 scumbag faculty member who found the lacrosse team members guilty even before their trial.

There have apparently been no adverse consequences for TV's talking heads, who also had the boys found guilty in the court of public opinion before their trial.

The lacrosse team coach lost his job. Nobody in power has mentioned reinstating him, with back pay.

The lacrosse team members on trial luckily were from family of means, but their names have been smeared with no payment for their troubles.

Feminist bitches have poisoned our universities for young men…… with taxypayers footing the bill. You are doing them all a service by providing your articulate warning words, Marc.

Keep up the great work, sir.
April 16, 2007 at 11:50 pm





Virtue said,

Video and audio tape all interactions that could lead to legal action.
April 17, 2007 at 11:03 am



roger said,

Good Article Mark.

And this is why 'men's studies' courses at high schools and universities around the country should routinely invite Mark to speak in their lectures.

Men's Studies should be a required course for all males in the educational system. Young men are not aware of the laws, as their Father's are not aware of them and have not taught these laws to their Son's.

Men should have every right and opportunity to set up these courses under government subsidies that the women's groups have been living off of for years.
April 17, 2007 at 2:57 pm


Jessetfan said,

I would like to point out that the laws you complain about will protect every victim of rape, not just women. If you are ever raped, and I hope you are not, rape shield laws will protect your identity from the media as well. The available statistics suggest that about 8% of reports are found to be unfounded upon investigation, but according to statistics this is similar to other crimes. While I believe that women should be prosecuted for false reporting, that does not make every women who reports rape a liar.

There is a piece of sound advice in your article, don't have sex with someone who is intoxicated, intoxication makes one legally unable to consent, which makes it rape.

April 19, 2007 at 11:54 pm


amfortas said,

Jessetfan, this isn't the jokes page.

April 20, 2007 at 12:27 am




Abaddon_fff said,

So Jessetfan, heres a question for your twisted viewpoint. What happens when both people are drunk? Do they both go to jail for "rape"? People like you are one of the reasons I stay constantly amused. Attempting to rationalize such obviously biased laws shows not only your lack of reason, but how small minded feminists are.

April 20, 2007 at 12:37 am



amfortas said,

Going out soon. Let's check the kit. Condoms, consent forms (triplicate - and 2 spares), breathalizer, cell phone with video capability pre-programmed to send images to my spare, bodyguard/gentleman's gentleman, clean underpants with the MGTOW logo, Glock.

Oh Jessetfan, honey, I'm ready.

April 20, 2007 at 6:32 am



conservativation said,

A perfect example of nonlinear thought. Jess has to state a truth (not all women who claim rape are liars) and feel like she scored. In fact though its in the same topic, it is 100% irrelevant to the discussion here.

Jess, read slowly, the topic is the ones who DO falsely accuse and some of the institutionalized reasons why they can and do. No debate was opened about statistics and zero broad scope all encompassing notions were posited.
Please, please see the stupidity in your lame defensiveness.

April 20, 2007 at 6:50 am




Nancy H said,

This artical appears to be personal to the author, and is clearly lacking in objectivity or expertise.

Being written for the standpoint of a father, it is interesting that the author cites "Parental Alibi: She needs to explain to her parents why she is pregnant. So, by accusing her partner of rape, she's off the hook for her promiscuity." as one of the 'reasons' women falsly accuse people of rape ('reasons' like the world and peoples actions are so simple they can be boiled down into a short cause-and-effect list). This leads me to wonder if the author might perhaps be in denial about his son's actions or hypothetical actions. How many of you know parents with children who are angels in the eyes of the parents, but everyone else can see that they are trouble?

One strong point of the artical however is the rules that are listed near the end that are useful for young people of BOTH genders. Seriously, why are we treating gender issues as if it is 'us' and 'them'?

Another point of the artical that I do agree with is that 'Women's Studies' are just that, the study of Women's issues and not men's. There really should be place for more balanced and realistic gender studies programs, to perhaps avoid highly emotional reactions and biases such as the author's and many of the commenters'.

This leads me to tell you of something that happened to me when I was in High School:

In my senior year, I was date raped. It wasnt violent, but it sure was creepy X 10000. We were both young and I was wasted. He was drunk as well, but not nearly as drunk as I was. He was also my boyfriend, who a week later I broke up with 'randomly' and 'for no reason'. I didnt tell anyone, firstly because it wasnt a clearly defined 'rape' in the eyes of society and it was the result of my boyfriend's self-centeredness, pushyness, and just being unaware of the affect his actions had on others. It wasnt malicious.

Anyway, I knew that the opinions of the majority and the majority of the commenters here would think I was lying. Especially because my boyfriend was much more popular and well known than I was. I had heard a stat once that only 12% of people that a person reports rape to will believe them. INTERESTING, hey?

It took me a couple of years to get over it. 'Get over it' might make it sound like I was terribley upset or something, I wasn't, but as I said, it was pretty creepy and I actually havent had anything but summer flings, etc ever since. I dont want to resort to the same cause-and-effect logic that this article uses, but I do think that that that violation of my trust contributes greatly to why I cant be bothered to get emotionally attached to anybody who I am 'involved' with. I have actually been called a 'heartbreaker', Isnt that sad (not to mention very CHEESY on the part of who was calling me that)?

My ex-boyfriend never put two and two together, and goes on living in oblivion of very creepy his actions were (and likely still are). We actually get along great when we run into eachother. I think that if I were to have talked to him about it and let him know how I felt (even in the very most constructive way possible, which, by the way, I was not capable of, being an immiture teenaged girl), he would have slipped into a state of denial big time, probably would have told everybody, and Im sure the whole town would have accused me of lying or being a confused little girl or whatever, because that is the society we live in, and it sucks.

Thank god 'society' is a dynamic thing, but I have to say that reading this article, and all of the following comments made me a little cynical…

AND ps, "Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables" is about the stupidest name I can think of for a book about turning women on. Likening women to machines is telling of the author's point of view. Either that of he clearly very much considerate thought into it!


April 26, 2007 at 3:19 pm




Marc H. Rudov said,

Nancy H,

I'm so glad you chose to expose yourself with your irrational comments. As a typical feminist, your objectivity and expertise are on display for all to see.
April 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm




thurston861 said,

Really Nancy? What expertise did you think was missing for the "artical".

CLEAN UP IN ISLE 18 NANCY H BLEW HER CREDIBILITY OUT THE BACK OF HER HEAD IN THE FIRST SENTENCE.

Dear Woman. If you are going to critique a man on his writing and work, ye should get your own mess in order first.

GadS! Woman. What do you mean objectivity or experience?

This is about his son, his flesh and blood, the child he loves. That is the object of the article. Not the opinion of a Woman who cannot spell and Judges who need to find people guilty to receive court costs, and prosecutors who need the Female vote!

The man is trying to save his son. I am sure your article regarding your daughter will be so much better.

What you do not have a daughter? (Later I read on in her commetn and it is confirmed)

Woman, you appear to live in denial or I have been asleep. What is this "women falsly accuse people of rape" ?

When have you heard of a woman accusing a woman of rape falsely?

Say it woman! Say it! M-A-N. Say it again now not so slowly Man.

Now that you can say Man you can see a singular individual, focus becomes sharp, he becomes personal, a face like your Father, your brother, or…Bill Clinton…yeah that's the ticket!

A man, an individual, alone. Feels scary to personalize a Man doesn't it? (Later I read her post and see how she is a man user and ice queen.)

More hilarity woman, you say "like the world and peoples actions are so simple they can be boiled down into a short cause-and-effect list"

Well, that is what Police Detectives, Prosecutors, and VAWA says of Men, and Feminists and Feminism infected women say all men are the same!

Me thinkest that ye cannot handle thy Bigotry and double standard exposed.

If children are trouble, all the more reason for a Man to tell his son unobjectively to avoid these situations. 'For if you do not, if you reveal weakness in character and hire the stripper, I cannot afford the lawyer.' (Note: that later in reading about her she has no children at all, so what does she know of the investment required in teaching a child the way to go?)

Woman, your question "why are we treating gender issues as if it is ‘us’ and ‘them’?" reveals that you lack common wisdom of current events.

The studies are showing 40-50% of Rape allegations are ……..[tinnie type here] false. And women are not sent to prison for destroying men with their falsity.

There is a War against the Man and his Son. It is us and them, as the instability of them is wel documented, and the result of them in leadership gives you Sociopaths like Hillary Clinton who says she was named after the presently ailing Sir Edmond Hillary, who nobody knew a damned thing about when she was born.

The War is against Men carried forth by Women and Courts who do not care what the truth is. Only the milage that can be made of emotion.

Well, I am impressed with your comments about wymyns studies. I wrote a whole story given to Mr. LaSalle as to why there will never be a Men's Studies program in college. It all starts with the Feminist Professors creating the cirriculum which starts with "Self-Loathing 101" along with "Stupid Looks 101" and "Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced Dismissive Thought", "easy Chair History, you get the picture?

Not going to happen Dear. It will jsut be more indoctrination and Institutionalized Misandry.

