antimisandry.com - Blogs

77 cents on the dollar? The truth about the gender wage gap

Denise Noe — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:37:40 GMT

By Denise Noe

In a column published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution looking back on the feminist movement that broke in the early 1970s, Ellen Goodman stated that women make 77 cents to every dollar earned by men. This figure was stated as if it were an automatic indication of either employers� discrimination against women or a more overall societal tendency to oppress women by limiting their workplace opportunities and therefore their pay.

One of the reasons the above assumptions are false was thrown into sharp relief by a conversation I had with a man shortly after reading Goodman�s column. This man had been working on a job cleaning windows and was on a ladder when he had an accident that took his foot off. Luckily, doctors were able to reattach his foot but he was left disabled.

A major reason for the 23 cent gap in average pay for men and women is that the most physically dangerous jobs require more physical strength than the vast majority of women possess. People, regardless of gender, tend receive higher pay for work that puts life and limb in jeopardy. According to US Department of Labor statistics for 2006, 54% of workers were men and 46% women while 92% of those killed on the job were men and only 8% women. The 23-cent gap between men�s and women�s incomes is to a large extent a reflection of the workplace death gap.

Another reason for the gender wage gap is that women are more likely to move in and out of the labor market than men. That women spend more time out of the paid workforce than men does not necessarily indicate oppression by tyrannical male chauvinist pigs but can reflect the greater freedom we have to devote time to homemaking and/or child care and the generosity and caring of the men who take on the sole breadwinner role in order to allow us that freedom. Indeed, men often take dangerous jobs so they can adequately support the women and children in their lives.

Fathers do not spend nearly as much time with their young as mothers but this may not be due to male delicacy about changing diapers and other such messy work � after all, men are the vast majority of garbage collectors and sewer workers � but to women being less open to supporting househusbands than men are to supporting housewives.

Ellen Goodman wrote that she would give the feminist movement an �incomplete� since, among other things, a gender wage gap remains, there is no ERA in the constitution and too many young women still obsess about their appearance. However, the truth is that the position of American women today is very good. Women are about half of those in medical and law school and the majority of those receiving bachelor�s degrees. Since much of what both ERA proponents and opponents prophesied as the result of it have come to pass in the ERA�s absence, it would seem the amendment is pretty much irrelevant. While there are problems more common in females, males are the majority of the homeless, the incarcerated and the alcoholic. They are the majority of those who actually commit suicide. In America, men have shorter life expectancies than women. As noted, they are the make up the bulk of those who are killed in the workplace.

It is time to turn our attention to men�s problems.

The Notion of Violence

wildog — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:07:58 GMT

Any nong can work out that to put a spade in the ground requires violence. Not so many can see that to solve a problem to 'penetrate' a problem also violates the status quo. Industry and farming are necessarily violent activities, and so is science a violent activity because it requires problem solving penetration. The male mind is a problem solving mind.

