U Not Gonna Like This

An article on education from Angry Harry called:


Well Done Girls

http://www.angryharry.com/esWellDonetheGirls.htm

Men's Aid is a registered charity which has been set up in Milton Keynes (U.K.) to provide free practical advice and support to men who have been abused.

Men's Aid

http://www.mensaid.com

More on the story from the Post Bulliten:


A 52-year-old woman accused of embezzling more than $700,000 from a Cannon Falls business was sentenced Wednesday to nearly four years in prison.





Susan Ann Von appeared in U.S. District Court where Judge Paul Magnuson ordered her to serve 46 months in prison and three years supervised release. She must also pay $688,327 in restitution to Sustane, a division of Natural Fertilizer of America Inc., and $208,240 in back taxes.





Von, who worked as a finance manager at Sustane from 2000 to 2006, pleaded guilty in May to one count each of mail fraud and money laundering and two counts of tax evasion.

More on the story from Saljournal.com:

Woman accused of shocking daughter with a cattle prod

Thompson said her mother shocked her with the cattle prod -- an electric shocking device used to move cattle -- about six times on the leg, arm and side the night of Feb. 14, 2007. Each time, she said, the shock caused her to fall from her chair, and her mother ordered her to sit back on the chair.

But Thompson said that neither the shocks nor the falls left bruises or red marks on her body, and she was in no pain after the incident.

Thompson testified that her mother was angry with her because she had gotten home at 11:30 p.m. on a school night. She had been at a Valentine's Day party at the Starlite Skating Center in Salina. She had told her mother she wouldn't be home until midnight, she said, because she thought the party would be over at 11:30 p.m. However, the party got over half an hour earlier than she expected.

More on this story from SC Magazine:


Florida woman accused of deleting $2.5 million in data from employer



Updated Friday, Jan. 25, 2008, at 4:54 p.m. EST



A Florida woman, fearing she was about to be fired from her job, was arrested this week for allegedly deleting seven year's worth of her employer's architectural data.



Marie Cooley, 41, was arrested after entering the offices of Steven E. Hutchins Associates in Jacksonville, Fla., and deleting $2.5 million in files after seeing an advertisement for a job similar to hers in classified advertisements.



Cooley has been charged with damaging computers in excess of $1,000, a second-degree felony. If convicted, she faces up to five years in prison, according to Ken Jefferson, Jacksonville Sherriff's Office public information officer.



Cooley entered the office to pick up her W-2 file Sunday night when she deleted the data and pulled network cables out of place, Jefferson said.

More on the story from The Journal Times - Racine, Wisconsin:



RACINE -- A woman who wanted a 78-year-old man to give her money is accused of punching him in the face.





Judi R. Hanson, 43, of 1801 Clayton Ave., is charges with aggravated battery of the elderly and attempted robbery with the use of force. She faces up to 21 years in prison if convicted.





According to the criminal complaint, an officer spoke with the victim on Tuesday and saw his left eye was bruised and swollen. When asked what happened, the man said he had been hit by Hanson because he refused to give her money.



Reports said Hanson was told to leave the man’s house by an officer when she started yelling and swearing at him. Later that day she called the man to pick her up so she could come and get her belongings.




Upon returning to the man’s house, Hanson allegedly started yelling again about wanting money. She also started reaching at the man’s pockets and then punched him.





The man told police Hanson lost her job in July and he offered her a spare room because she had no place to go. He said he was just trying to help her, but Hanson has hit him “dozens of times” when he refused to give her money.

I'm wiping the digital dust off of yet another aticle that I've saved on my hard drive from almost ten years ago from the Washington Times.




Scholar sees laws on harassment as feminists' weapon




By Julia Duin



The Washington Times October 1999




Feminism has latched onto sexual-harassment laws as a successful way of bringing men to heel, says a University of Massachusetts professor and sometime feminist in a new book.



In "Heterophobia," Daphne Patai says that sexual-harassment law, once
a useful tool to identify outrageous behavior, is now an albatross.



"Sexual harassment seems often to be little more than a label for excoriating men,"
she writes. "It has become the synecdoche for general male awfulness."



University students are schooled in "the patriarchy" and "compulsory heterosexualism," she says, and schools, such as her own, hire "sexual-harassment consultants" to help them avoid lawsuits. One of her footnotes details how one firm charged her school rates of $1,250 to $1,800 per trainer per day, plus $10,000 for hotel, travel and meals, to offer courses in sexual-harassment prevention and risk management.



Empowered by court rulings and legions of academicians, harassment law
has become a tool for implementing the most bizarre feminist world
views, she adds, such as the suggestion that heterosexuality is not natural.



"I believe that heterosexuality is natural," she said during a recent lecture in Washington, D.C. to the Independent Women's Forum. "Now that seems like a fairly obvious thing to say, doesn't it? I mean, are you wondering why I'm bothering to say it? Isn't that what everyone
knows? Well, no. It's not what you know in women's studies and within feminism."



Ms. Patai spent 10 years in women's studies, bringing to the fore feminist scholars such as law professor Catharine McKinnon, who equates all sexual intercourse with rape. "That was quite a shock to newly married women in my feminist-theory class," Ms. Patai said.



She was often invited to speak at women's studies programs until 1994, when she co-authored "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies."


This internal critique of the feminist movement effectively blacklisted her. This past July 2, she won the dubious honor of being featured in a Chronicle of Higher Education piece about "academic pariah" professors shunned because of their unorthodox views.



"In women's studies, there's very little respect or tolerance for divergence," she says. "There are people who tell me to go to hell or shut up because I am the enemy."



And so Ms. Patai, who is married, dedicates her book "To the men in my life . . . all of them as much sinned against as sinning, who made it impossible for me to abide grotesque caricatures of manhood, even when asserted by feminists."



She adds: "I've met a lot of nice men. There's no way one can agree with the general tenor of the comments made about men in feminist literature -- comments no one could make about blacks or Jews."




Were she to pinpoint the origin of the sexual-harassment "industry,"
it would be during the Senate confirmation hearings and the vote on
Clarence Thomas to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the
period of Oct. 1-15, 1991.



Those hearings, which gripped the nation for several days, were the trigger
of a movement that she says seeks to drive a wedge between women and men.



That, in turn, has led to heterophobia, which has worked itself out in a
hatred of marriage. She remembers one telling incident at a university she visited.



"One day, a member of the group announced she was going to be married," she writes. "There was an absolute dead silence in the room. Obviously as feminists, both lesbian and straight, we were far too sophisticated to shriek and gush happiness, and no one knew what response to make as an alternative.




"So stunned silence for far too long greeted her declaration. She did, incidentally, redeem herself by getting divorced a couple of years later. I have no doubt that if her news had been that she'd fallen in love with a woman and was about to move in with her, the reaction would have been quite different."



This "passionate rejection of men" is the one thing that unites feminists, a group normally splintered by lesser identities: white vs. black, straight vs. lesbian, Western vs. Third World.