As for " to perhaps avoid highly emotional reactions and biases", perhaps one day that will happen when the Marxist Feminists stop using invective, bigotry, and emotionalism as their Power Tools of choice.

For now, we must live with the reality of the Newtonian principle in that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Men are hurt, bleeding, screaming in their hearts for the hugs of their children like Alec Baldwin, having heart attacks, and killing themselves in huge numbers over what has been done to them.

If you do not have compassion, get out of the kitchen here. Things are cooking, and when it is ready to serve I am sure the temperature will be much more appropriate before we serve it.

Your story is sad, "We were both young and I was wasted. He was drunk as well, but not nearly as drunk as I was." Let us face it, this reveals an issue of character, and a lack of training in how to spot character as well.

You were simply left to your own devices, without regards for morals. One has to wonder if you had sex before-with him? This was not a date Rape Dearest. This was not someone that you were getting to know. You were an item. Your problem with his actions were not the actions of an agressive stranger. He was your boyfriend, and you chose poorly.

You got saused like a Trolip and he treated you like one, and your ongoing relationship should have revealed the risk prior to this.

Shame. HE took advantage of the situation, not Rape.

Did you have bruises. Did he tie you down, did you have cuts, did he hold a gun to your head and make you drink. Rape is a crime of violence.

You got screwed, taken advantage of, you saw it coming and walked right and drank into it.

Advantage is not a crime. Especially when you appear to have been giving it away. In actuallity, he appears to fit the profile of Men that Women want to TAKE it from them.

Women get off on the scenarios where fantasy and reality get blurred, he was strong and virile, she was shy, weak, inhibited. She could nto say yes because she wanted to feel his power like a motor cycle engine between her legs… You get the picture.

If you didn't you would not have trusted alcohol and him together.

Everybody, sometime, plays the fool Nancy, and that comes from experience.

Cynical? Oh yes we are here! We tried the nice guy go with the flow idealistic route. We got destroyed. We are done with that.

Your comment about the book Title! Hilarity never ceases from you does it Woman!?

Ah, ye are a work in progress aren't you?

You are self centered, and probably too young to remember when every guy who had enough money had a car and worked on it himself, because he could not afford the mechanic.

Mechanical terms for mechanical minds.

So self-centered that you cannot see allegory, even to the folds that hood the most sensitive parts of a woman's clitoris, that hides and sheilds her even in intimacy?

Nancy, it is time to grow up Dear…stop blaming others that you have chosen to be a fearful child, and be as sophisticated as your fortitude to post here proves you can be.

Stick around Nancy, maybe you can absorb some logic by osmosis here.

Maybe you get over it and realize it is time to stop being an Ice Queen, have compassion, have emotions, but do not be a user, victimizer, nor on the otherside, a fool.
April 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm




windle2007 said,

Thurston, you might as well give it up- it's evident that 'Nancy H' got under your skin and of course exactly like any other woman, that was all that droning, pointless daytime TV show style/junk/pop psychology drivel she wrote was for. The 'points' she attempting to make are not even 'points,' just mindless rambling that doesn't even make any sense, but she's so obviously clueless and an idiot, she doesn't even know she is a drooling idiot. Ever notice that women are not phased by insults to their intelligence? It's because it doesn't matter to a woman- only insults to the way they look (or smell- ha ha)

April 26, 2007 at 5:52 pm


thurston861 said,

She might not come back, but in case others appear we shall see what they think of my intuition from the facts she admitted to.

It was an amazing work.

April 26, 2007 at 6:22 pm



Marc H. Rudov said,

You are right, thurston861: Nancy H got drunk and banged her boyfriend. Then she turned around to call that date rape. Now you know why the "rape" statistics are flawed and why boys and men are falsely accused of rape. This wasn't at all rape. Lies, lies, and more lies.

Nancy H was ashamed of her behavior (see reason #1 for false rape claims in my article) and blamed it on a man. Typical feminist, cowardice behavior.

Thank you, Nancy H, for validating my article.
April 26, 2007 at 6:54 pm




amfortas said,

Gentlemen, I do believe we have our first self-confessed rapist appearing on MND.

Nancy H says - "I had heard a stat once that only 12% of people that a person reports rape to will believe them. INTERESTING, hey?

Interesting? Inventive more like. Not even a 'study' quote. Perhaps she misheard when she was drunk or heard it from an equally thick girl in the toilets. If Nancy 'had heard' that the sky falls in every 200 years on the first Friday of June, no doubt she'd be telling all and sundry about it with interest too.

Nancy, we had an article here just a week or so ago from a prosectutor who reported that well over 40% of all rape accusations are untrue. So a bit of disbelief is quite justified, dearie.

Belief is insufficient for a 'Guilty' finding Nancy. One needs evidence and proof. Except in Rape cases of course. Arrest and reputation destruction on the basis of accusation alone certainly do seem to only require 'belief' by the cops and the Nifong's of the world. But that is hardly a good thing. The major problem with the Rape-Shield laws is this totally unjustified and unjust reliance on believing the word of a false accuser without corroboration.

So, you were drunk when you had your regretted, "creepy X 10000" experience. Lo and behold so was he! So, did you rape him, Nancy? By the modern definitions of rape you DID, simply by having sex with someone who was drunk. That is one of the new definitions of rape. One of the many new definitions workshopped in the Womyn's Studies depts.

So, Nancy, with your 'holier than thou' attitude, are you going to turn yourself in for a 12-20 year stretch in the pokey? Note, the only proof of 'Rape' that the law needs is proof of having sex with a drunk person. No need even for creepy x 1.

Nancy H says - "I had heard a stat once that only 12% of people that a person reports rape to will believe them. INTERESTING, hey?

Hey, Nancy. I believe you.
April 26, 2007 at 7:58 pm



thurston861 said,

Yes Marc, she vindicated you from the begining, because she attacked you.

She revealed a host of ill-logic that I sought to make a meal of for all who would read comments and see how I went from confrontational and sarcastic to feeling sorry for her that she is now a woman who objectifies men.

Yes Men, Feminists Objectify you if you are just a Screw or an ATM!

So far she has not gotten to megalmanic that she objectifies them and then tries to destroy them…yet…

The idea was give her the logic she wanted, yet make her pay the price for the disingenuous words.

Perhaps she will read, I think not. But the women who come behind her…they will see logic. The Men too, and will hopefully move from pain to making logic, so they will be sharp to help women face to face see if not think and become True Women as I have exhorted Nancy to be.

The Word wil not return void Gentlemen, if we can curb our emotions, the light will shine. Not today, But it will.

It takes a return to thought and experience.

I could nto help but think of all here when I read this:

"In the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia, certain revolutionary proposals were made by pseudo-philosophers that were untried and unjustified by history and experience of man. They were overwhelmingly rejected. Men like George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, James Wilson, John Dickenson and others who knew history and who were learned in the science of government, kept driving the delegates back to fundamentals. They kept saying: "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." Our constitutions are the children of history. Experience stands forth in majesty in every sentence of them. The only constitution American has ever had that was written by a philosopher was that written for the Carolinas by John Locke near 300 years ago. As I have said elsewhere: "It was the worst constitution in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race and died in childbirth from congenital deformities."

Every free government that has fallen in this world was the victim of some "new philosophy" that was as old as tyranny itself. In order to preserve our democratic society as we know it we must again emulate our forefathers and avail ourselves of the rich store of experience that is recorded in the history of man, …"

Pseudo= False False Intellectuals…..

New Philosophy - Law of Brotherly Love Philadelphia, to Philamalevolence

We Must again emulate our forefathers and avil ourselves the rich store of experience of History…

All of this sounds as if it was presented here.
April 26, 2007 at 8:04 pm




Nancy H said,

hmmm, I must say that after I left my previous comment and went to read other articles from this site, I was immedietely ammused. I had left a comment about what I had experienced on a woman-hating web page. You expect that I will never come back to read your response, probably because so few women are stupid enough to waste their time with your 'logic' and visit your page twice. You are no better than the man-hating brand of feminists that you loath so much.

You did prove me right about the disbelief though. Now I will give you the details and you will probably think I'm lying. I told my boyfriend "no, fuck off" cause wanted to 'sleep' and then passed out. He then had 'sex' with my limp passed out body. 1. I said no 2. I was unconscious for most of it. Most of the following responses attacked me and accused me of calling consented sex rape, and proved my point.

And about stats, the commenter who discreted my 'stat' was right, it isnt sourced, but if you read carefully, I talking about my understanding off society at the time and why I thought no one would believe me and why I didnt do anything. I was a teenager and like many of you, foolishly believed that something has credibility just because it is a 'statistic' or has statistics backing it up. I am almost certain I could find plenty of 'credible' sources for it or any other stat. The thing with statistics is that you can scew anything to make it look more or less like something. PS the author clearly doesnt understand stats either re his most recent article on the income gap, another issue which he also has a very loose grasp on.