The feminine mind is not a problem solving device - it seeks equality but it can't figure out what the problem is. It wants pleasure and it cannot stand pain. Like hot and cold - men move on and women don't - their argument is not with the universe but with men. They remain utterly dependant on men,despite all the liberations, yet claim to be free. They claim to be free by displaying their sexuality..... yet underneath it is nothing - no abandonment of self to the great soul of the universe (whatever that is) women never abandon themselves because it would be unsafe. Women hang on to life no matter what. Without children, it becomes a matter of deception... because the scientists, the adventurers, the universe explorers record no women. When death is probable in the face of discovery, women choose life every time. Women will kill the world with comfort as the fires of movement ravage everything from climate change to cougars. Everything feminism has had to say from the beginning of time ..... concerns sex.... and it will never change. Women do not exist in the creative world except as a reaction to men. All feminine thinking sinks humankind into acceptance and defeat. No woman has ever solved a problem because they are programmed to ignore problems. Women believe that men violate the universe, and they know that they are right, and they will always submit to the universe, even in death.
Stay alive man, even in this lowest point. Do not submit to the lipstick, the charade, the lie. - investigate instead why your lips are pale. Look at death and rail against it. Civilization has been built by men. Only men. The novels, the poetry, the science, the technology - all men. Women have babies and protect them from anybody who would challenge their ownership- after all they have nothing else to offer - except sex - which does nothing but keep us from clear thinking. What to do with women whom we love, but whom confuse us with a false pleasure that the world cannot maintain.The universe is harsh and it require problem solvers. Women can only hope to keep the problem solvers alive, if not happy.
Who can we love - we men - not the whore; not the wife; not the mother. We love only our daughters, and hope hopelessly for their happiness we hope they will become creative problem solvers - we hope they will violate the brutality of death and natural law - yet they will not - somehow thay cannot. ..... and if you believe in the feminine, as now even the male lesbians of the unfathered gen y multi sexual boys do means the death of mankind - the death of the freedom to create ourselves.Creativity requires violence - absolutely and irrevocably.:cry:

Are we teaching our children misandry or violence?

BobV01 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:06:29 GMT

Misandry = hatred of males: bred from the feminist sexual revolution which also amplified lesbians. Feminists always advocating for the downtrodden, disadvantaged, less able female, are quick to shout �male violence� (diatribe). It is time to examine how our young females are acting: the link below is to an ABC News story. U tube abounds with video of young females perpetrating violence and Mothers caught abusing children. Not all females are the same, most certainly not all women who give birth (for that matter those who get pregnant and avoid live birth) are the same. What are we teaching our children:
abcnews.go.com/WN/seattle-girl-beating-victim-expected-security-guards-protect/story
This piece reposted across America through the Momslikeme dot com network - RVE

New studies show boys need more support than girls

BobV01 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:03:19 GMT

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126091733.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium= feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+(ScienceDai ly%3A+Latest+Science+News)&utm_content=Google+Read er
Synapsis: ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2010) � Boys face high rates of a variety of mental health issues, in addition to lagging behind girls in academic performance and college attendance, according to two new papers by University of Alaska Fairbanks researcher Judith Kleinfeld.
The studies, recently published in the journal Gender Issues, note that boys have higher rates of suicide, conduct disorders, emotional disturbance, premature death and juvenile delinquency than their female peers, as well as lower grades, test scores and college attendance rates.

Take a read through the studies (albeit from the same person) and let's hear your thoughts. And what do you think we can do to help support our boys and close the gender gap?
Originally posted
Posted by snookums on Jan 31, 2010 at 08:28 PM
At Lansing Momslikeme
http://lansing.momslikeme.com/members/JournalActions.aspx?m=10005549&grpcat=Education+%2 6+Development&g=446306
This has been reposted across America through the Momslikeme dot com network - RVE

Marriage is a Bad Deal for Most Men

Popadibs — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:06 GMT

In spite of the current state of affairs the unpleasant stench of romance, courtship, chivalry, and marriage, which only requires obligations of men to women, are shoved down our throats on a daily basis. Well, if we�re going to hear about marriage it�s only fair that we hear about the possibility of divorce and all of the implications surrounding it.

It�s no secret that women often marry men with more money or at least money is a huge priority in many relationships. With all of the providing of gifts, shelter, food, and even programs men pay for it can be argued that money is a huge priority amongst women regardless of being in an actual relationship, which is why an ex wife will gladly be single with your alimony payments.

It is rare, however, that women marry those men less capable of providing for them but when it does occur (often during a marriage � e.g. recession) negative consequences are involved for the man. Now before some of these high and mighty princess malibus get on their soap box and tell me how sexist I am, I will point out that women also claim that men marry for beauty. For constructive purposes, let us make a comparison between a beautiful woman and a financially stable man.