Ms. Patai lists Ms. McKinnon, writer Andrea Dworkin and Boston College professor Mary Daly as the most notorious heterophobes because, she writes, "they manifest a pathological aversion to men."



For 25 years, Miss Daly refused to take in male students, a situation the college allowed to transpire until a male student threatened to sue them over it. In response, the college ousted the 70-year-old professor. Thus, "a political movement that holds half the human race in contempt . . . cannot seriously aspire to succeed in the long run," Ms. Patai writes.



What has succeeded are several court decisions that have codified sexual harassment. These include Meritor Savings Bank vs. Vinson, a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that established how a working environment may be hostile to women. A 1991 case, Elison vs. Brady, established a "reasonable woman" standard in sexual-harassment cases.



What became at issue was not the man's intent to offend or discriminate, but whatever a "reasonable woman" feels is discriminatory toward her.



"In sexual-harassment law, therefore, the 'authority of experience' has been given a place of honor," Ms. Patai writes. "Such a move should have caused feminists everywhere to rejoice, for a fundamental tool of feminist analysis --the concept of subjective experience -- was thereby elevated to law."



Two Supreme Court cases handed down last year have added to the mix. In Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton, Fla., employers were made liable for sexual misconduct of their employees, even if the employer knew nothing about it.



Then in Burlington Industries vs. Ellerth, the court declared that employers were not liable for on-the-job harassment if the employee had not pursued the right complaint policies.



What these rulings create, Ms. Patai says, is a paranoid atmosphere in the workplace. Employers find themselves prohibiting the most innocent words and deeds and employees, who might have ignored the occasional word or gesture, now feel bound to complain immediately at the slightest hint of harassment.



And the typical university campus is worse, she says, because it offers latter-day versions of the Grand Inquisition, where heretics were tortured for their disagreement with the prevailing mentality.



The result, she says, is not increased freedom for women; it's more the advent of Big Sister ruling over a 20th-century totalitarianism of thought.



"These institutions are trying to change the fabric of our social life," she says. "All this stuff is not treated as fringe ideas, but serious suggestions. I am amazed Americans are voluntarily throwing away precious freedoms in the name of comfort."

When the controversy around an article written by editor Michael Noer entitled "Don't Marry Career Women" erupted, Forbes created a special forum so that readers could comment on the piece. One reader made these comments:


JWatkins


I'm in my mid thirties, have a decent career (I'm a physician), I've got a great house. I enjoy the company of good friends. I enjoy travelling and do so extensively, this summer I've visited no less than three countries. I'm also free to pursue my hobbies, which include photography and literature. I don't have a perfect life, but it could be a lot worse.



Thanks to "women's" sexual liberation, I can enter relationships with as many girls as I want half my age and not be accountable for them if we grow apart, or if they become too clingy or demanding. I don't "use" women, but equally I don't allow myself to be used by them.



All humans seek companionship, but not to the extent that doing so would go against one's instincts. And right now, marriage goes against every single one of my instincts. Having read the article, forwarded to me by a divorced friend of mine, I found myself nodding in agreement to sections of it, but finding it's rhetoric to be tame and missing the point. The article highlighted a lot of the other of my concerns, especially with regards to the average male's health and quality of life after a marriage. There are a few specific points that really put me off from marriage, here are some of them.



First there is the blatantly anti-male divorce and welfare laws that effectively provide financial incentive to women who divorce.



A divorcing woman who "gave up" her career to "support" me, would be given a sizeable chunk of my salary, and quite possibly the martial home. The argument would be as she had grown accustomed to a high standard of life, and it somehow remains my obligation to support her, even if I am no longer married to her.



Then there's the attitudes many women have. In my career work more than 70 hours a week, often including tiresome night shifts. I dislike the notion that modern women seem to uphold that I ought to come home to do "my share of the housework".



There's also the anti-male child laws. Men have no say whatsoever in regards to the lives of their children, any say they do have is subject to the position the mother holds the father in. If she dislikes him, she can instigate abuse claims against him, call him a liar, a rapist and discredit his character. A man missing a single child support payment is an imprisonable offense, whereas a mother depriving a father his legal and natural right to spend time with his child in custody arrangements is seen as trivial. Punishing the mother is of course out of the question,



All in all, I'm quite sick of the anti-male hysteria that is generated by the media and by government bodies. I'm told that intercourse with a female under the influence of alcohol is rape, that all men are shallow, weak and clumsy individuals that lack character and backbone - just look at any recent hollywood flick. Male characters seem to be defined by their relationships to women, whereas female characters are portrayed as strong, independent characters.



Many here may feel myself and men like me will succumb to marriage regardless of the anti-male bias in society, but think again. Marriage is an institution that supports and serves women to a much greater degree it supports men. A quick browse of any magazine rack will confirm this, women's magazines are generally orientated towards marriage and relationships, where as men's magazines covering women are about pornography and sex.



Put simple, men are primarily motivated into marriage by sex, and women by relationship. Thanks to the feminist sexual liberation, men no longer need to seek marriage for sex, premartial sex and prostitution are no longer considered taboo.



Anyway, this is the way I live my life, and until I see a dramatic overhaul in the way both government and society views men, I wouldn't touch marriage with a bargepole. I just sincerely hope other men aren't fooled into this sham of an institution known as marriage and wise up until we see a shift in attitudes.



Three of my friends already have been unfortunte enough to marry, two are already divorced and the marriage of the third is already on the rocks. That in itself is enough to discourage me to marry.

More from Outcast Superstar:


Online Dating Rights (ODR) is a group of men and a few women who believe that a new federal law called IMBRA is unconstitutional, immoral, and misandrist (man-hating). IMBRA criminalizes American men (and women) who meet foreign women (and men) via the internet. The law requires a man to have a criminal background check, a sex offender check and an
intrusive report about intimate details of his life prepared and given to a foreign woman stranger (scammer?) BEFORE he can email or call her. This is the first time in US history criminal background checks have been required for two people to communicate.



IMBRA was developed over several years in secret by US Senator Maria Cantwell, D, WA, and Tahirih Justice Center, a radical feminist group whose sexist director claims that American men seeking to date or marry foreign women “are often sexual predators, rapists or even pedophiles…many are premeditated torturers.” The law was hidden behind another bill and passed in a 2005 Christmas rush. No hearings were held on this law, and no international dating companies or mens’ groups were allowed any input into its development.




Even though the purpose of the law as stated by Sen. Cantwell and Tahirih is to protect foreign women from abusive American men, statistics gathered by the INS in a 1999 study show that such relationships are far more successful than American-American relationships.




Other justifications for the law are based on misleading, deceptive and dishonest use of statistics and on personal opinions disguised as fact.



You can read the rest here..