Anyway, have fun tearing this comment apart as you woman haters surely all will!!! No but seriously, do any of you have women friends who you actually respect? (and that is a rhetorical question, its easy enough to lie and say yes, or ramble on in nonsense)

PS This brand of men's rights is too involved in woman hating. Too bad that a few nut jobs have the potential to discredit a valid movement… Sort of like how the man haters have discredetid feminism in the mainstream. Good job repeating feminism's big mistake retards!

Ice Queen
April 26, 2007 at 9:54 pm





thurston861 said,

Excuse me…where did I say consented?

I said taken advantage of.

Stupid is invective used by Marxists, I suppose Marc was right about y9ou, and I wanted to be nice. Oh Well.

Touche on the Statistic point. There are lies, there are damned lies, then there are statistics. That is why individuals need to ahve Rights and facts of the case should be important.

How do you know if you were unconcious for most of an event if you were slipping in and out of conciousness? That seems hard to believe that one could measure an event in such a state of mind.

Ramble… Nonsense. Seems she is well trained at Dismissive Thought in Wymyns studies.

"Retards"… She is obviously under the age of 24, and needs Rehab for her disparaging remark about the Mentally Hadicapped like Autistics.

She might grow up in 6 years, who knows.

I did not think I was so hateful, harsh, but not hateful.

OH yes I keep forgetting!

Silly me.

Men are not allowed dissatisfaction or critique of women's thoughts of words, even their bowel movements and used hygene products are to be consumed and worshiped by us.

I guess she is really pissed about the Objectification of Men line, since she is admittedly emotionally vacant about the ones she has sex with.

She cannot handle the heat. Cannot handle the fact that she is broken, half of a Woman.

She will never be willing to take the pressure where Iron sharpens Iron.

Ding!

NEXT!!!!
April 26, 2007 at 10:14 pm




thurston861 said,

Am!!!!!:D

You evil man, you made the little girl cry.

April 26, 2007 at 10:20 pm




amfortas said,

Nancy says, - "You expect that I will never come back to read your response, ,,,"

Nancy, I addressed you. Of course I expected you to come back and read it. Otherwise I would not have addressed you.

"No but seriously, do any of you have women friends who you actually respect?", you ask.

It might come as a shock that I do have many women friends that I respect. As with everyone else, it is up to a point. Everyone has a basic claim on my respect, Nancy, but their words and deeds and demeanour are all up for assessment.

"I told my boyfriend no, fuck off cause wanted to go to sleep and then passed out.", you say.

My word, if that's how you speak to your boyfriends, how do you speak to people you don't sleep with? And if I had a dollar for every time my wife pestered me for sex while I was sleepy, I would be able to fund a good night on the tiles. Maybe a fortnight. And I have been pleasantly awokened quite a few times by her getting it on. I never cried it was 'rape' though.

But you just love the idea of having been raped. It gives you that 'right' to be so thoughtless. A real victim problem you have there, Nancy.

April 26, 2007 at 10:37 pm




Nancy H said,

amfortas, your right that is a rude way to talk to someone. However, maybe I didnt mention that I was telling my boyfriend no over and over, and he wasnt getting it. I dont think that means I loose the right to say no, does it? I think being pushy is rude as well.

OK NOW I am deleting this web page's address forever from my browser history so as I am not tempted to read and get dragged into your hateful flaming. Have fun with your heartattacks and high blood pressure everybody!
April 26, 2007 at 11:19 pm


amfortas said,

My measured reponses can only be called 'hateful flaming' by someone who does not wish to contribute sensibly. (I am fairly confident you will come back to read this).

So you tell a tiny bit of your story and expect us all to read your mind for the rest. Then spin it out with a bit more and a bit more as justification for your action. And then you compound it with an admission that that you 'knew' you'd had intercourse, but conveniently didn't know it at the time.

The mind boggles.

By the way, you say you went to college and say "your right", when you mean to say "you're right". Some college education!

My blood pressure is fine thanks.
April 27, 2007 at 12:22 am

Pink Bible - Men Beware

So you still wanna chase p*ssy huh? MarkyMark had some very poignant thoughts about some fem-o-nasty book called the Pink Bible. If you can't see the front page it's because most of the site is written in Adobe Flash. (Download from HERE.)


Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com


MarkyMark and Kim of Equal But Different made post on this. However is MarkyMarks comments I'll be focusing in on becuase it's what he says towards the end to younguns who are still foolish enough to try and date American Women/Westne Women should pay attention to. This is an extremly long post so grab a soda and some chips and pull your chair up close becuase your gonna be here for a while....

Here's what was posted:

Folks,

Some time ago, I stated that I was going to do some posts on 'The Pink Bible'. Unfortunately, given the format of the document, I found copying it to be problematic; I would have ended up typing it all out. I'm a fast typist, so it wouldn't have taken long. Before I could do that though, Kim, who hosts the 'Equal but Different' blog, did a post on this hideous excuse of literature. Not only that, she said what I wanted to say better than I could, and did so in a more concise manner-bravo, Kim! She has LOTS of good reading material on her blog, so check it out ASAP!



Now, before I comment, if you'll look at my links off to the right, you'll see her blog among those listed. She's a woman after my own heart! I know, I know; she's married. However, her husband is one LUCKY guy! Just think Fellas, here's a woman who-gasp-believes in being good to the man she loves! Wow, talk about a novel concept in modern America! Nowadays, American women think that it's a crime to do anything nice for the man they purport to love. I said purport, and I did so deliberately; to me, if you really, truly love someone, then you'll be good to them-end of story. If you mistreat someone, you do not love them; it's that simple. Fellas, America used to have many women like Kim; indeed, it's been my honor & pleasure to know a few of them. Now, women like Kim are so rare that gold seems as plentiful as sand on a beach in comparison...


For me, that's what makes modern life difficult; I'm old enough to know that, at one time, not all of our women were bitches, skanks, sluts, and/or whores. In a way, the young guys, i.e. those under 30, never knew anything other than the skanks we see daily; they don't know what they're missing. Guys who are 45-50 and older though know otherwise; we know that our women weren't always like this.

Anyway, without further ado, here are Kim's thoughts on 'The Pink Bible'; I'll insert my commentary where I deem appropriate, but, in most cases, it'll be short. After all, Kim said what I wanted to say, but she said it better. Now, on to Kim's critique of "The Pink Bible"...


The Pink Bible

Perusing MarkyMark's blog, found here:



http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com



I came across something disturbing enough that I thought I should devote a little blog time to it. The object of my disgust..."The Pink Bible", found here,

http://www.pinkbible.com

Where to begin, where to begin....well, let's start with the cover. Underneath the title is the phrase, "How to bring your man to his knees". [sarcasm] Because you know, that's what women are supposed to be doing, bringing men to their knees. Relationships aren't supposed to be about mutual respect, but one person dominating the other, in this case, the woman dominating the man and bringing him under her control. [/sarcasm] Of course, if we had any analogies about keeping your wife under your thumb, that would be misogyny at it's finest, but in the reverse, it's delightful and entertaining.


Man, you gotta love those double standards! Kim is right, though. Had the shoe been on the other foot, the Feminazis would be crying like a herd of stuck pigs...

"A huntress must understand her quarry. The first mistake made by inexperienced women on the hunt is to treat men as equals. Men are simple creatures. If you deal with them as equals they will become frightened and confused". At this point, I'm wishing I'd added some options for graemlins to my blog so I could post one of those violently puking ones. From the get-go, anyone following their Pink Bible is already destined to failure in the relationship department. No marriage founded under the belief that the husband is, by virtue of his birth, inferior to his wife, stands any chance of succeeding. Men know. Being, perhaps not as simple as some women would care to assume, they know when their wives look down on them and talk down to them, even if they don't choose to acknowledge it. You see these defeated looking husbands everywhere. Neither them or their wives are ever happy. However, the author, underneath all her feminist anti-male rhetoric, almost makes a valid point. Men are simpler creatures...not as in mentally insuffficient, but as in not emotional messes. Men tend to know what they want without throwing a lot of drama into the mix. A woman, sharing with an unsuspecting male her emotional turmoil, could, quite understandably, frighten and confuse them.



Man, what can I POSSIBLY add to that insightful paragraph?! Bravo, Kim!



In regards to getting rid of "undesirable males" who are attempting to attach themselves to you, the author gives the following advice, "some women erroneously imagine that these tactless losers have feelings.....If you fail to deal with them ruthlessly, the will never quit pestering you....Employ statements like, "You disgust me," "Nobody could ever love you," and "Never look my way again you vile carnival sideshow." Wow. I have to hope that the author is deliberately going for over-the-top for entertainment value. However, call me overly-emotional, but this part just made me really sad. I can't imagine how that would make some poor guy who believes himself in love, or at least deep like, feel, being treated so cruelly. The hypocrisy is, expectedly, quite high considering these 'undesirables' are only attempting the very thing the female "huntresses" are being told to do. Imagine the feminine outrage if men were encouraged to tell women who'd developed unwanted attachments that they were disgusting, unlovable, vile canival freaks....even if it were for 'entertainment value'.