Inspired by poster on a forum but I have to refind the post:
From an economic standpoint a beautiful woman is a depreciating asset and a financially stable man is an improving asset. It is very likely that a rich man will accumulate more wealth but a beautiful woman will not become more beautiful and if anything she will become less beautiful. She�d be lucky to be remotely attractive when she�s 35 but when he�s 35 he�d likely be wealthier.

To those that take offense and jump on the female humping bandwagon keep in mind that if his money were to leave so would she. Therefore, a man needs a way out when her beauty leaves her. It is only fair, right? Plus, in the event of a divorce, she not only gets a way out but a nice compensation plan to go along with it but there is no way for him to hold onto whatever �assets� she brings to the table.

Although there are some happily married men and women the chances of being unhappy are much more common. The answer for most men isn�t marriage. If you plan on getting married I wish you well. Any man that has a good wife is fortunate and has a good thing. Before any women reading this get on their �he�s lucky to have me mode� any woman with a good husband is fortunate and has a good thing as well. Truth be told, I�d be glad if I could find �the right woman� but I am being realistic about the situation. Marriage is simply a losing proposition for most men.

I�m not like that

Popadibs — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:23:12 GMT

It�s one of the most annoying phrases known to mankind and yet it doesn�t deter people from using it. Due to the frequency and intent of those that use this phrase it is also becoming one of the most dreaded 4 words to hear, and no, I�m not referring to �the baby isn�t yours�. Okay, admittedly, that might be a bit scarier to hear from one�s spouse but this is a distant 2nd.

These words are �I�m not like that� and if you guessed it from reading the title then consider yourself smarter than the average bear, Yogi (the average intention span of humans is 3 words that�s why Obama�s slogan was �yes we can�).

However irrelevant, redundant, and unnecessary these words are they frequently come up in gender discussions.

These are some of the reasons why �I�m not like that� is stupid to say in a gender related discussion.

1. You are not the center of the universe � I know for those of you that use this slogan this might be a bit startling but you are not the center of the universe. There is an entire would outside of you, observe it.

2. Doesn�t change the facts - You, �not being like that� is usually of no relevance to the topic at hand nor does it invalidate the claims made. If you�re a man saying these things in gender related topics, stop! You are only validating the claims made against men by doing so. If you are a woman saying �I�m not like that� it is no indication that you aren�t like that nor does it address those women that are like that. I mean, what does it matter that you aren�t like that? Do you realize how often innocent men have gone to prison for false charges of abuse or rape? They weren�t �like that� but it didn�t change the fact that they suffered.

3. We hear it all the time � I know that you think that when you say it, it is the most clever and innovative remark known to man but it isn�t. You may believe you�re a rare case but so do the other billion people that say the exact same things. The fact that you�re the 1000th person this week to tell us �I�m not like that� indicates that you are similar to the other people saying so.

4. Sometimes you are �like that� - Many women may not approve of misandry (the hatred of males,) for example, or they may claim to be against feminism but are more than happy to receive the benefits of misandry and side with misandric people when they desire to elude responsibility for a personal failing. Unfortunately, many men are more than happy to give women special benefits and side with feminists/misandric minded people and place all the blame upon other men. Their complicity makes them �like that� in their own way.

5. It's dismissive and deceptive - Saying this or variations of this (e.g. not all women are like that!) is like feigning an apology without actually accepting any personal guilt or responsibility. It just seems so insincere. If you don't feel responsible or guilty then don't apologize and if you do feel responsible or guilty then "not all _ being like that" is irrelevant when discussing gender related topics like the family court system.

Anyways, I hope misandrists have an appetite because they will get their just desserts and when it happens I wonder how many women will demand that men do something to fix it?
And �it� will likely be their faults!

How many of them will truly be sorry for the damages they�ve caused the lives of others and/or the damages that were caused to the lives of others because of women?

Why apologize without believing you are wrong? If you believe you are wrong and are truly sorry what difference does �not all women being like that� make? It just appears like a dismissive and deceptive statement to make.