More from M is for Malevolent:



In prior posts we have established (to most men's satisfaction, if not the courts) that Alimony is Slavery based on the Constitution of the United States, and that it was also involuntary and debt servitude based on the US Code, and we have discussed the fact that divorce hugely increases odds of male suicide, and linked that back to the hopelessness of the slavery and theft of ones children and assets that regularly occurs in divorce.



There are a variety of other ways in which the parallels with slavery are interesting.



First of all, apparently men don't have civil rights:


Jessica Weiler, assistant Michigan attorney general indicated that: "A claim of a debtor's prison punishment is not legitimate in a child support case." in a case where a man was claiming that he was being forced into debt-servitude.


You can read the rest of his post by going here..

The story from Swindon Advisor:



Man who drove car over cliff struggled w-child support



Cliff-roll man in child support struggle



A 41-year-old sales manager who rolled himself over the edge of a cliff was struggling to pay child support, an inquest has heard.



Michael Parsons, from Devizes, appeared to be sleeping on the cliff edge in Dorset when he was woken up by a walker closing a gate on a coastal path.



Police found two carrier bags on the cliff near Swanage with a third-full bottle of whisky and a packet of paracetamol tablets with four left.



They also discovered suicide notes in his Mercedes car parked nearby.



He then rolled over twice and fell more than 360ft without making a sound on the evening of July 30 (2006).

This was posted at soc.men:

Goodbye, Mr Chips: Two out of three teachers are women as men shun the classroom




The commanding, and sometimes inspiring, old-fashioned school master is fading
into history, figures revealed yesterday.



Fewer men are teaching in schools than at any time since records began and in one in ten primary schools there are no men on the staff at all.



More than two out of three teachers are now women, leading to fears that the kind of male role model embodied by the classic fictional creation Mr Chips has been lost to a generation of boys.



In secondary schools male numbers have dropped particularly sharply, adding to fears of a discipline crisis.



In the space of a generation, men have gone from taking a majority of jobs in secondaries to a dwindling minority.



They now make up 43 per cent of secondary teachers, down from 49 per cent in 1996 and 54 per cent in 1986.



The attractions of City salaries coupled with the threat of false abuse allegations are thought to be behind the recruitment slump.



Experts say it is increasingly likely that a boy will go through his entire education without being taught by a man.



When such data began to be collected in 1986, 184,000 men worked in state primaries and secondaries and 21,000 in independent schools.



They made up 40 per cent of all teachers but latest data shows their presence in schools has fallen to 31 per cent.



In 2006, just 131,800 state school teachers were male and 23,500 independent.



Government teacher recruitment campaigns appear to have mainly benefited fee-paying schools, where salaries tend to be higher.



The staff sex imbalance is particularly stark in primaries, the figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families show. Just 15 per cent of teachers are men, down from 20 per cent in 1986.



Academic opinion is divided over whether the sex of the teacher makes any difference to children's grades or behaviour. One study claimed male teachers can cause boys' education to suffer because they treat pupils of their own sex "more harshly".



But the Training and Development Agency for Schools, a quango, released a survey suggesting boys were more likely to disrupt lessons and neglect their work if taught by women.



Tory schools spokesman Michael Gove said: "Fewer male teachers means fewer male role models for boys who may not have one at home."



Development agency chief Graham Holley said: "Both male and female authority figures play an important role in the development of young people, and we want the teaching workforce to reflect the strengths of our diverse society.



"The number of men applying for primary school training courses is increasing but not quickly enough."



ONLY HALF HIT GCSE SCIENCE TARGET



Only half of teenagers are meeting a Government target for GCSE science, it will be revealed next week.




Revamped exam league tables are expected to show that only half of pupils are achieving C grades or above in two science GCSEs - the standard considered necessary to make a serious attempt at A-levels in physics, chemistry or biology.




The tables, out on Thursday, will expose schools which have boosted their rankings by sidelining English, maths and science in favour of 'softer' courses such as media studies and computing.



Last year, tables gave a school's rating in English and maths. This year science is added as Ministers, who want to reverse the decline in pupils studying physics, chemistry and biology, seek to name and shame schools which neglect the subjects.



Next week's tables are also expected to reveal how more than half of schoolleavers fail to achieve decent standards in GCSE English and maths.

Reposting a classic from the dormant "Ranting of a Young Man In A Feminized Society" blog:

Feminism - Nature tells you to take a hike!!

Saturday, April 29, 2006


Much to the chagrin of feminists, nature has a way of kicking them in the ass. All the lies they perpetuate cannot fool nature. They can delude themselves into thinking that 50 is the new 30, but let's see those 50 yr olds, I mean "30" yr olds bear children. Feminism by nature is self delusion, they want to believe that they are being held back by the "patriachy". They want to believe that old women are sexy. They want to believe that obese women (BBW's) are just as desirable as fit women. They want to believe that they can do anything a man can do. They want to believe that they can surpass men in any arena. They want to believe that a woman can give birth at anytime and a biological clock does not exist. They want to believe that men are not necessary. They want to believe that they can fight wars with the best hardened male soldiers. In fact, they want to be men.


Is it any wonder why lesbians use strap-ons/dildos and other phallic shaped objects to make love to each other? Why do they need to do that? Surely the woman wearing the strap-on feels nothing whatsoever. A dildo is not part of her being. Perhaps it has nothing to do with what she feels, but how she acts. She wants to be a man, she wants to be in the drivers seat, she wants that dominant position, she wants to feel what it's like to fuck a woman, so she dons the attire of male virility, a kick ass penis. Too bad her's is made of plastic. She will never get that univeral orgasmic pleasure that men worldwide get when they are with a woman, she can simulate it to the best of her ability, but she will fail.



And that's exactly what feminism is, simulating masculinity, but they have failed in every category. Now, an honorable person would accept defeat and recognize their failures, but there is no honor in feminism.


Instead, they change the rules to suit them at any given opportunity, so they can turn their failures to victories. Their rules are not iron clad or written in stone, they change on a whim based on the situation. For instance, the belief that they can run with the best of the best in the military. They can't!! Almost all women are unable to meet the physical requirements necessary to get into the military in the first place. So they simply changed the rules. They reduced the workload and requirements for women. No more of that running a mile rubbish and pushups etc. Who needs physicality when you are a soldier? So now they celebrate that finally, women have broken into the military. How is it a victory if you rigged the results?


And how does having a bunch of inferior weaklings help the military? You can use this scenario on anything with feminists "breaking the glass ceiling". They change the rules to suit their needs and universally, when they change the rules, it's never to increase the standards, it's always to lower them. By demanding that the standards be lowered, aren't they more or less admitiing that they are in fact not up to snuff for the tasks at hand, and that yes, men are indeed better suited for those roles? Logically, that makes sense, but logic is a realm that is never roamed by the typical feminist. They might fool their fellow women and pussified males, but they ain't fooling nature.

Child Support Analysis is a small independent think-tank. It studies "child support in the UK and topics related to child support".

The child support analysis agency began in 1993. It failed because of careless law and management incompetence.