Kim, I can't understand how anyone who's got any SHRED of human decency in them can proffer such 'advice'! If a gal isn't interested in a guy, just politely & directly tell him so; don't try to hurt, crush, and humiliate him! That is just cruel. To anyone subscribing to such disgusting beliefs, let me ask you a simple question: if a guy you liked didn't reciprocate the feelings, i.e. he wasn't into you, how would YOU like it if he trashed you in the way that The Pink Bible advocates doing to guys, hmmm? Somehow, I don't think you'd like it very much. The Golden Rule was good 2000+ years ago when Jesus talked about it, and you know what? It's still a good way to live now...



For those of you who don't know what The Golden Rule is, it says to treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself. I believe that Jesus said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I live my life that way, and you know what? It works! Ladies, if you do nothing else, treat a man the way you'd like him to treat you, and you'll be off to a good start...



Now, to any ladies reading this, I'm going to shock you. Yes, that's right; I'm going to totally SHOCK you; I'm going to freak you out! If you have high blood pressure, take your meds now, because you're going to need them shortly. I don't care if you just took them two hours ago; take them again. If you have heart problems, get that nitro glycerin tablet, and put under your tongue. Got it? Good. Now, please make sure that your seat belts are fastened; make sure that they are pulled snugly & securely across your hips. Got the belts squared away? Good. Finally, make sure that all your seats and trays are in the upright & locked position. Why? Because I am going to shock, you!



Now that you've taken your meds; now that you've fastened your seat belts; now that your seats & trays are upright and locked, you're ready. Are you sure you're ready? Really sure? Are you really, really, really sure? Are you?! Ok, because here it comes; here comes the shocker....



Shocker number one is this: men are human beings! Whoa, holy homo sapiens, Batman! Did you say that men are human?! Are you saying that they are as much human as women are?! Yes, Robin, that is exactly what I said! In fact, men & women are BOTH members of the species, homo sapiens. Ergo, men are human too.



What is sad is that I even have to MENTION this! But, mention it I must, because almost all women believe that men are subhuman turds-and that's when they're being generous! To those of you guys unfortunate enough to work with women, try this exercise: sit quietly at your desk, and work diligently; if you can't do that, at least fake it! Give your female colleagues the impression that you're so focused on your work that you're oblivious to what they say and do. Once they feel safe, the women will cut loose with what they think & feel about you. Fellas, let me give you a clue: it's not good! As I said above, women think that we men are subhuman pieces of shit. They think that they're perfect, divine goddesses.


Women don't even think that we're fit to breathe the same air as they do; the only reason they tolerate it is because someone has to do the heavy lifting and shit work in the office, and it isn't going to be them...




Shocker number two is this: not only are men human; men have feelings!!! Holy emotions, Batman?! How can you say that?! Everyone knows men don't have feelings, right? Wrong again, Boy Wonder. Men DO have feelings; it's only that they choose to handle them differently than women do. Whereas women are open with their emotions & feelings (indeed, they are emotional beings), men keep their feelings in check, or under control. One, men are primarily logical beings. Logic dictates men's actions. Two, until modern times and the easy life that goes along with the times, men had to do the hunting. Robin, can you guess what would happen if a man, upon seeing a deer that'd make a nice meal, was also being eyed by a 1,200# Grizzly bear? The Grizzly wouldn't take too kindly to the human interloper trying to take HIS dinner! The upset Grizzly bear would chase down and kill the man. BTW, the man would not be able to outrun the bear, either. A Grizzly bear can easily reach 35 mph, whereas the fastest humans, i.e. Olympic sprinters, are lucky to reach 25 mph or so. As you can see, the man would be in a fight for his survival! How long do you think the man is going to live if he's worried about how someone looked at him or slighted him, huh? In order to survive, the man had to put his feelings under wraps, and deal with the bear (i.e. shoot him with a gun, or a bow & arrow), a bear who wants to rip him to pieces! Only when the man had killed the bear, could the man rest easy, and let his feelings out.


If anyone doubts that men have feelings, point them to the great poets such as Robert Frost, Edgar Allen Poe, Shakespeare, and others; instruct the detractor to read their works. Point them to the great composers such as Beethoven, Bach, Debussy, Holst, Vivaldi, and many, many others; point out how powerful and moving their music is! Let me ask you this, Robin: how can great poetry or music be written unless the writer first POSSESSES the passion necessary to bring such great writing or music to life? The answer is it cannot be done. The very existence of these great writers and composers (almost all of whom are men) totally disproves the assertion that men do not have feelings.



Now, for the third and final shocker: men are intelligent! Yes, you read that right, Virginia; men are indeed intelligent. Not only are they intelligent; they are curious, inquisitive, logical, persistent, tenacious, and many other things. If you go down the list of all the great inventions that not only changed the way we live, but indeed made modern life possible, you'll find men all along the way! I'm talking about Thomas Edison, inventor of the phonograph (predecessor to today's CD), light bulb, and the motion picture; that's right-a MAN invented movies!!! I'm talking about Elisha Otis. If his name sounds familiar, it should; many elevators and escalators you ladies use at the mall bear his name. Without the elevator, modern skyscrapers would NOT be possible. Of course, we can thank Michael Faraday & Ben Franklin for their work in discovering, understanding, and harnessing electricity; without electricity, none of Edison's inventions would've been possible!


We have Etienne Lenior and Nikolaus Otto, inventors of the internal combustion engine; Lenior invented the two stroke engine, while Otto invented the four stroke engine, still found in modern cars today. No discussion of the internal combustion engine would be complete without mentioning Rudolf Diesel, inventor of the engine named after him. Did you know that, when Diesel was experimenting with his engine, that he was almost killed during one of the experiments? There go those men again, pushing the envelope and taking risks again-oh no! Next, we have Gottlieb Daimler & Karl Benz, inventors of the automobile, aka cars for those of you addicted to shoes! While Daimler & Benz were inventing cars over in Europe, the Duryea brothers were doing the same over here in America. Of course, not mention of the automobile would be complete without mentioning Henry Ford; though he didn't invent the car, he invented the PROCESS which made them affordable, thus contributing to their ubiquity. Without Charles Goodyear and John Boyd Dunlop, the tires on which cars, motorcycles, bicycles, trucks, etc. roll, we wouldn't HAVE modern vehicles! The Wright Brothers (last time I checked, the word, 'brothers', was used to denote two or more sibling MALES-oh no!!!!) gave us the airplane, and it was powered by an internal combustion engine. About 35 years later, Frank Whittle of Great Britain and Hans von Ohain of Germany, each invented the modern jet engine while working independently.


So, Ladies, the next time you say men are stupid, think again; that jet airliner you're flying to your sex tourist trip to Jamaica was made possible by-gasp-men-0ooohhhh noooooooo!!!!!! I could go on, but this topic would fill a library! Men have invented everything that has been life changing; men have made modern life possible, Ladies. If things had been left up to you, we'd still be living in grass huts. Now, if we're so stupid, how could we POSSIBLY change the way in which the world lives, hmmm? Kim is right; men are not so dumb after all...




Probably most offensive of all is the "Art of Camouflage". Women are advised to "Keep your true personality hidden....by the time he discovers it was all a mirage, it will be too late". This one almost leaves me speechless...almost. Instead of "Art of Comouflage" the section could be aptly renamed, "How to guarantee you'll have a miserable, frustrating marriage that ends in bitter divorce". This has got to be one of the most irresponsible bits of advice ever given. It's like advising women on how to ruin, not only their own life, but the life of the unsuspecting man she marries, not to mention any children that may be born prior to the setting in of reality. Even if we do our very best to be as honest and upfront as possible before marriage, it's inevitable that our spouses will see worse sides of us than they did during the dating phase. Hopefully, they'll also see better sides of us. This is what adversity brings out, our best and worst, and there will always be adversity to be found in marriage. Deliberately disguising our true selves is a guarantee for a failed marriage. The foundation of marriage is honesty and trust. The point of marriage is finding someone who we connect with; someone who loves us for who we are, not who we pretend to be.


Kim, what you said about the 'Camouflage' chapter sums up my feelings & thoughts perfectly; I have nothing to add, as you said everything that needs to be said. My male readers should take note: women hide their true colors from you. If you don't believe it, check out Tom Leykis' podcast on marriage some time...


On the last page of the Pink Bible's preview we find the following words concerning the woman who has managed, through deceit, to bag her prey, "The victorious huntress has not killed her prey. She has harnessed him. If she continues to employ subtlety and guile, she can steer him like an ox for the rest of her life." Once again...puking graemlin. The obvious slur, comparing the man to a large, dumb beast is, while offensive, completely unsurprising at this point. Again though, we see the hypocrisy. Why do we need feminism? Oh, because evil men try to enslave and control women. What's the solution? We'll teach women that they should enslave and control men...because that's different. I'll also take a moment here to point out the title given to the woman throughout is "huntress". It's nice that something as monumental as the search for our partner in this life, the person with whom we will bear and raise children, has been reduced to analogies on sport hunting. But there you have it. Marriage, families....in today's world, it's all just a game.