Since many women have been complicit with profiting from feminism and misandry, I wonder how complicit they will be to be caught in the fallout. Even men that aren�t like that or aren�t part of the problem suffer; so when women that �aren�t like that� or �aren�t part of the problem�(whether sincerely or not) suffer they shouldn�t be shocked.

If you�re a man and ignore the warnings that feminism has laid out for you even if you aren�t like that don�t be shocked if you suffer the fate of other men that aren�t like that neither.

Disclaimer: Read between the lines; this doesn't give you or anyone else a right to stereotype or generalize people but if your statements are factual then that's what they are and people should be no more offended by you telling the truth than they are by your statements being true.

The beauty of feminism

Popadibs — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:26:08 GMT

I�ve heard it said that �destruction can be beautiful� and behold, the genius that said this was on to something. Feminism, in all of its ugly ways, possesses hidden beauty, like the eye of a shit storm.

First of all, here are a few general problems I have with feminism:

1. It�s insistence that only males are the cause of all the problems in the world.

2. It�s hateful language and attitudes towards boys and men

3. It�s lobbying to get laws passed that hurt men (with men�s tax money)

4. It�s insistence that women are and always have been oppressed while simultaneously dismissing the harsh conditions in which males have survived in.

5. It accepts no personal guilt for any damage it causes

6. Inconsistencies (e.g. men aren�t necessary but men MUST stop rape, domestic violence, or a plethora of issues); if men aren�t necessary then we wouldn�t be needed to stop these issues

7. It�s lies (e.g. glass ceiling)

Due to the destruction that feminism has helped to bring to the family with the assistance of the court system and the state, more people, especially men, have become aware of the issues surrounding their lives.

As a result, a growing portion of men stand for more noble causes than appeasing women at the expense of other men in order to gain approval from women. These men make up the men�s rights movement or at the very least are men going their own way.

The true beauty of feminism is that in all of its ugliness, it reveals its true nature, and the more that that nature is revealed the less work will be required of us to prove our cause (but there is still work to be done). The damage that feminism has done and will continue to do has done more to help our cause than our arguments could have possibly done on their own.

Every time feminism wrongs a father, husband, child, etc. a new men�s rights supporter is born.

What needs to be identified

Popadibs — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:12:41 GMT

(reposted as blog per request)

When one begins to realize the significance of the roles certain groups and individuals, laws, and factors play in his life the experience can become eye awakening.

It is essential that we unite for a common cause but in order to do so there are key elements that must be identified.

We must identify:

Men's issues - there are various issues affecting men listed thru out the forum but perhaps 1 place listing them all in a list with examples and documented evidence proving each issue could make a much stronger case. This could result in the awakening of those in an mental coma.

Laws and policies that work against men and/or favor other groups but exclude men (or favor other groups at men's expense) - We could list these laws to not only stay updated but to have documented proof and citation to make our case much more convincing. We must indicate how these laws are unfair towards men.

Our enemies - It is important to know what groups oppose men's rights. If we list what groups oppose men's rights it is important to know how they oppose men's rights and/or why they are enemies to men's rights. If it is against an group's best interest to help men be very suspicious. If an individual holds onto views that oppose the best interests of men be very cautious.

Our allies - It is equally important to recognize our allies as it is to recognize our enemies. We must be able to make a distinction between our allies and our enemies. We can not afford to confuse them.

Our core beliefs and principles - We all have different beliefs on certain issues but we must recognize our common beliefs when it comes to men's rights issues. Recognizing our common beliefs will help us separate disagreements from oppositions. Disagreements happen between 2 or more people working towards the same goals but opposition happens between 2 or more people with different goals.

Our objectives/solutions - Once we know our problems and our beliefs we must ultimately recognize what our goals are. What is our solution to the problem?

Our strategy - We have to know what approach is necessary to achieve our goals.

Glass floor...talk about a paradigm shift!!!