Site Map

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/site_map.htm


Main Page

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk

The National Association for Single Sex Public Education

http://www.singlesexschools.org

A Guide to dad's rights, custody, visitation and divorce cases.

Fathers Rights Foundation

http://www.fathers-rights.com

Find help and healing for the hurt of separation and divorce with Divorce Care support groups.

Divorce Care

http://divorcecare.org

Comprehensive information about worldwide laws and governments. Find directories for law firms, expert witnesses, legal associations, and law schools.


Hieros Gamos Family Law Section

http://www.hg.org/family.html

Divorce Wizards is a licensed and bonded legal document assistant, Orange County, #178, expires 04/09. We are Practitioner members of the Association for Conflict Resolution and the California Legal Document Association. We are not attorneys. We can only provide self help services at your specific direction.


Divorce Wizards

http://www.divorcewizards.com

More from Bernard Chapin:

“Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn’t they’d be married, too.” – H.L. Mencken.

As I have noted in a previous article, Supine or Fall, whenever a man stands up for himself on gender issues, he is immediately accused by women of being unmanly. Why? It’s because we stood up to them, and that’s not right. That’s not manly. We’re supposed to let them walk on us. These women, and those lickspittle male orcs who hobble in their wake, would be wise to remember that the western world now embraces equality between the sexes (at least officially), and that no one should be de facto superior to anyone else. Walking on men, in theory, is not allowed.






Furthermore, it’s a man’s duty to define and defend himself, and I can think of no occasion when this is more true than in making personal life choices. Marriage can be life joy or it can be life sentence, but there’s no room to make allowances for political correctness when thinking deeply about such eventualities. Why would any women be aghast at our pontificating over it? Should we not stop to smell a flower before picking it? I say stop and smell, inspect its structural base, and chemically analyze the ground around it before making a purchase. Perhaps some women became irate at me because they secretly realize that marriage does not offer men the advantages it once did, so their awareness causes them to go after heretics like myself who threaten to make this knowledge public.




You can read the rest of the article by going here.

In a response to article from feminist Suzanne MacNevin called Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism J. Soltys of JJs Garage made these comments:

First of all, women do not have to live in poverty. Women have the right to abort their unborn children to avoid the responsibility of parenthood - men do not have that choice. If men did, the deadbeat dad numbers would virtually disappear. Men can be forced into parenthood, women cannot. And if the child is born due to lack of protection by the man, it is still the woman's fault.

I think it's only fair that his poistion on abortion should be clarified therefore I'm reposting his latest article from Tuesday January 22nd in full so that there's no misunderstanding about how he feels on the topic:

35 Years of Roe vs. Wade - Celebration?

22-Jan-2008 03:09 PM --> In my writings I have used abortion in such ways as to give the impression that I am totally against it. However, I am not. I respect a woman's right to an abortion, but it doesn't mean I am devoid emotionally of its violence on a precious innocent life. Over the years my opinion about abortion has changed dramatically. I was once a solid supporter of abortion rights and felt any restrictions placed upon its needs and access was a gross injustice.




But things changed as I grew older. I began to experience my solid support for this right diminishing over time. There are many reasons why my opinion changed, but the greatest impact came from my work with men and men's issues, and the birth of my own children.




The impact from the birth of my children is self evident to any man who has become a father. When my wife became pregnant, she was considered "high-risk" due to complications from the birth of her first child - my step-daughter. Therefore, six weeks into the pregnancy the doctor requested my wife and I come in for an ultra-sound exam. It was at that moment, when I saw the miniscule beating hearts of my children, that I knew I would never again argue for the right of women to have unrestrictive and unbridled abortions.




I recognized two important fundamentals of life that day:



First, with a right comes a responsibility, and second, just because it is legal to engage in certain practices, doesn't mean those practices are morally justified.




The other component that led to my erosion of support for abortion came through my work with men and men's issues. In my work with men's organizations - those that help men going through difficult periods in their lives - I ran across a few men that were emotionally troubled by abortions they agreed to when they were young and irresponsible. The deep-seated emotional trauma of the abortion experience lay dormant in these men, and did not manifest until the men were older and going through the process of being a father for the first time.




It was during this same time when dealing with these issues and others that I began to see society's hypocrisy towards men and the issues they face. It is as simple as this:




Society wants better men, and most men are willing to better themselves, but society isn't willing to make any serious commitment intellectually, emotionally, or financially to men, boys, and fathers and the issues they face.



Thus began my work and research into men and men's issues.




Today I use the right to abortion as the epitome of the sexism and hypocrisy men face. It authenticates in various ways the core arguments that most father and men's rights advocates vocalize - the unequal, and discriminatory attitude towards men and masculinity.



Here are my reasons, the hypocrisies and inequities, that have caused the my unequivocal support of abortion to fade:



-- Many feminist deplore the horrors and violence of war and are quick to point out that war is a product of masculinity. However, abortion kills more innocent lives every year than most wars, but the feminist sleep well knowing this feminine violence upon innocent victims occurs at a rate of almost 3300 everyday in U.S.




-- Most wars are fought to secure and protect the liberties, safety, security, and stability of civilizations from rogue nations and dictators. In other words, the end results of men's wars have resulted in the preservation of influential societies and governments. For all its devastating sacrifices, ultimately everyone benefits.





Consequently, studies show most abortion services are performed to avoid the responsibility of parenting. Therefore, it uses the death of innocent victims as a means to advance the interest of predominantly one party only - the woman.




-- While feminist decry abortion as an inherent right - "my body, my choice" - I see it as another example of a matriarchal system that establishes a social construct in which children and men must sacrifice their rights and lives in order to preserve and advance the well-being of females.


In other words, the matriarchal system believes equality begins by establishing a woman's life as having more value than that of men and children.



-- While feminist have always been quick to point out the tragedies women suffer at the hands of men who become deadbeat dads and abandon their responsibilitiy to their child, they avoid discussing the differences between men and women concerning the avoidance of parental responsibility. The majority of men abandon their parental responsibilities by running away from women and children, but leave the child(ren) alive, which leaves the potential for faith, hope, and opportunity to intervene. Women just kill the unborn child, killing the power of faith, hope, and opportunity along with the child.



-- Feminist and pro-choice supporters have established in their arguments that the government has no business intervening in a woman's life and making the emotional, and life changing decision as to whether she should terminate her pregnancy. For abortion supporters, having this powerful choice of decision placed into the hands of somebody else is the greatest injustice women can face. This is validated by its importance included at every political election.


However, these same abortion supporters have no problem with current abortion laws that exclude men legally from the abortion decision making process, giving women total power and control over whether or not the father will be forced into parenthood. It appears women do not want others making life changing decisions for them, but they are very comfortable making those same decisions for others and calling it "fair".



-- It must also be noted how Roe vs. Wade began. A woman named Norma L. McCorvey became pregnant with her third child. Her first child was raised by her mother, the second child left to be raised by its father. When she became pregnant again, she did not want the responsiblilty, so she sought an abortion - illegal at this time. When she found out she could not get one legally, she decided to try a different tactic - she claimed she was raped. It turns out she later admitted her rape story was false.