Unfortunately, the final chapter of The Pink Bible sums up modern marriage; a man is nothing but a pack mule for his wife. All his hopes, dreams, desires, etc. get brushed aside. Even though he may work 50 hours a week or more, he doesn't get to rest on the weekends-oh no; he gets a 'honey-do' list-yea! He gets to spend all his time doing stuff for his ungrateful, nagging shrew of a wife! No wonder why men are saying 'No f&$!ing way' when it comes to marriage; no wonder why men are staying single. I know I am glad to be single; when the weekend comes around, I can do with it as I want! If I want to do a 200 mile ride on one of my bikes, I do it; if I want to go kayaking, I do it; if I want do ride my mountain bike, I do it; if I want to surf, I go; if I want to do stuff around my place such as clean, I do that; and, if I want to do a whole lotta nothin', I do that too. If I were married, I wouldn't have the luxury of choice as to how I spent my time.



You know, that reminds me of a former colleague I haven't even thought about inyears! I had this female colleague when I worked for a certain Fortune 500 company; its name is a household word, and I'll leave it at that, though where I worked isn't important. It's what the colleague said that caught my attention...



There was this older woman I worked with; I'll call her Camille, though that's not her real name. Anyway, I was working while Camille was close by. She was chattering with one of the other women in the office, talking about how she'd spend her weekends. She said that she'd give her husband (that's second husband, as Camille was divorced from her first husband-I wonder why!) a list of stuff to do around the house; she'd then go to the mall; she'd shop; then, upon her return home, she bragged how she'd say to her husband, "Nice job, Honey!" as she laughed. I found that rather telling in a couple of ways. Anyway, I don't have a bitch like that as a wife, so I can spend my weekends doing what I want to do-yeah, Baby, yeah!!



Let me conclude by saying that I have not read the Pink Bible, only reviewed the material available at the link provided. However, unless the unrevealed parts go on to contradict and denounce everything that I have read, I have nothing good to say. My first instinct was to assume that it must be a joke, but having read further...I don't think it is. Slightly tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but not a joke, and tongue-in-cheek does not make allowance for things that are offensive, hypocritical and bigoted, atleast not in my book. My second thought, which I expressed on MarkyMark's post, was that it's part of an anti-marriage, anti-family conspiracy to ensure a spike in divorce rates. Either way, it's detrimental to all, to any women who's stupid enough to follow it and any man unfortunate enough to fall for it.

Kim, I have read all of it, and it IS as bad as you think it is! As for your comments on how The Pink Bible is detrimental to both men & women, I can't add anything, since you said it all. Overall, as far as The Pink Bible is concerned, all I can say is this: ka-ka-kaboom! Kim NAILS it!

I'm going to sign off. I'll be posting more in the near future; there is SO MUCH I want to say, so much that the other MRA bloggers haven't addressed. The Pink Bible is a piece of trash, and it breaks my heart that people think & believe this stuff. Ladies, if you follow it, you will NOT have a happy, fulfilling relationship. To my male readers, study The Pink Bible, and study it carefully, for in it you will have the thought process and playbook by which modern women operate. Guys, you'll know what women think of you (or don't think of you, I should say); you'll know their tricks; you'll know their traps; by knowing their plays, you can defeat them, guys; you can retain your freedom, and give modern women the husband they deserve-none. Good night...

MarkyMark


and in the comments section.....



Kim said...



Thanks for the nice remarks, MarkyMark! I love the comments you've made, I think between yours and mine, we've done a pretty good job tearing this travesty apart.



12 October, 2007 21:00


and here's the response and the clincher by MarkyMark:


MarkyMark said...

Kim,

Thanks for the compliment; I only tried to show WHY you were right in what you said. That shameful piece of 'literature' deserved to be shredded, because it's all BS. Unfortunately, I think that many women and girls have been LIVING it for far too long. Though I just found out about the Pink Bible, and indeed it may be new, I think it only consolidates what has been propagated for a long time.


Now, before I forget, I probably should clarify something I said. Given the probability of ending up in a miserable marriage because a woman chose to follow The Pink Bible's teachings, I am happy to be single. At least I don't have to face misery and stress when I come home at night. During the week, that'll be 6:30 PM-if I don't have to do anything after work, i.e. I can head straight home! If I have to do anything after work, e.g. pick up a few groceries, then I'm looking @ 7:00 PM or later. The last thing I want is to return home to a nagging shrew-ugghh! I just want to eat, relax for a while, then go to bed, so I can do it over again the next day...


Is that to say that I'm glad that life turned out this way for me? No, it's not. It had been a long term goal for me to marry, have a nice woman to come home to, that kind of stuff. I've had someone like that in my life. Unfortunately, I was in the Navy at the time. I was stationed @ Pearl Harbor; I got transferred back to the mainland, and that ended the relationship. I met the right girl; my problem was I met her at the wrong time. Had we married, she would have been like you, I think; I would have been one LUCKY SOB! Alas, it wasn't meant to be... :(


NOW, I'm not happy or ecstatic about being single, but I'm not UNHAPPY, either. I guess I'm glad or relieved, knowing that the probable alternative is worse. As I write this, I'm listening to XM Radio's channel 4, which has all the big band and swing music of the 1940s on it. Just a little while ago, I heard Glenn Miller (with Sam Kenton singing vocals? I forgot who was on vocals for that song, but he was good) with 'That Old Black Magic', which was followed by a Frank Sinatra tune I didn't recognize. If you want to see how much things have TOTALLY CHANGED between the sexes, just put on some music from the '40s, then listen to something modern, i.e. anything after 1970. Or, you could watch some old movies that AMC (before it was ruined) or Turner Classics have, then compare them to anything modern. Do that, and you'll be astounded by the changes; you'll see how much things have changed in all facets of society, especially between men & women. It's when I listen to the old music I get choked up, and I have to fight back the tears, because I know what I've missed out on...


As for an old movie that shows a healthier relationship between a husband & wife, I like 'The Bridges at Toko-Ri', starring William Holden & Grace Kelly. Harry Brubaker was WWII vet and lawyer who got called back for the Korean War. He and his wife, Nancy (Kelly), had been apart for 12-13 months. They're in the bedroom talking, getting caught up with each other, when Nancy asks Harry about the bridges; earlier in the movie, Mrs. Brubaker had been talking with an Admiral, who was one of Brubaker's superiors, and the admiral told her about how his wife changed, becoming a shell of her former self, after their son had been killed in WWII, because she couldn't deal with the pain. He then went on to say that she had to face the real possibility that her husband would be killed in battle, so the same thing wouldn't happen to her. Anyway, Nancy politely asks her husband about the bridges, and Harry changes the subject to finding piano lessons for the children. He goes on this way for a bit when Mrs. Brubaker, in desperation, blurts out, "Oh Harry, you've GOT to tell me about those bridges!" Seeing that she's serious, he begins to tell her calmly and gravely about the hazards he'll be facing on the upcoming mission. He tells his wife about the strategic importance of the bridges to the enemy, and how their fortified accordingly (IOW he'll be facing a curtain of lead when he and the other US Navy pilots attack them!). He states that they'll only be over the bridges for about 30 seconds, but during that 30 seconds how they'll be under relentless attack. "That's Toko-Ri, Nancy," he says in conclusion. He then asked her if that would make it easier for her to deal with the possibility that he might be killed during the mission (he didn't put it that way, but that is what he meant), and she said, "Yes, I think so." For me, that is one of the most poignant scenes in all of cinema, not just that movie. Right there you can see how things have changed between men & women, and it breaks my heart more than words could ever convey!

Unfortunately, I learned a long time ago that I cannot live life as I wish it were; I have to live it on the basis of how it REALLY IS. For me and other guys like me, the reality is that we'll spend our lives alone, because the alternative (divorce and the ruination that comes with it) is far, far worse.


I have to wrap this up. I just got a call that my motorcycle is ready-yes! I have to go to the bank, pick up some money, then drop off my other bike for servicing. Have a nice day, Kim, and I'll see you in the blogosphere...

MarkyMark
13 October, 2007 08:08




And there you have it guys. Seeing and knowing what you're up against now you would be nuts to date an American Woman/Western Woman. Do yourself a favor if you're gonna chase p*ssy take a vaction to Europe and visit a brothel or two and get you "fix" that way. But for g*d sake whatever you do don't chase the p*ssy of western women becuase in the end you will be sorry.






Tyra Banks anti-foreign wife show backfires

First of all for those of you who might not be familiar with who she is HERE part of the Wikipedia entry for Ms. Banks :

Tyra Lynne Banks (born December 4, 1973) is an American supermodel, television personality and talk show host. She first emerged to prominence on the runways of Paris, Milan, London, Tokyo, and the U.S., but her work in the commercial world was her breakthrough. She is best known as hostess/judge of the reality television show America's Next Top Model, since its 2003 debut on UPN (later CW), and is currently hosting her own Daytime Emmy Award-nominated talk show, The Tyra Banks Show. Banks is one of only four African Americans and seven women to have repeatedly ranked among the world's most influential people by Time magazine.

Now on to the show from the Online Dating Rights Forum:

tristan : Tyra Banks, some kind of talk show host, does a show on international marriages entitled "I Bought My Bride". She goes over the top, like famous man-hating kneejerk feminist Bonnie Erbe, and grossly denigrates the Russian women and the American men she invites on the show, asking rude questions and even rolling her eyes in disgust at some of their sincere responses to her.