BobV01 — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:58:33 GMT

Feminists have long decried the glass ceiling: apparently this femisist propaganda has been well within the feminist tradition of disinformation.

Quote:

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer David Crary, Ap National Writer � 1 hr 47 mins ago
NEW YORK � Historically, marriage was the surest route to financial security for women. Nowadays it's men who are increasingly getting the biggest economic boost from tying the knot, according to a new analysis of census data.

the full article is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...iage_economics

Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate

BobV01 — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:17:33 GMT

� By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer� Wed Jan 13, 4:28 pm ET
WASHINGTON � Women may think of men as primitive, but new research indicates that the Y chromosome � the thing that makes a man male � is evolving far faster than the rest of the human genetic code.
A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp's, according to a study appearing online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
These changes occurred in the last 6 million years or so, relatively recently when it comes to evolution.
"The Y chromosome appears to be the most rapidly evolving of the human chromosomes," said study co-author Dr. David Page, director of the prestigious Whitehead Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology at MIT. "It's an almost ongoing churning of gene reconstruction. It's like a house that's constantly being rebuilt."
Before men get too impressed with themselves, lead author Jennifer Hughes offers some words of caution: Just because the Y chromosome, which determines gender, is evolving at a speedy rate it doesn't necessarily mean men themselves are more evolved.
Researchers took the most detailed examination of the Y chromosome, which females do not have, of both humans and chimps and found entire sections dramatically different. There were even entire genes on the human Y chromosome that weren't on the chimp, said Hughes, also of the Whitehead Institute.
The two-year research took twice as long as expected because of the evolutionary changes found, Hughes said.
There is a bit of a proviso to the comparison to other chromosomes. While all human and chimp chromosomes have been mapped, only two chimp chromosomes have been examined in great detail: Y and chromosome 21. Yet, there's still enough known to make the claim that the Y is the speediest evolver, Hughes and Page said.
Until recently the Y chromosome was considered the Rodney Dangerfield of genetics, especially because it had fewer genes than other chromosomes. A few years ago some researchers even suggested that the Y chromosome was shrinking so that in 50,000 years it would just disappear � and so would men.
"The story is not as cut and dried as many would have liked to predict," Hughes said. "It's kind of fun to say that men are going to die out, but the science is proving � now that we've got data � that that's not true at all."
Page agreed. "The Y chromosome has many more tricks up its sleeve than it was given credit for," he said.
There are a couple of reasons Page and Hughes cite for Y being such an evolutionary powerhouse. One is that it stands alone and isn't part of a pair like 44 other chromosomes. So when there are mutations there's no matching chromosome to recombine and essentially cover up the change, Hughes said. Because women have two X chromosomes, the X chromosome doesn't have this situation.
Another reason has to do with the nature of mating. When female chimps are in heat, they mate frequently and with many partners, so there is an evolutionary pressure on the male to produce the most and best sperm to propagate his genes, Page said.
To test this out, Hughes said she hopes to soon examine the Y chromosomes of a rhesus macaque, which is fairly promiscuous, and the marmoset, which is more monogamous than early humans probably were.
Outside scientists praised the study.
"Wow," said R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City. "That result is astounding."
"The Y chromosome clearly has the strength and tenacity to fight back," said Hawley, who wasn't part of the research. "I certainly think the Y chromosome has taken a bad rap for a long time with people doing maps showing areas for channel surfing."

Male Studies - a New Academic Discipline

Gokul — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:31:21 GMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohso

Thank you for your interest in participating in Male Studies: A New Academic Discipline.

This symposium, to be held at Wagner College on Staten Island, New York, will bring together a group of major scholars to discuss the issues that men and boys face today, and set the stage for the First International Conference on Male Studies to be held in October 2010.

Male Studies: A New Academic Discipline will be broadcast live to participants via their Internet-connected computers and dial-in phones. Participants will be able to see and hear these presentations in real time.