Feminist have consistently stated women will never lie about being raped, and any false claim of rape is extremely rare and has no lasting effect on those involved.


Really?




The foundational issue of a woman's freedom and liberty from the masculine patriarchy has been the right to an abortion. And the main event leading to this historical victory for women began with a false accusation of rape - the very thing the feminist say never occurs. And remember, according to them, should it occur, it has very little impact on those involved and almost no impact on society.




I'll leave you to decide.



My point: I believe in the right for women to have access to abortion services, but I do not believe that abortion should be used to abandon parental responsibility.




I view abortion the same way I view war - a necessary evil.



Each of these uncomfortable events carries the right to do so, but each carries (or should carry) the responsibility to find more reasonable solutions at all cost. And just because we can rightfully carry out either action, doesn't automatically justify that it is morally correct to do so.




As one can see, abortion carries many of the core issues faced by men and father's rights activist today. That is why I use it as a convenient issue to display the inequities that men and fathers face.




Again, I'm not against a woman's right to an abortion. But if someone is going to vocalize to me about men and masculinity being at the root of all evil, well… you know where this debate is going to go.

From Men's Activism blog:



Story Here




It started with a message on her website entitled “Oprah is a traitor” and rapidly expanded to include several discussions that attracted hundreds of comments.






In the original post, a reader called austaz68 said she “cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah’s backing of Obama. For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She’s choosing her race over her gender.”






WOMEN APPEAR TO BE THE MOST RACIST AND SEXIST OF US ALL...

khankrumthebulgar stikes again.






This time he comments on why IMBRA was passed:

khankrumthebulgar..



Hence the reason for the International Marriage Brokers Act that was added to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women's Act. The FemNags are trying desperately to keep US Men at home and Marry only US Women. The truth is out and Men are bailing on US Women. My advice to my two younger Sons. Is marry Conservative Traditional Non Feminist Women preferably Foreign Women. Otherwise you have a 50% chance of Divorce and losing your children. Plus being Raped in Family Court. Men are onto Women.





In 2004 I was at a very upscale Watering Hole. With my back to a very attractive 30 something Blond. She stepped in between a Friend of Mine (Male) grabbed my hand and spun me around to talk to her. I was dressed in my Professional Business Atire. Wearing my Dress watch, and I am over 6'4" tall. I am 50 and look 35. She spent the next two and a half hours whining about How Men did not want to commit. And why she was single. Despite having a Great Career, a Master's Degree and how she desperately wanted Children (Baby Rabies). I told her I was a Grandfather of 6 Grandsons. And I was the Father of 5 children. She was stunned. She said No way. I pulled out my Driver's License and photos of my Children and Grandchildren. She was speechless.





I asked her about her home life. Mom a Feminist, Divorced Dad a Masonry Contractor when she was a teenager. He did not beat her Mother, Worked hard, his vice he liked to drink Beer. But was not an Alcoholic, was a kind and decent Man etc. She failed to realize she had Red Flags, that said Feminist indoctrinated. Mother in Law is a bitter old FemNag who hates Men. I told her it was her choices. If she had made a commitment while in her twenties to any number of Decent Men who wanted her then. She would be at home now reading to her Babies. She started crying, sobbing, saying she NOW REALIZED THAT TRUTH. Feminism has so screwed over Women. And when they fully come to grips with it. They should take out their anger on the Feminists who lied to them. And who have fostered the hatred of Males in the West. They are truly EVIL WOMEN.

This story from Men's News Daily writer Glenn Sacks:

Background: Research clearly shows that women are just as likely to physically attack their husbands or boyfriends as vice versa, and that between 30% and 40% of the injuries sustained in heterosexual domestic violence are sustained by men. Nevertheless, the domestic violence establishment continues to ignore male domestic violence victims, instead putting forth the discredited myth that domestic violence is synonymous with wife-beating.

Max Patkin (January 10, 1920 - October 30, 1999) was an American baseball player and comedian, best known as the "Clown Prince of Baseball." According to one source:





"Wherever [flamboyant baseball owner] Bill Veeck ran a major league team (Indians, Browns, White Sox), Max Patkin (pictured) was a baseline coach and a comic attraction. The gangly, double-jointed Patkin barnstormed the minor league circuit with his pantomime, contortionist act...Proud of being a bona fide baseball man, capable of doing an actual coaching job, Patkin was a one-time minor league pitcher."




In 1988, Patkin told writer Steve Wulf:




"Things got so bad [with my then-wife], I was sleeping alone in a room in my own house. One day I came out of my room, and she hit me over the head with a hammer. She laughed. My daughter saved me. She picked up the bloody hammer. I stumbled out onto the lawn with a slightly fractured skull. Fortunately, my neighbor, who was an FBI man, took me to the hospital.





"Two weeks I spent in the hospital. I got out just so I could attend this banquet in Norristown (Pa.) for Tommy Lasorda. So there I am with my head all bandaged. Joe Garagiola is the emcee. Don't get me wrong, Joe has been beautiful to me over the years. But when he introduces me, he says, 'There's Max Patkin. His head is bandaged because his wife hit him with a hammer.' Got a big laugh, too."





[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]

This comes by way of What Men Are Saying About Women:

Black women 'also cause splits'

Camila Batmanghelidjh, of the charity Kid's Company, said men were usually seen as the "irresponsible" ones who got girls pregnant and "walked off".




But black women were also to blame as they had a culture of rejecting men and being "cruel" towards them, she said.



Ms Batmanghelidjh, who advises Tory leader David Cameron, was speaking to the influential home affairs committee.



The Commons committee, which is investigating young black people and the criminal justice system, was told 57% of black Caribbean children grew up in lone parent households, compared with 25% of white children.

Is what one visitor to What Men Are Saying about Women is commenting on when asked if it is time for the Pedestal to be scaled back:

Viking said...



The problem is that independence without responsibility is the essence of adolescent misbehavior, and most women want are wanting to be perpetually adolescent in this regard.



The other problem is that if you have power then, morally speaking, you should provide for yourself last. That is to say, you should be last in line, voluntarily. That is why in the civilized Christian west, which no longer exists, men, who held power, were expected to serve women and children and be last in line. "Women and children first to the life boats" was not the command of the women and children. They had neither the implied authority nor the physical ability to demand such. Truly they were at the mercy of the men who could have easily have taken the boats for their own. And surely there were uncivilized men who might have done just that were there not civilized men there to resist them and provide the boats, buy force, to the women and children. Though the more civilized parts of history, men have had both authority and implied responsibility to do the dirty work. Men build public works, men fight wars and so on. Women and children first is not because they are better and inherently deserve to go first. It is because it would be dishonorable for the man, who gets to choose who goes first, to choose himself over those in his charge.