Then, the aftermath. Apparently she grossly misjudged the sentiments of her audlence, which seems to be mostly married women judging from hundreds of angry posts running about 40:1 against her for her rude, dismissive treatment of her guests.

Read the summary of the show here: http://tyrashow.warnerbros.com/show_recaps/show_recap_wed100.html

and the comments here: http://telepicturesblog.warnerbros.com/tyrashow/2007/08/a_revealing_look_at_the_mail_o.html

Selected comments below:

[from an Italian woman]
WOW! turns out I am a SECOND CLASS citizen because an ignorant mockery of a tv show hostess says so? With all the money you have you ought to consider going back to school. I am from Milano, Italy - I place where I'm sure you have been...and let me tell you...there Americans are looked down because of people like you! a stupid woman with mere high school education who dares judge not only foreign women but also trashes American men as if they were animals. My husband is American and I guess he preferred me to a black model from the USA not because I look like a Barbie, but because I have brains!

[from a Russian woman]
I liked today's show. I am also Russian, and I am married to an American guy. The fact is(and you, american women should take it to consideration)that YOU are MATERIALISTIC AND MONEY HUNGRY, ALSO FRIKIN' JEALOUS OF US, RUSSIAN GIRLS! I did not stay here because my country sucks, but because of my husband. If it was not for him, I would return home.I LOVE MY COUNTRY! We went to Russia together many times, he loved it very much. He said that Russian women are better, because we are not as materialistic as you guys. So, girls, change yourself, or ALL our girls are going to take over. You are just jealous of us, cos we are THE HOTTEST WOMEN ON EARTH, EVEN MY HUSBAND SAYS THAT.

[from a Hungarian woman]
I'm REALLY disappointed in you Tyra!I am sick and tired of americans think that everyone just dieing to come to this country, becouse we are "unfortunate,poor,lower level"citizens of other countries.What is the "american dream" anyway?Ther is no such thing!Is that so hard to understand that women of other countries are looking for love and NOT money?Just becouse that's what is important to you , don't speak for other women!!Why do you think you have the right to embarrass those women and call them "mail-ordered brides"??I believe if guys try to find their brides overseas there is a reason for that.And not only sick reasons.Women in this country should do a reality check.I've been in this country for 6 years now and have never met a woman, who didn't think the size of their engagement ring wasn't more important than anything else.Poor guys don't even have chance if they don't drive an expensive car etc.I met my husband(he is american, I am PROUD to be hungarian) here after I'd been here for over 3 years already.After 1.5 years he'd proposed to me.We've been married for over 2 years now.I've never been happier!!Believe it or not my husband had told me after months of dating,he had really thought about going over to Europe and see how the girls are there, becouse he got tired of superficial, materialistic american girls.If you don't want us to "steal"your men,maybe you should put love,respect,family etc values before money. Really Tyra you should feel ashamed of yourself!I loved your shows, but after today I think you have one less viewer and fan.Let me say I'm sorry for all Russian women for being treated that way on national television.

[from a Polish woman]
So why go over seas? Why met at the supermarket? why met at church? why met at school? why marry a childhood sweatheart? one looks for love. Is it about control? My ex would say no, then again don't ask my ex- she always disagreed with me, even if I agreed with her-
It's just another place to meet women, or women meet men. As for me, I'm shy, I like accents and this is terrifying, going to a country you can not read or write, some perfer to fall in love at a parachute jump, others go to a foreign country.

[from an American woman]
This is actually my first time posting and I'm sorry to say that the only thing that drew me to your site so quickly was your vulgar show on mail-order brides. Yes some take advantage of the situation, Yes some are in just for money, Yes some are fakes BUT AMERICAN WOMEN DO THE SAME AS WELL. Some of these women see a new life with a great education and opportunity , some see love and adore these men because they can save them. You know Russia is tough and some1 giving them and opportunity to come to America and have a better life can make them fall in love just by that alone. Honestly i love your show, Americas next top model ... watch it all the time but that was an all time low for you. American women are gold diggers as well. Today you betrayed Russian women and you betrayed many of your fans. You always speak of powerful and independent women. Today you were no better than the abusive men all over America. You did in an hour show what many abusive men do over a period of time. You lost another fan Tyra I'm sorry many women will never look at you the same

[from an American woman]
Tyra, I don't know if you read these postings or not, I at least hope somebody does. Todays show disgusted me, which is a first. I was not offended by the topic but more by Tyra's behavior. Personal judgmental feelings by Tyra were apparent. I was horrified for the women and the men that had to endure your show today. Tyra's attitude was crude and personally ugly.Be-littling the men and degrading the women was immature and beyond rude no matter the topic. For the first time I stopped watching the show. I rarely get to catch your show because I am running around but the few times I do I enjoy them. This was horrible. On a side note two other neighbors all stated the same reaction. Offensive and unprofessional today Tyra. Think about if you can keep your personal opinions and feelings in check next time before you cover an issue you can't keep yourself in line about in front of the world. The world already has judges.

[from an American woman]
Tyra,
Re: mail order brides...you implied today that men look to mail order brides since U.S. women are more "advanced" than foreign women because of feminism. You should remember that a woman's choice to work or stay at home for her sake and her family's is her CHOICE. It doesn't mean that she is uneducated or controlled by her husband or has no sense of self. The ability to make THAT CHOICE was the point of the "Feminist Movement," not to FORCE all mothers to work and then have their own children raised by strangers in daycare/etc. Another point of feminism was to educate so that all women can make personal choices with their life without JUDGEMENT by other women LIKE YOU. Adjust your attitude, Tyra!


[from woman of unknown nationality]
to barbara and tyra,
i think you need to be informed that we "mail order brides" although we don't like being called mail order brides are not really bought by our husbands as you think.yes they paid some amount of money to be a member of some matchmaking websites but it's just like paying a monthly bill to have access on the telephone.they pay to have access on the website.no one owns us and nowhere did they pay to have us.we spent a lot of time talking on the phone and chatting on the internet.seeing each other on the webcam just to know each other and build our relationship.you don't know what american-couple have been through so you don't have the right to judge us.we are far more happier couples than a lot of american couples who are jumping from one marriage to another without thinking the effects to their children.


This crap (trashy daytime talkshows) usually sells well with the American female veiwers. (All men are "dogs" think Ricki Lake.) (All men are scum think The Sally Jessy Raphael Show.) So it no surprize that yet another female talkshow host would come out with a topic like this. This is part of the reason why I no longer watch tv. There are much better forms of entertainment on the internet..

Rough Guide on How To Immigrate

Notice: I've decided to put this little note at the top of this post and several others becuase it's one of the few post that constantly draws traffic to this weblog. So that there are no surprises for unsuspecting visitors you are on a men's issues blog. That's right a pro-male web log. I'm also an anti-feminist. Therefore this web log contains many articles and commentaries that are in opposition to feminism. So if your a gynocentric male, male feminist, or feminist sympathizer of either gender this is not the place for you.

If you wish to leave now here are a few links for you:


Yahoo! Kids


About dot com


Yahoo! Directory


Google Directory



However, if you've deicded to stick around by all means please continue to read through the rest of this
post.



Tonight I though that I would put up a guide on hot to immigrate from the United States. (Well, this guide could apply to any one of the western countries.)

Unfortunately, there's no really solid how-to guide on immigration so I though that I would just write down how I would do it if I were to leave the country. Simply take this guide as advice. Do you own due diliagnce and see what information you come up with on your own.


Other than that please feel free to read on.



What I would do if I were to leave the country within a few weeks.

I would have already taken at least one (maybe two) exploratory trips to the country that I planned to live in. Meaning I would use up any accumulated vacation time earned at work to spend a few days in my new home country to get a feel for the place.



I would have also tried to seek out other English speaking expats to talk to them and see what their experiences have been like. Also ask them what the different areas of the country are like. What are the best neighborhoods, etc..



I would have also gotten some general information about the area I planned to live in, does it have public transportation, how close is the house to major malls or shopping centers, what's open late in the neighborhood where I wanted to live.

I also would find a bank where I could go to on a regular basis to get money. (At least 2-3 near by banks or ATM(s).)

Ditch my old furniture becuase it could take several weeks or several months for your stuff to get yto your new country of residency.

Take a laptop or if possible a desktop (if the tower is small enough) for internet access, cell phone, small stero or if it's an entertainment center make sure it's portable.


Enough music cds, and movie dvds so that I don't get bored and a dvd player.


Purchase furniture in advance if possible so that if it was bought on-line or
through a catalog, so that it would arrive the same week I did in my new home.

I had at least enough money to cover 3 to 6 months worth of living expenses. (In the currency of that country or in Euros if they accept them.)


Have at least 1 road map of the area and 2 or 3 nearest surrounding city/towns.


Learn enough of the basics of the local language to order food (or buy it at a store) get to a bathroom, get money,get a job, get medical help, and call the police.


Learn where the embassy for my previous country of citizenship is located.