To explore the Symposium Website, conference agenda and FAQs, click Symposium on Male Studies at Wagner College

To register, click on the link https://events.constantcontact.com/r...=a011vg470e7qi

If you register before March 15, 2010, you can take advantage of the early discount, and pay a tax-deductible donation of only $15.00. After March 15, the cost will be $25.00.

Once you have registered, you will receive instructions on how to log on and/or dial in, and be a part of the conference.

We encourage you to forward this invitation to all interested colleagues and associates...

If you have any questions, write to me at the email address below.

Thank you again for your interest, and we look forward to sharing this event with you.

Sincerely,

Miles Groth, PhD
Conference Host
wagnerconference@malestudies.org
Forward email

Think you will need 3D glasses for this!

Daveyone — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:12:23 GMT

Oh dear, this experiement did not work out!:confused:

Germany's Unconstitutional Family Law

GuiltyByDefault — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:42:33 GMT

Germany's Unconstitutional Family Law

About This Blog

GuiltyByDefault — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:36:30 GMT

About This Blog

Feminists on Y!A admitting their sexism

Marx — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:45:48 GMT

Both of the above feminists have repeatedly insisted they do not hate men, they are not sexist and only want equality.

Yet, Professor Unt has claimed in email exchanges that a law enabling rape of men in Mexico is not sexist - it is 'cultural'... Ahh well that makes it ok then.

Oddly, when I pressed the point that she would say such a law was sexist IF we reversed the genders, she ran away and refused to engage in any conversation.

Typical sexist feminists.

LINK

Guilty by Default

GuiltyByDefault — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:31:18 GMT

Blog: Guilty by Default

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Update November 2009

Phyllis Schlafly — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:52:59 GMT

I originally posted this here: LINK

The feminists are going through one of their periodic soul-searching psychological examinations of what the women's liberation movement did or did not do for them, and why they are not happy with the result. Feminist dominance in newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television and academia makes it easy to command a full media rollout for their agonizing.

The media are glad to divert public attention from the failure of Barack Obama's Stimulus to create jobs. So, we have ponderous discussions: Maria Shriver's report (with help from a liberal think tank) called "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," a Time Magazine cover story headlined with the double entendre "The State of the American Woman," Gail Collins' book When Everything Changed, and articles from all the feminist columnists.

We wonder if it's just a coincidence that this torrent of words immediately preceded Halloween. The writers are scared of their own research because it contradicts much of their gender-neutral ideology.

These well-educated writers long ago identified the major goal of the women's liberation movement as getting more wives out of the home and into the labor force. Carolyn Graglia's landmark book, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism, explains that the chief purpose of the feminists was to make the role of fulltime homemaker economically untenable and socially disdained. She analyzed the writings of the feminist intellectuals and she documents their attempts to ostracize fulltime homemakers as childish "parasites."
The feminists have been strikingly successful with this goal; women are now half the labor force, and 40% of women are essential family breadwinners.

In the current recession, the majority of workers laid off have been men (especially from construction and manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not been much affected.

Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama Administration give half the Stimulus jobs to women rather than to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing the Stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Demo
crats they get, and the Stimulus money was directed to jobs in education, health care, and social services. The feminists' tactics to divert Stimulus jobs to women were described in the July 2009 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

So what are the feminists complaining about? Now that women are half the work force, they want workforce rules to be changed to be more female-friendly. (These are the same feminists who have been saying for years that there is no difference between male and female.) Feminists demand that the taxpayers provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, that new laws prohibit employers from ordering women to work overtime (as men are often required to do), and probably that men should be forced to assume half the household and baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still is, because the majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists, but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and women still say it is best for children to have a father working and a mother at home."

Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising because of who is going to college and who drops out. Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college campuses was 60-40; now it's 40-60, and women receive the majority of college degrees.

But the feminists are griping because women students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser paid jobs than male students, who in larger numbers choose math, science and engineering. The feminists want government to remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers' money to make other choices. (Feminists claim that there are no gender differences, but they demand government intervention to override women's choices.)