So, now we fast forward to the present. Men are not in charge. Women control society from the family to, probably soon, the White House. Even if most politicians are still men, they certainly are catering to the female vote which is an absolute majority not to mention that women are more likely to "do their civic duty" and vote in the first place. The problem is that in our post Christian society, we have no moral grounding and therefore nothing to tell us that it is wrong to take, take, take for yourself. Consequently, most, not all, but most women are, in a most uncivil manner, use their power to provide for themselves.



When the ruling class of a society has both power and privilege, and little ability to provide that privilege for themselves, and lack a certain moral foundation, it results, every time, in slavery. Think of the nobles in ancient Rome. Sure Rome was great, but it was built on the backs of slaves. lots and lots of slaves. In our case men are the providers and builders of society and now women are the new ruling class with both new found power and historic privilege. Thus the problem. If they are in charge, they need to put themselves last, or, if they want to come first they need to give up the power. You don't get both without tyranny. The trouble with tyranny is that it never voluntarily gives up power. Either the slaves revolt violently or the kingdom is attacked by barbarians or both. Either way, it is not good.

From What Men Are Saying About Women:


Perhaps the arguments that we provide readers at MND are far more important than book reviews or interviews, so with this in mind, I'll share a response I had to a poster at Amazon where I submitted a brief version of my take on Katie Couric's biography.

Hopefully, some young college kid will read this and have something to say when he is barraged by politically correct orthodoxy.

Here's what the poster wrote:

Quote "Women can dress whatever way they like but they must not be surprised when people comment on it"It seems to me that a woman should not have to expect *any* comments on how they choose to dress, any more than a man should. As to female privilege, I see nothing "rational" in your opinion, and 'Opinion' is neither correct nor incorrect by definition - it is simply a statement of personal preference.




The fact that women are paid less for equal work strongly opposes your opinion. My wife is paid a third of what her male administrator boss is paid, and she trained him to do his job. A woman, in general can be expected to be paid less for the same quality and amount of work as a male. It is not my experience in the business world or the medical profession that the vast majority of women dress to expose their breasts. Perhaps 1 or 2% of women do so, for reasons that seem to be based on the assumption that the male dominated world of "bosses" will gander and then give them more money or opportunity. Probably because some males do just that. Again, based on my personal experiences, most women dress in a businesslike or professional manner in the workplace, and are still subject to comments about their breasts and bottoms, or weight, ALL of which are inappropriate, and should not be "expected".




Perhaps you could provide some examples of "female privilege" that I am unaware of, as the fact of lower pay speaks to lack of privilege, and in fact indicates unfair treatment. As for men "working themselves to death", I just don't see that much now days. As for staying home with the kids, get real. The typical American household needs both Mom and Dad working just to eat and pay for basics unless you are lucky enough to make $30-60 an hour AND work full time. Having seen my wife crapped on by male co-workers and bosses for 25 years, your case just does'nt hold water, and your observations are questionable, if not naïve.

Here's what Bernard Chapin Posted in reposnse:


3. Women are not paid less for equal work. Those who cite this statistic are merely repeating an old wives tale. Please read Carrie Lukas’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism for a magnificent analysis of the pay gap lie. Of course, it is not true that women are paid less for equal work. Pay is not as big of motivator for women as it is for men. They often select less lucrative “careers” and have other factors in mind other than salary when considering employment; such as working fewer hours and being close to home—see Lukas please.



4. “Get real” is not an argument and I know many men who work far more than do women.



5. That two incomes is better than one for raising children is probably true but that has nothing to do with this discussion, lol.



6. No naivety from me, but I think you have failed to examine the possible alternative hypothesis with your wife. I don’t know her but have you considered, given her inability to get promoted, that her situation may independently illustrate female privilege in America? I say this because your wife’s non-advancement may reflect inefficiency and incompetence. Indeed, she may only remain at work due to her employers’ fear of firing a woman. This certainly is a more plausible explanation based on the evidence than your own which relies on the spurious notion of phantom discrimination.



7. I know many women who dress professionally, but they typically are older. Younger women often dress provocatively, and this is true for many professions and not just my own. While I see it everyday, my friend, who works in the Chicago Loop, observes it every summer when he descends his stairwell at lunchtime in order to ogle a parade of flesh empty out from the buildings around him. Sometimes he is so entranced that he forgets to eat! Who can blame him? It’s a moveable feast.




Please go here to read the rest of his reply.

Remeber in my last post I made mention of that fact that feminism seems to care so much for blacks.. Well, in the comments section of NY Bucks last post (MRA Equals Misogyny Homophobia and Racism) Khankrumthebulgar made this statement:



My younger Friend. I have watched what has transpired between the Genders for 5 decades now. Nothing has changed in Men, except our love for Women has been turned to an adaption to survive our interactions with them. What Angry Harry has postulated should be recognized.




US Feminism is Lesbianism. Lesbians compete with Men for Sexually desireable Women. Especially younger Females. They hate and dispise Men. Yet our Women seem to ignore the obvious. Life is not all about them.



Men have been reduced to disposable Beasts of Burden. The Duke LaCrosse case being a prime example. How can Men be in control aka. "The Patriarchy" when White Affluent Males are nearly destroyed and subject to 30 years in Prison on an accusation without merit by a Whore? And worse yet a Whore who changed her story 12 times? And could not remember ever being penetrated?



Men are responding to survival instinct. Heather needs to get a clue. Look at reality or go to hell. Black Men have been the recepients of a cruel social experiement, now foisted on all Men. The wholesale removal of Men from the family, with disasterous results. There can be no real Men's Rights Movement, unless Whites speak up for our Brothers of Color. Too many who languish in Prisons, the products of single Mother homes by White Liberals.




Khankrumthebulgar




Another commenter would answer Khankrum with these comments:

Ninjas 4 Jebus said...

"Men are responding to survival instinct. Heather needs to get a clue. Look at reality or go to hell. Black Men have been the recepients of a cruel social experiement, now foisted on all Men. The wholesale removal of Men from the family, without disasterous results. There can be no real Men's Rights Movement, unless Whites speak up for our Brothers of Color. Too many who languish in Prisons, the products of single Mother homes by White Liberals."

I find this genuinely distressing. Do you really think you see an element of racism in this mess? I am a white man, and I can assure you that such is not the case! Men of all races are suffering under this wicked and unnatural ssytem! Come on over to my house, Khankrumthebulgar, where you will drink my beer and we can discuss this in a more relaxed fashion. Deal?


Well where does Khan get the idea that there's racism in feminism...


I'll tell you where from this article at International Mens Network :

Book Review

"Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920's"
by Kathleen M. Blee
University of California Press, 1992
ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)

Available online at www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/5625.html

We often hear about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Suffragettes being the source of the women's rights movement. This has been repeated so frequently that the public believes this to be the true, veritable source of the present-day feminist movement.