It might also be to your advantage to learn what the citizenship requirements are for that country and to study to become a citizen and pass any test you may need to take in order to gain full citizenship.


In that case it would probably be best to contact the embassy of the country where you like to move to and get further information.


And well really that's it. What you do from here is up to you.



Perferred countries:


They are technically refered to as Emerging Markets or Emerging economies. These countries would linclue former Soviet Bloc countries like Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania and Hungary.



Also countries that have been noted as off shorehavens (aka tax havens) are
also on the perfered list of places where you can possibly immigrate.

Happier Abroad an online ebook

http://www.happierabroad.com/ebook/Contents.htm



Visit and learn:

http://wikitravel.org/en/Europe

http://www.visiteurope.com/us



Austria

http://wikitravel.org/en/Austria

http://www.austria.org/

http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/european/austria/au.html


http://www.austrianews.co.uk/

http://www.tourmycountry.com/austria/background.htm

http://www.austria.info/


http://www.europepictures.gm/europe/austria/photos

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/austria/index_en.htm




Cyprus

http://wikitravel.org/en/Cyprus

http://www.visitcyprus.org.cy/


http://dmoz.org/Regional/Middle_East/Cyprus/

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/index_en/index_en?opendocument#


http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/index_en?OpenForm/

http://www.kypros.org/

http://www.cyprusexplorer.com/

http://www.cyprusweekly.com.cy/



Greece

http://wikitravel.org/en/Greece

http://www.gnto.gr/


http://www.greece.com/

http://www.presidency.gr/en/index.htm


http://www.ypex.gov.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US


http://www.britannica.com/nations/Greece

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/default.asp

http://www.gogreece.com

http://www.greekembassy.org


Liechtenstein

http://wikitravel.org/en/Liechtenstein

http://www.arukikata.li/index.php?ml_lang=en

http://www.trafford.com/06-2702

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107726.html

http://www.tourismus.li/en/welcome.cfm


http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Liechtenstein/



Malta

http://wikitravel.org/en/Malta

International Living.com Malta postcard (link)

http://www.aboutmalta.com/

http://www.gozo.us/

http://malta.pepd.de/

http://www.visitmalta.com/

http://www.malta.com/


Moldova

http://wikitravel.org/en/Moldova

Monaco

http://wikitravel.org/en/Monaco


Montenegro

http://wikitravel.org/en/Montenegro




Poland

http://wikitravel.org/en/Poland

http://www.poland.gov.pl/


http://www.polandtour.org/

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/poland/index_en.htm

http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Poland/


http://www.ipl.org/div/news/browse/PL/




Portugal

http://wikitravel.org/en/Portugal


Romania

http://wikitravel.org/en/Romania


http://www.romaniatravel.com/index.php

http://www.romania.org/

http://www.traveltoromania.com/

http://www.roembus.org/

http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Romania/



Gibraltar

http://wikitravel.org/en/Gibraltar


http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Gibraltar.html

http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/

http://dotcom.gi/wikimedia/index.php

http://www.gibnews.net/

http://www.chronicle.gi/

http://www.vox.gi/




Isle of Man

http://wikitravel.org/en/Isle_of_Man



Cook_Islands

http://wikitravel.org/en/Cook_Islands


Fiji

http://wikitravel.org/en/Fiji




French Polynesia

http://wikitravel.org/en/French_Polynesia


Faroe Islands

http://wikitravel.org/en/Faroe_Islands



Bahamas

http://wikitravel.org/en/Bahamas

http://www.thebahamas.com/

http://www.thebahamasguide.com/

http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/

http://www.bahamas.co.uk/

http://www.thenassauguardian.com/



Nassau

http://wikitravel.org/en/Nassau

Caribbean


http://wikitravel.org/en/Caribbean

http://www.dloc.com/

http://www.caribbean.com/

http://www.caribbean-on-line.com/

http://www.doitcaribbean.com/


http://www.caribinfo.com/


Dominica

http://wikitravel.org/en/Dominica



Trinidad and Tobago

http://wikitravel.org/en/Trinidad_and_Tobago


British Virgin Islands

http://wikitravel.org/en/British_Virgin_Islands



Philippines

http://wikitravel.org/en/Philippines



Sudak

http://wikitravel.org/en/Sudak



Andorra

http://wikitravel.org/en/Andorra

Other travle and informational sites:

http://www.escapeartist.com/


http://www.frommers.com/

http://www.fodors.com/

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/

http://www.touristclick.com/

http://www.mytravelguide.com/

http://realtravel.com/

http://www.infohub.com/

http://www.greektravel.com/

http://www.virtualtourist.com/

http://www.worldweb.com/

http://www.mytravelguide.com

http://www.travellerspoint.com/

http://www.officialtravelguide.com/

http://www.essentialtravelguide.com/

http://travel.yahoo.com/

http://travel.msn.com

http://travel.aol.com/

http://about.com/travel/

100 Resources for Broke Globetrotters (link)

http://travel.propeller.com/

http://www.slh.com/index.shtml

http://www.trayle.com/

http://www.i-escape.com/home.php

http://www.ricksteves.com/news/classes/festival_menu.htm

http://www.worldtourismdirectory.com/

http://savvytraveler.publicradio.org/before/index.shtml


When your ready leave:

http://www.globalvisas.com/

http://www.wwicsgroup.com/


Update: Nov. 7, 2007:

If you really wanna leave now then try setting up an account at a social lending site and trying to get a loan through there.

Here are the sites I found so far:

http://www.communitylend.com/


https://www.boober.nl/


http://www.kiva.org/

http://www.lendingclub.com/

http://www.loanback.com/

http://www.zopa.com/

http://www.globefunder.com/web/mypage.php


http://www.lendingcircle.com/

http://www.virginmoneyus.com/


https://www.smava.de/index.html

https://www.loanasap.com/


You could aslo try using Fundable (http://www.fundable.org) to raise the money you need. In short, you make a solitiation to a group of people and each person within the group pays a certain amount to the pool of money. (Example you need to raise $500 dollars, then you could get a group of 10 people to donate $50 each to the pool to meet your goal.) You'll need to offer something of vaule to each person within the group to pull something like that off. But if you think you can do it then good luck to ya..

That's it for now. And if you decide to do it good luck...

Journalist libels MRAs as rape advocates MRAs respond

I was going to post an article pointing out an liblous article by Jeff Fecke of Minnesotamonitor.com on a blog he contributes to called Shakespears Sisters. I found that article while browsing through the Online Dating Rights forum. Instead I'm going to post an article by KellMac that I found on the Anti-Misandry forums reply to the article. HERE is the response:

I recently read an article by a well-meaning but sadly misinformed man named Jeff Fecke. He wanted to make sure his readers knew about Men’s Rights Activists, and the Men’s Rights Movement, and he took it upon himself to educate them. Unfortunately, there were just one or two things that he didn’t get quite right. While I applaud Mr. Fecke for his selfless effort, I thought I would just correct some of his misapprehensions, in the interests of accuracy and fair play. After all, isn’t that what feminism is all about?

Jeff presented his lesson in question and answer format, and called it “Explainer: What’s an MRA?” It worked so well, I’m going to use the same format. I’ll quote his question and answer, and then put my clarifying statements in blue. There are cases where I’ve had to change his wording a little bit, and I’ve highlighted his words and my words to show the difference.



What is an MRA?

He's a Men's Rights Activist, part of the broader Men's Rights Movement. He--

Wait, wait. "Men's Rights Movement?"

Yes.

How very cute. Oh! The astonishment! Do you see what he’s doing here? He’s implying that it would come as a surprise to any thinking person that there would be such a thing as a Men’s Rights Movement. Oh my. What a clever way to open his lesson. Let’s read further…

Is that like the "National Association for the Advancement of White People" or the folks who think the Christian Right is oppressed?

Yes, the Men's Rights Movement is the same kind of animal. All of these groups share a common worldview, that the traditionally oppressed groups, be they women, minorities, or non-Christians, have somehow seized control of the country and are systematically denying the straight, white, Christian men their rights.

The National Association for the Advancement of White People? The Christian Right is oppressed? I’ve never heard those before. Are you sure there IS such an animal, Jeff?

There’s a slight problem with your logic. You see, you are doing something that is very common in the feminist world. You are taking a statement that would justify your actions if it were true, and treating it as if it WERE true. You state it as the truth over and over and over again, until people believe it. And then you use it to back your arguments. Clever. Very clever.

Minorities, yes. People have been oppressed because of their ethnicity; there is indisputable evidence to support that. For example, lynch mobs, and signs reading “No Irish Need Apply”.

Non-Christians? Erm…I’m not really seeing how they’ve been oppressed. Even the victims of the Salem witch trials weren’t really devil-worshippers. I’m thinking you’re from the US, Jeff. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Women? Not so much. I’m afraid you’re going to have to back that statement up with some evidence.

So your argument fizzles out right there. But let’s move on.

That's insane!

Well, yes, but don't ignore the reason for the pushback: men's traditional privileges really are under attack. It's just that these rights, like the right to beat and rape your wife with impunity, are anathema to a truly free and equitable society.