The feminists push hard for what they call "Title-Nining," using Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in schools and colleges, to force equal numbers of women in all athletic programs. Since this misuse of Title IX was initiated by radical feminists in Jimmy Carter's Education Department, the feminists have forced colleges to eliminate thousands of men's teams, including many championship teams and more than 450 wrestling teams. Now the feminists are Title-Nining science and math departments. Using phony charges of gender bias, they are directing millions of dollars of federal and university money to override women's choices in order to increase the number of women in math and science at the expense of men.

Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments. She writes that feminists defined "progress for women too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the expense of attitudes."

She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with feminists; as long as they believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful. Women won't be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated in most of these current articles) that women make only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. The Equal Pay Law was passed in 1963, but requires equal pay only for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as many hours per week as men do, and women voluntarily choose jobs that pay less.

Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of humor." That's a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the students who are not laughing.
Only one sentence in all these feminist articles confronts the fundamental reason why today's women are not as happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote: "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood."

That's what the feminist movement did to America. All those impressive statistics about women holding well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce happy women as long as 39% of children are born to unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband.

And one more glaring point: the lack of grandchildren isn't mentioned in these expos�s of women's unhappiness. In rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure of women's happiness.

Feminists Are Still Unhappy
All this self-psychoanalyzing of women's attitudes appears to have been triggered by a study released earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in the American Economic Journal. Called "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," this report concluded that women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. Since this study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation movement, the feminists recognized it as a challenge to the goals and alleged achievements of their movement.
The authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, advanced a theory that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. The authors also presented a second theory that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.

A more realistic explanation is that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach. If you believe you can never succeed because you are a helpless victim of mean men, you are probably correct.

Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers; if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.

Another explanation for women's unhappiness could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (39% of American births are now born to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70% of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth around" policies.
In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. At the same time, the private enterprise system produced many products that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers, and paper diapers).

Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book The Feminine Mystique, which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the fulltime homemaker dissatisfied with her role.

Economic need plays no role in the feminist argument that women should seek labor-force jobs. Feminists encourage wives to leave the home because marriage is allegedly archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force is upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.
Women's Studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.
A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, Myrna Blyth, wrote in her book, Spin Sisters

Spin Sisters
: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America, that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."

According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance the feminists' political, legislative and judicial goals.

The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said, "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children . . . precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers irrelevant and unnecessary except to provide a paycheck. Most divorces are initiated by women. More women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers.

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20% of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. Women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth.

Feminist Attack on Marriage
While the gay lobby gets most of the blame for the assault on the institution of marriage, the modern feminist movement has always been virulently and effectively anti-marriage. When the movement marched onto the stage of the culture war in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they called themselves the women's liberation movement. The buzz word was liberation, which specifically meant liberation from home, husband, family and children.

Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield's book entitled Manliness includes a most informative chapter called "Womanly Nihilism." Mansfield rightly concludes that the 20th-century feminist intellectuals, such as Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Germaine Greer, wanted independence not only from men, but from morality and from human nature and motherhood.

The feminists' first legislative triumph was to change the divorce laws of all 50 states to unilateral divorce, i.e., allowing one spouse to walk out of marriage without the consent of the other spouse, and without having to allege any fault or reason to sever the marriage contract. Big media eagerly cooperated to promote the notion that we have moved into an era of "serial" (rather than lifetime) marriages. "Ozzie and Harriet," a then-popular sitcom featuring a traditional family, became a favorite epithet for feminists to scoff at traditional marriage and the role of the fulltime homemaker.
The feminists' second victory was Roe v. Wade. Abortion has always been central to the feminist movement (proving there is no connection with the movement for women's right to vote, whose leaders were very anti-abortion).