"Women of the Klan" proves this to be untrue. Many of the Suffragettes, as we find out, were also deeply involved in the WKKK until well after passage of the 19th amendment. In political terms, women banded together in the WKKK to get the vote, using it to "blackmail" support from their husbands in the KKK.

Because this odd amalgamation, legitimate interests of women became dangerously poisoned with the sick paranoid agenda of the Klan, a problem that the legitimate women's movement has never come to terms with. (A point for understanding: In the present day, we do see a legitimate egalitarian women's movement hard at work, but its effectiveness is overwhelmed by the highly empowered radical feminist movement which over the years has gender-baited itself into a fortune in federal funding and the power that goes with it. We must now all come to terms with the fact that the radical feminist movement is an extremely dangerous movement, no less reprehensible than the racist movement, and these organizations and individuals must be called out on the carpet and rejected).

Observations and Conclusions:

"Women of the Klan" unquestionably demonstrates that racism was, and still is, first rooted in sexism. Despite the fact that public policy has been disinfected of the tangible appearance of racism, underlying sexist policies continue to run rampant in America's federal and state laws, driving discrimination against men of all races, but with a somewhat stronger impact on black males.

Today's black men are hit with with a "double whammy". While black men might not be discriminated against initially because of skin color, the sexual fears of black men operate strongly to assume that a black woman with a child is a victim who should be showered with public assistance programs, and the black man persecuted economically to support his own social demise. The welfare state has been segregating the black family actively for nearly forty years with devastating effect on family structures and mistrust between black men and women.



The substantial size of the gender segregation problem has resulting in deeply reinforced beliefs that black men are irresponsible, untrustworthy, sexual predators of women. These beliefs have become so extreme that a surprisingly large collection of public policy makers have called for the creation of "women only" welfare housing in which men are not allowed to live or even enter. It is this "sexism" and sex-segregation within the black community which directly prevents further advancement of the civil rights movement, sustainable economic advancement for the black community, and forms the dysfunctional basis of today's twisted style of "racist politics".



Due to the continuing work of the descendants of the WKKK, radical feminist public policy has been generically expanded to encompass all men, using the same gender-baiting tactics used by the KKK to destroy the families and civil rights of blacks. This expansion continues not only to disguise discrimination in the black community while keeping community morals, morale, and apathy at record levels; it has actively moved into all classes irregardless of race.



There's also this article from David R. Usher:

In a Wall Street Journal editorial “White Guilt and the Western Past -- Why is America so delicate with the enemy? Shelby Steele suggests that America’s inability to fight war effectively was caused by “the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty.”

Shelby’s theory is wrong. The collapse of white moral authority is not the problem.

The replacement of male authority with feminism is. To Steele’s credit -- he was gazing in the general right direction – but missed the real target. In America, there is one place where white supremacy and radical feminism existed: The Ku Klux Klan.

The crucial relationship Shelby missed is this: post-modern feminism (which has clearly admitted to being a supremacist movement) is the living granddaughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK), where second-wave feminism (as we know it today) was gestated and borne.

It is important to recognize that the WKKK was not in the mainstream of the suffragette movement, but did strongly support it.

Other articles on the subject of the Women's Klan and feminism:



Indiana History Women of the WKKK Documents

The Encyclopedia of Arkansas Women of the Ku Klux Klan (WKKK)

What Men are saying about Women. Feminism started in the WKKK

The Politics of Sex 1923

Dads Now Women of The Klan



So there you have it, proof that feminism does indeed have racism in it.

Until next time.....


Realted Post:

The 20th Century Anti-feminist movement

It's More Than Just Black and White

Where you''ll find such articles as:

Disposable Dads Day
by Raymond Hughes

http://www.mens-network.org/deadbeat.html

Debtor's Prison is Alive and Well
By Mark Charalambous

http://www.mens-network.org/debt.html

Feminist Fury
Men's issues groups voice legitimate concerns, not hatred

http://www.mens-network.org/feminist-fury.html

and a number of other articles.


International Men's Network Articles section

http://www.mens-network.org/art.html

A very important book by Dr. Stephen Baskerville called "Taken Into Custody" has been summerized by Outcast Superstar. If you have not seen the book and you're interested in purchasing a copy but want a little sneak preview before you shell out the $15 to $20 to buy it then take a peek at his post:

Wanna Get Married or Have Kids?

http://outcastsuperstar.blogspot.com/2008/01/wanna-get-married-andor-have-kids.html

With the constant changing and disappearing of web sites I have just come to realize how important it is to capture the information the instant you see it and then proceed to archive it or somehow record it.

So, this post will concern software used in creating pdf files.

There are several ways you can make pdf files from web pages.

The first way and easiest is if you have a copy of Adobe Acrobact installed on your computer.

Adobe Acrobat (the current version is number 8)

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatpro/acrobatstd.html


Another way to make pdfs is to download software that will install a version of the pdf print driver
on your computer and then saves the file as a pdf.

First you'll need the Ghostscript software:

What is Ghostscript software:




Ghostscript is the name of a set of software that provides:




* An interpreter for the PostScript (TM) language, with the ability to convert PostScript language files to many raster formats, view them on displays, and print them on printers that don't have PostScript language capability built in;




* An interpreter for Portable Document Format (PDF) files, with the same abilities;




* The ability to convert PostScript language files to PDF (with some limitations) and vice versa; and




* A set of C procedures (the Ghostscript library) that implement the graphics capabilities that appear as primitive operations in the PostScript language.




You can download the Ghostscript software from these pages:



http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/AFPL/index.htm



Ghostscript and Ghostview:



http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost


GNU Ghostscript:


http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ghostscript.html



Post Script Resources:

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5682/postscript.html


Here's a short list of freeware pdf printdrives:


Bull Zip

http://www.bullzip.com/products/pdf/info.php

Pdf Creator

http://www.pdfforge.org/products/pdfcreator

Conv2Pdf

http://www.conv2pdf.com/

Cute Pdf

http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp

Pdf 995

http://www.pdf995.com


Primo Pdf

http://www.primopdf.com

Very pdf Doc 2 Pdf

http://www.verypdf.com/pdfcamp/doc2pdf_readme.html


doPDF Free PDF Converter

http://www.dopdf.com

Pdf 4 Free

http://www.pdfpdf.com/pdf4free.html

Tomahawk PDF+ 2.9.5.0

http://www.nativewinds.montana.com/software/tpdfplus.html

PDF-o-matic

http://www.easysw.com/htmldoc/pdf-o-matic.php


Pdf 4 U

http://www.pdf4u.com

Express Pdf

http://www.expresspdf.com

Kinati 2 Pdf

http://www.k2pdf.com

DocMorph: Electronic Document Conversion

http://docmorph.nlm.nih.gov/docmorph


Now you should be able to quickly take any important web page you see on the internet and turn it into a pdf file and share it with others.

Related post:

MGTOW Torrent


Using eMule to share information

Here are some people against feminism who aren't dead beat dad's:

Ladies Against Feminism:

Articles on the sites that are the reader favorites:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Reader_Favorites_26/index.shtml

Theme Articles

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/index.shtml


and the main page:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com

More on the organization from the about us section:



Welcome to the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families AFWUF website. Today AFWUF has a growing membership of thousands of Alberta women who have united together to defend traditional marriage, the natural family and the sanctity of life in the political arena, in the media and through educating the public.





AFWUF was founded in 1981 by a group of women who attended a feminist women's conference in Edmonton, Alberta. These pro-life/pro-family women were told at that conference that they had better start a separate group because their views were not welcome in the feminist women's movement in Alberta.



They promptly heeded the advice they were given and started a new and unique non-sectarian women's movement in Alberta. At first these women met around their kitchen tables discussing the issues of the day.




Alberta Federation of Women United For Family

http://www.afwuf.org

This open letter is posted on the front page of the Online Dating Rights Forum:



This is an open letter to Layli Miller-Muro, executive director of Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit organization based in Virginia that ostensibly provides legal services to immigrant women and to Leslye Orloff of NOW's Legal Momentum, who both play an active role in promoting hate legislation against American men.




Ms. Muro, you have stated publicly that American men who marry foreign women that they first met via internet “are often sexual predators, rapists or even pedophiles…many are premeditated torturers.” You have made this and other misandrist statements on Lifetime TV, on the O’Reilly Factor and on other TV and newspaper interviews. On Vatican Radio broadcast worldwide you stated that most men who marry women abroad are "serial rapists". You have promoted deceitful, deceptive and downright dishonest statements of fact about men who marry women abroad in an effort to promote legislation that violates our United States Constitution in significant ways. Ms. Orloff, you have promoted the same legislation and have published utter fabrications of the truth in supporting such legislation.



Layli you are a highly-educated lawyer and frankly you know better. Leslye you are a big-shot in the radical feminist movement and you know better, too.



I am a lawyer, too and I challenge you to a debate. In fact, my wife is a chemical engineer and international businesswoman and she challenges you to a debate. (I already know who will win, even if the debate is in your language.) I want the world to know how you have abused your positions in your respective nonprofit organizations and how you have spread your message of hate against men and superior paternalism over women you consider your inferiors because they were not born in your country. Contact me after your volunteers who monitor this website report this message to you. If you are confident that your IMBRA law is good for American society and will have the support of the public then you will have nothing to worry about.




I’m waiting. [Note: This challenge has been published to Layli Miller since October 2006 with no response and modified to include Leslye Orloff since Jan 1, 2008]




Tristan Laurent, ODR Administrator

From a post in the Online Dating Right Forum:




I want to inform modern American feminists of this new reality: most American men do not want you. They do not want to date you and they certainly do not want to marry you. Do you know why? Because any relationships with you pose too much legal and financial risks to American men. The enormous risks of divorce and financial insolvency that men face when they marry you is no longer justified by paltry (often minimum) rewards that you bring to a marriage.







Thus, you are being scorned and ignored by a growing number of affluent American men who prefer more feminine and traditional foreign women who offer youth, beauty and loyalty, the qualities you lack. These men realize that by marrying foreign women, they incur lower risk of divorce and greater probability of successful marriage and happiness. Therefore,... many of you will never marry or have children... you will end up like one of your own, Maria Cantwell - old, un-married, completely childless, living with mommy...







You need to understand that by depriving and denying your biological instinct to create, love and nurture a family, modern feminism has created a royal road to oblivion that ends with your emptiness, bitterness and despair. Whatever traits or value you carried in your genes will stop with you. No children, no legacy... When you die, you truely die.







A growing number of men now make no apologies for rejecting any modern feminist women. The enormous risks incurred in marrying an American feminist are simply not justified by minimal or no rewards that these relationships bring. An American gentleman now has to walk through a minefield of risks including false abuse claims, financial bankrupcy (from divorce), and denial of child visitation rights. Thus, any intelligent and self-respecting man would reject this modern feminist paradigm of marriage.

Here's part of an essay I found on libertarianism and the roll of the federal government:


The name they usually give their philosophy is "voluntaryism." They have an obsession with doing everything voluntarily, and they claim, a "compulsory" government, even if a freedom-loving one, forces itself, its police, its courts, and its military unto people - hence is wrong.





The fundamental philosphy is this: you are not truly 'free' unless you can be your own little government, with your own police force, your own military - and with laws, written by yourself. True freedom, they say, is being able to make your 'own decision' over all matters in your life, including being able to choose what would be your own privatized government.






Let's cut through all the utopian images and ideological rationalizations put forth by anarcho-capitalists of how anarchism might work and examine, fundamentally, how anarchism would work. Keep in mind their fundamental philosophy which is that private individuals can be their own government with their own police, courts, and military.




To visualize an anarcho-capitalist society, drawn out in full, naked form, imagine houses lined up with nukes, electric fences warding off intruders, and attack dogs - fully ready to take justice into their own hands for their owners.




For an effect of what justice would be like, imagine a specific place where there is no government enforcing justice - on the highway. A person, on the highway, who feels he has been unjustly hurt by another will often take justice into his own hands. If someone "cuts off" another person, the person "cut off" will often do anything to punish the other person up to and including killing the other person (as has been done before).




No matter how an anarchist rationalizes his idea of what anarchism might be like, what anarchism would be like is one set of thugs (what they would call "protection agencies") versus another set of thugs. Who would determine what is right and wrong? Whoever had the biggest guns.



Anarcho-capitalism, boiled down, would operate much in the same way that the black market operates today - where men do hire their own "protection agencies" (their own thugs) and do indeed take justice into their own hands.



The reason to reject this philosophy is this: this is not how man should live.


So for those of you that have questions as to why our government is necessary you can go here to read the rest of the article.

"[Poor men are] condemned to perpetual celibacy. For of course it goes without saying that if a tramp finds no women at his own level, those above--even a very little above--are as far out of his reach as the moon...there is no doubt that women never, or hardly ever, condescend to men who are much poorer than themselves."--George Orwell

From Glenn Sack's Weblog:


In that decade, I found that myths and lies about “Violence Against Women,” with respect to both rape and domestic violence, were both de rigeur, and vehemently defended by many who knew good and well they were defending myths and lies, and would privately admit as much. Their justification for this dishonesty was simple and pragmatic - police work is after all, a political job. Anyone who seeks advancement to positions that involve more face time with cute reporters and television cameras than with burglary reports and false alarm calls will keep their ears open for the latest tune being called by the politicians.



“Violence Against Women” has been a buzzword for at least a generation now, and any police officer of any rank that exposes a reality not in concert with the absurd statistics and draconian measures put forth to combat this “epidemic of violence” is unlikely to advance. Those for whom advancement was not a concern overwhelmingly adopted the attitude of “What’re ya gonna do? I don’t make the laws.” Yes, my experiences are anecdotal, like everybody else’s. However, my experiences are not unique.