Again with the made-up facts. Jeff, I wasn’t around before the feminist movement, but I’m pretty sure that it’s never been ok for a man to rape and beat his wife. As a matter of fact, if it happened, that man would be defending his person from the other men in his community. That it happened, I have no doubt. That it happens now, I have no doubt. That women have been and continue to be just as violent, I also have no doubt. It’s never been legal, and it’s never been a right, and the vast majority of men would never dream of doing such a thing. Would you, Jeff?

So they agitate for the right to rape and assault?

Not in so many words. But the MRAs do certainly seem preoccupied by the loss of that privilege. Look at the Glenn Sacks/Helen Smith interview we talked about early this week. It was all about how the Violence Against Women Act is a debacle for men, because, they say, men get sent to jail unfairly in domestic disputes. VAWA is a traditional hobby-horse for the MRA set.

Sorry? The Violence Against Women Act only protects half the population. What about the other half, Jeff? And besides that, how do you get from “We want everyone to be protected”, to “We want to rape and assault?”. That’s a leap of epic proportions.

Does this explain the obsession with the Duke Rape Case?

Yep. The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape. Never mind that in this case, charges were dropped -- it's proof of a biased system, according to the MRAs, which is why they believe that women should be charged for rape allegations that don't result in convictions.

No. It proves that when a woman makes a charge of rape against a man, she is automatically believed, the man is arrested, and his name and picture are splashed all over the news. Only then do we look for facts to corroborate her story.

Women should be charged for making false rape allegations. That is not the same thing as allegations that don’t result in convictions. When there is no evidence at all, and the woman recants her story as soon as her pity party is over, why should she be rewarded? Especially as the man she accused has had his life irrevocably changed. Don’t they call that slander?

What?!? Wouldn't that radically curtail the number of real reports of rape that women make?

Well, yes. That's the point. It's the same reason that any discussion of date rape or contraception is instantly decried as "legislating sex" and "requiring a contract for touching." MRAs would like the option of putting a toe (or other body part) over the line once in a while without fear that they'll end up going to jail.

How do you figure? In actuality, it’s all the false rape reports that are responsible for women not reporting real rape. Why would anyone believe her? I’m not clear on what you mean by discussions of date rape and contraception being decried as legislating sex and requiring a contract for touching. I’ve been rather intensely involved in the movement for over a year, and I have NEVER heard that. I’m gonna need some examples, Jeff.

So are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?

Oh, sure -- they also don't want to pay child support. There's a huge segment of MRAdom that's fed by divorced men angry that their ex got custody of the kids, and now they have to fork over money to support them.

I don’t know why MRA = Rapist in your eyes, but you are grossly mistaken. MRA’s don’t have a problem with child support. They have a problem with having to sleep in their cars because the orders for child support are ruinously high. They have a problem with not being able to see their children, and having their ex tell the children that their father is a worthless SOB. They have a problem with custody only going to the father when they can’t find the mother, or when she’s in prison, or when her lifestyle is so incredibly dangerous to the children, that it CANNOT be ignored. And that rarely happens until after they’ve been to the ER several times.

Why would that be?

Well, for some men, it's the "she's taking my money" thing. They would have been much more comfortable in the 1800s when all marital property belonged to the man of the house, and divorce meant penury for the woman. Now assets are divided evenly, and the custodial parent gets support to pay for the kids. And the custodial parent is usually the mother.

All money belonged to the family, and back then the man was responsible for everything his family did, and for all of their debts. In the event of divorce, the man usually made sure his ex had support. He would not consider himself a man if he did not, and in fact it would ruin his reputation. Of course, we’re only talking about the wealthy here. Divorce was not something you could do on a whim.

Well, that is sort of unfair. Shouldn't it fall equally?

In a truly just and equitable society, it would. But we don't live in a truly just and equitable society. Women end up as the primary caregiver most of the time. And the custody system is designed to favor the primary caregiver in awarding custody. If men were more often the primary caregivers, they would more often win custody.

Men are not allowed to be the primary caregivers. They are expected to support the family. How many househusbands do you know?? Society frowns heavily on such a thing. For that matter, how many housewives do you know?? Women are out working as much as men are, either because they have to, or because they are pursuing that elusive “career”. Tell me, if you believe women are the more natural caregiver, why is it that you believe women should follow their own ambition at the expense of a home life? There’s an obvious contradiction there.

You mentioned divorced families. What about unmarried men who father children?

Well, funny you should mention that. The MRAs are big into the Choice for Men concept.

True. Half of that baby’s DNA comes from him. She can decide to kill it, and she doesn’t even have to tell him, much less have his consent. I am about as fertile a woman as you will ever know, and my husband is just as fertile. And you know what? We never once got pregnant by “accident”. It’s funny how that works.

What is that?

They believe that men should be able to opt out of being fathers to a child if they want to.

In cases where she lies about being on birth control, if the child isn’t his, if he didn’t even know she was pregnant, or if he has been deceived in some other way, this is true. That’s reasonable, wouldn’t you say? How many married men are unknowingly raising a child not their own?

Wha--?

Yeah, I know. Their argument is that women can get abortions, but men don't have control of pregnancy after their semen leaves their bodies, so men should have an abortion-like option of legally terminating paternity in order to get out of paying child support.

Yep. Pretty much. If abortion is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander. Likewise, he should be able to prevent her from having an abortion if he wants the child. If she doesn’t want it, that’s fine. She can pay child support, or sign away her parental rights.

But--but--don't women actually go through pregnancy?

Ah, yes, but you're applying logic. The law right now says that what happens in your body is your business. I'm free to go get a vasectomy if I want to avoid fathering any more children, for example. But a fetus is contained inside a woman; if that ever changes, I suppose men would have the right to abortions for any children they carry to term. But given that child support is for the child, not for the mother, it seems a bit ridiculous to give men an opt-out clause.

Oh please. The woman carries it, but she did not create it on her own. It’s half him. What, you think men don’t love their children? I’ve been pregnant and given birth twice. One was a high risk pregnancy, with a lot of problems. Women’s bodies are made to be able to do that. It’s no big deal. No big mystery. Don’t let your girlfriend tell you differently.



And Jeff, seriously, “abortions for any children they carry to term”? Isn’t that a little late for an abortion? Or are you one of those who believes a child is not alive until after it has taken its first breath? Really, Jeff.

You brought up abortion--I'm guessing the MRAs aren't exactly pro-choice, are they?

They're pro-choice for men. They think, by and large, that abortion is fine, if it gets them out of fatherhood when they want to, and they think, by and large, that abortion is evil if it keeps them from being fathers when they want to. They're big fans of spousal notification laws, and as you can see by the "Choice for Men" rhetoric, they're also big fans of having the legal system help them manipulate women into terminating pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to term.

Not at all. If she wants to carry to term, more power to her. It’s all about choices.

So is there anything that the MRAs have a legitimate point on?

They're right about the fact that society in general views a "successful father" as a guy who brings home the bacon, not a guy who cares for his kids. Of course, for most MRA's, that's just a way of complaining about child support, but they're right that the law struggles to balance the interests of both parents in child custody cases. (Of course, as Liss reminded me, while women are usually given physical custody, in contested cases men have a better-than-even chance of getting some form of custody. And while joint physical custody is rare, joint legal custody is the norm in all but a few cases, contested or no.)

Of course, if fathers are undervalued as caregivers, it's for the same reason that women are undervalued as employees -- because neither fits the model of what men and women are "supposed to do."

Jeff said, “in contested cases men have a better-than-even chance of getting some form of custody.” Bwahaha! What do you mean by some form of custody? He gets them every other weekend, Wednesday night, and for two weeks in the summer? Tell me, could you have a deep, meaningful relationship with your wife on such a schedule? I’m thinking no.


Jeff said, “So is there anything that the MRAs have a legitimate point on?” Um, you’ve done an extremely poor job of proving illegitimate any of the points you’ve addressed. Is this more of that feminist logic?
How do you solve that?

With the novel idea that men and women should be able to map out their own destinies, free from being directed on what they're "supposed to do." It's a political ideology called "feminism." The MRAs with legitimate gripes would be well-served to embrace feminism. But given the overall hatred of women woven into the fabric of the movement, I won't hold my breath.

Ah, but if men were allowed to map out their own destinies, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, now would we? There are extremists who hate women, yes, just as there are extremists in the feminist movement who think men should be eliminated. There is no overall hatred of women in the movement, my poor, deluded friend. There is disgust at feminism. Big difference.



And there you have it, boys and girls. He got most of it right. Well, he got some of it right. *Sigh* I’m afraid he didn’t really get any of it right. But Jeff, I have to give you an A for effort.



Class dismissed.




Not only that the "swarm" formed and Mr. Fecke got a REAL EDUCATION about the MRA movement as there were nearly 2300 comments left on that post.

That that should teach the little commie s.ob. huh....

Translate Page Into Your Language

Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com



Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com









del.icio.us linkroll

Archive

Counter

Counter

web tracker

Widget

Site Meter

Blog Patrol Counter