Their third victory (a Gloria Steinem favorite) was getting President Jimmy Carter to pluralize the name of his White House Conference on Families in order to popularize the notion that non-traditional families should be recognized and included.

The anti-marriage feminists stormed state capitols to repeal the laws designed to respect morality and preserve marriage, such as the laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy, and alienation of affection.
The only goal they failed to achieve was ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Meanwhile, beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being. Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.

Feminist solidarity with the gay rights movement was cemented at the International Women's Year (IWY) Conference in Houston in 1977, following impassioned emotional entreaties by Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal. IWY resolutions proclaimed the feminists' attack not only on traditional marriage, but also on motherhood. Feminists view society's expectation that mothers should care for their own children as oppressive discrimination against women.

Marriage: One Man, One Woman
The institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been fundamental to America ever since the founding of our nation. When the famous French commentator Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the United States in the early-19th century, he recognized the fact that respect for marriage is very American. He wrote: "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated."

Not only do American laws specifically recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but many laws legislate special benefits to the institution of marriage. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the definition of marriage in its traditional meaning, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers.

Attacks on the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the feminist movement that opposes what they call the patriarchy (that supposedly makes women second-class citizens), and also from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair and/or a religious contract, and that the terms of this union should be none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards, or issue marriage licenses.

Government's Role in Marriage
Government has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child, or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women, which is totally demeaning and harmful to women.

The very first Platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism." Always a stalwart defender of traditional marriage, the 2008 Republican Platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it." It's vitally important that the Republican Party continue to be the standard-bearer for traditional marriage.

We thought our nation had definitely settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but it recently raised its ugly head. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is on record as supporting polygamy. The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." And on October 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.

Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.
The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that practice polygamy and marriage to children and close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been allowed to immigrate and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.

President Obama's nominee for a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a radical manifesto that endorsed polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner"). Signed in 2006, this manifesto, entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."

Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"

Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

In Socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. In a current lawsuit, British Columbia's Supreme Court is being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.

Traditional marriage is essential to a stable society. We should maintain government's proper role in defining it and protecting it.

Power and Control over males 2

BobV01 — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:02:34 GMT

Order your copy of Smackdown vs Raw 2010 Now

Popadibs — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:17:29 GMT

Every now and then something comes along that is better than what came before it, perhaps, it is the pinnacle and it separates what came before from what comes after.

In a few days we will know what that is like in our lifetime. WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2010 might perhaps be the greatest game of the smackdown vs raw series.

If you enjoy wrestling, like telling stories, and are amused by creating your own shows then this is the wrestling game for you.

Smackdown Vs Raw 2010 Game

YouTube- WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2010: It's YOUR World Now (features and improvements)

What is end result of Misandry for future generations?

dealwithit — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:25:03 GMT

Where is it going to wind up?

Many men cannot risk being in relationships with women domestically..e..g the high divorce rates with women terminating relationships ~80% of the time..
Men are unsafe in the workplace with many reports of men being afraid to work with women under many circumstances, e.g. alone, in crowded places, etc.

This also relates increasingly to frivolous but dangerous everyday situations such as men having to often walk by women's work stations during the course of completing work can result in charges, termination, ending a career, social outcasting, etc.

Ultimately I think men will have no choice but to eventually seek a safer and more balanced environment somehow. Sadly Western based society offers nothing. Where are all the free men's rights gender protection services like that offered to women by government, churches, etc? No where.

As a Christian I deeply dismayed and ashamed by the misandric practices of Christianity.

Many may turn to other cultures like Islam, Hinduism, etc where men are (not yet) treated as Jews were in Nazi Germany by society. The other cultures will be dominant in a few decades throughout Europe. Perhaps a massive conversion will take place that will fast track that social evolution much sooner.

What other choices do men have if they are broke, desperate, ostrasized, unemployed and numbering in the millions yet are increasingly downtrodden. We are have not bottomed out yet.

How low will society go in abusing men?

What are your thoughts?:query: