Most Popular Blogs

Family courts routinely deprive men of their fundamental right to parent their own children by charging them with a wide variety of trivial offenses. Family courts generally uphold feminist demands to kick a man out of his own home, and take control of their children and his money, based on a woman’s unsubstantiated allegations. A major weapon in this ongoing battle between men and women who don’t get along is the Violence Against Women Act. This law was passed in 1994 as a payoff to the radical feminists for helping to elect Bill Clinton President in 1992.

The Violence Against Women Act shows the hypocrisy of noisy feminist demands that we kowtow to their ideology of gender neutrality, to their claim that there is no difference between male and female, and to their opposition to stereotyping and gender profiling. There is nothing sex neutral about this law. It is based on the proposition that there are, indeed, innate gender differences: men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. This law is not designed to eliminate or punish violence, but to punish only alleged violence against women. Most of the shelters financed by the Violence Against Women Act do not accept men as victims.

This law has been known from the getgo as “feminist pork” because it puts $1 Billion a year of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the hands of the radical feminists. They have set up shop in domestic violence shelters where they promote divorce, marriage breakup, hatred of men, and false accusations, while rejecting marriage counseling, reconciliation, drug-abuse treatment, and evidence of mutual-partner abuse. There is no accountability for the taxpayers’ money spent in these shelters. This law provides the woman with free legal counsel to pursue her allegations, but not the man to defend himself. He is on his own to find and pay a lawyer.


Contributing Editor, Phyllis Schlafly, is the Founder and President of Eagle Forum. Used with permission.

Conflicting statements

It is not unusual to encounter a woman who will say "I'm a feminist" or "I believe in feminism" even when she then declares that she:
♦ believes equality is a good thing to aim for;
♦ disagrees with 'extremist' feminists;
♦ thinks men get a hard deal in some areas;
♦ wants to be a mother and perhaps even be given the choice to be a housewife;
♦ actually likes men.

As people trying to get a fair deal for men and stop society's increasing misandrist leanings, we should not alienate such women. I will show here that mostly they are not feminists and they need to understand that there is a greater divide between ordinary women and feminists than there is between ordinary women and non-misogynistic men.

I believe the pool of women that could be on the side of the anti-misandrist is far greater than the total number of women and men who are misandrist.

So, why do so many women think they are feminist?

For a start, they are female. The root word to female, feminine, and feminist is the Latin fēmella. They all have the same kind of sound. They are all connected. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminine with oneself. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminist with oneself.

Most of us were taught in school that "the suffragettes" achieved equal voting rights for women. As an overall impression, most people hold that the suffragettes are (pretty much) synonymous with the feminist movement and that the suffragettes got women the vote. So therefore, from a gut reaction, to be against feminism is to be against equal voting rights for women and all other forms of equality.

Lastly, there is the simple belief that feminism has done some good for women. There are now equal pay laws; there's maternity pay; there is recognition of and support for battered women; and so much more. How can any woman turn her back on that? To reject feminism, it seems, is to want to turn the clock back and not have those advantages. Women would be daft not to want to keep the legal protection. Most women (by no means all) would think themselves daft not to want to keep the improvements she perceives for her gender.

Most women, on the sidelines of the feminist agenda, will hold onto feminism rather than reject the advantages they think it has brought to women.

And who can blame them, until they realise the damage it does?

Let's take a look at some of the common misconceptions that keep women believing they are feminists

Suffrage and feminism

As historical evidence confirms, the suffragettes were about suffrage, not about feminism nor equality. That is to say, the main campaign thrust was to get suffrage (voting rights) at a time when few people had it.

United Kingdom
In the UK, there was a greater public swell at the time to increase the household-based voting to include more households (gender was not an issue). In order to keep the more well-off households with the greater political influence that they were used to, there was a personal suffrage movement that those households paying more for the government should have a greater say in it .. by having a vote each for both the man and the woman in the household. (It almost worked but the household restrictions on women were much less than most suffragette activators campaigned for.) The differences in gender treatment in the UK 1918 Act was intended to achieve equality but of a different definition. It was to make the number of female voters roughly equal to the number of male voters (under a household-based voting system this effectively had been the historic case) but in fact only 40% of the vote was women's. From 1928, the number of eligible female voters in Britain has outstripped the eligible male voters. At the time, the voting age was 21, so hardly anyone is alive now who was affected by conditions prior to 1928 (they need to be well over 100 years old).
New Zealand
In 1879, broadly universal suffrage was attained for men and in 1893, suffrage was equalised between male and female. Some races were still excluded.
[New Zealand is often erroneously stated as being the first country where females had the vote. It was the first self-governing country in modern times, whose parliamentary system still exists, where women and men were specifically granted equal voting rights. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, had women voting before this time but not specifically on an equal basis with men. The Corsican Republic, no longer existing, gave men and women universal suffrage in 1755 and Franceville, also no longer existing, gave suffrage to both genders in 1889. Non-self governing countries such as Pitcaim Island (1838) and the Isle of Man (1881) also preceded

...

In a previous blog, I wrote about the distinction between feminism and women and why many women think they are feminists but are wrong. Here I address those who want to use the feminist label for meaning something good, often re-defining feminism in the process to something like "radical feminism" even though hardly anyone self-identifies as a radical feminist - they just call themselves a feminist.

I believe it is both incorrect and unhelpful for the plight of men to group females and feminists together and blame all women for feminism (and, by implication, not blame any men). That said, I encourage anyone - male and female - to distance themselves from concepts like "feminism" and "feminist" as much as possible unless you believe in female supremacy and have a distaste of men and masculinity.

I encourage you not to call yourself any kind of "feminist" unless you believe in the social illness that is feminism. Claiming that not all feminists are like that (NAFALT) may be true in specific cases but the reality of feminism is seen by its overall actions, not by any one individual.

Among the reasons to avoid the feminist label unless you are an unqualified feminist are:

1) To achieve balance and fairness/egalitarianism in society, we have to undo all that feminism has brought upon our society (note: that is not undoing suffrage, nor equal pay, nor...). To be able to quickly undo everything that can be associated with feminism, it is important not to muddy what feminism is by using the same word for any other purpose.

2) To those aware of the misandry and social damage caused by feminist ideology, there is a psychological effect on someone saying they are feminist. This can be seen all over forums such as Anti-misandry and Stand Your Ground when people say they are a "feminist but..." or a "moderate feminist" or an "ifeminist". It's not that people can't read, nor that they consciously ignore the qualification of feminism. But the emotional effect and the mental association with a damaging policy is made first, before any consideration of what might be before or after "feminist."

3) If someone doesn't believe in at least some of the reality of feminism they have no need to associate with it at all. It is not in any way important that they believe in what feminists have sometimes claimed about feminism: if someone really is aware of what feminism is and disagrees with it, then they should also be aware that it has achieved its ends by lying.

4) I've yet to find any variant of feminism that doesn't centre around the claim of "looking after women's interests." It's true that caring for women is important but why not also for men? Why is a woman's suffering more or less important than a man's? (If people on this site, in campaigning for men's rights and fairness for men, completely ignore women's suffering and do not care about suffering regardless of gender, they will fall into the feminist-conceived gender war.) While being aware of the gender inequalities around us, our campaigns should always focus on the rights of everyone in society, regardless of race, creed, colour or gender. It is gynocentric activities that lead to matters like disaster relief only giving food to women and letting men starve. Only in matters only pertaining to women - such as childbirth - can there be a real reason to concentrate only on women's issues.

In conclusion, unless you really are suffering from having feminist beliefs, don't call yourself any kind of a feminist. If you're not sure, or you think that maybe you are suffering from feminism and are seeking help, then places like the Anti-Misandry web site can be a good place to help you understand about feminism and may be a first step to the cure. In the meantime, if you call yourself a feminist of any colour, you'll have to accept the natural and automatic "anti" levelled on any kind of feminist.

by Wendy Wang, Research Associate, and Paul Taylor, Director, Pew Social & Demographic Trends Project
March 9, 2011


From: To:

Throughout history, marriage and parenthood have been linked milestones on the journey to adulthood. But for the young adults of the Millennial Generation, these social institutions are becoming delinked and differently valued.

Today's 18- to 29-year-olds value parenthood far more than marriage, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of attitudinal surveys.

read more at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1920/millennials-value-parenthood-over-marriage

Economic re-allocation, the transfer of wealth, is as important today as it was at the beginning of this millennium or the last one, although it would seem all around the globe we are in a liquidity crunch in 2011.
In this attachment Economist Mark Rogers discusses disproportionality in Child Support Calculations et al in the State of Minnesota, USA.
MN_challenge.Rogers.pdf

Feminism is feminism, at first glance it seems like it is simply a matter of both sexes having the same chance.
Men and women usually agree on some form of equality.
Feminism and misandry are not what they seem; it involves the destruction of family, focus solely on the individual (meopia), economic redistribution and supervision (of our children, our beds, and our income) of the individual by our governments. Feminism is wrapped around sexual deviance: procreation that mechanism by which we start a new generation, feminists seek to subvert.
At AM, bibliographic citations, which may be rather bland to read have been entered so that we can find the resources for new information on being a father, being a man, where feminism and misandry came from and such things. Some AM mainstays are building sections on cooking or fixing your door, tuning your engine and so much more.
We have got to get to the roots of the weeds. Let us say in 1930, it was a common complaint, by men, that their spouse had a headache again, let me translate this into a simple expression the poor guy was not going to get laid. 1930, 1950, ’60, ’70..2011 having sex, depending on what the women decided may be the highest form of Power and Control. I didn’t get my new shoes “I have a headache”, I want to go to the Pub tonight and if you don’t take me I fear a headache. You didn’t take out the garbage, I don’t feel like doing the dishes why don’t you do them lest I have a headache. Power and Control is not what we have come to imagine it.
Feminists (not all women but feminists) have launched their attack strongly against DADs using the children as pawns. Divorced from their DADS children have been easiest to inculcate with a new philosophy. The result of the new philosophy, single mother homes, has its own set of problems which exposes the fallacies of this new social experiment. Children grow obese, don’t study as well, and are less happy without dear old DAD.
So many it seems over such a long time have preferred to think of women as chaste and pure and their demands to be reasonable. From the Age of enlightenment, feminists have toyed with sexual deviance and economic redistribution. Simone de Beauvoir and Catharine MacKinnon, considered two of feminists leading thinkers are documented as influenced by lesbianism and Marx, there are others as well and we will attempt to get the record established here at AM.
In very simplest of terms, women want our money and our kids. We learned not to speak in absolute terms, going simple leaves to feminists little cracks in the door to spin the words to their favor. Fifteen years ago writing in Father’s Rights Blogs and Bulletin Boards, the heavy link between the Misandry Caucus and American Unions was exposed, and their efforts to go global was reported, yet ignored.
Whether Trotsky of Fabian, Marx or Lenin, Families and Churches were social institutions that stood in their way of establishing a New World Order, and needed to be destroyed: appealing to the baser instincts of mankind sexual deviance, unlimited satisfaction and economic liberty were promised to entice us all to follow a philosophy where we would all serve each other.
We have had the literature for at least the majority of a century; some folks have tried to point out the origins of misandry only to be ignored. DV, child custody, more money for women lest we read the books and know what we are talking about, some of us went forth to establish peer reviewed empirical evidence, DADS were not so bad we intuitively knew that. By the time of mutual personal protection or personal restraining orders it was becoming apparent, something was wrong with our courts systems.
We knew where the Power and Control Wheel came from, and that it was misandric, thirty-forty years hence we are still wrestling with that.
Rather than simply blowing gas from my _ _ _, the books and studies are important to know of, better yet if MRAs actually read them. Cover, camouflage and concealment some of Sun Tzu’s recommendations, have kept us from knowing what we are actually fighting against: Feminism is not your mother’s equality.

Purdy

PURDY is an intimate portrait of five offender mothers and their infants. The documentary explores the struggles of raising a child in an institution, the challenges that the women face as they prepare to re-enter the community, and the joy that these women experience as the bond develops between their infants and them.

Photo


Mandi


Photo credit: Cheryl Hanna Truscott.


Photo


Phaalen


Photo credit: Cheryl Hanna Truscott.

• One out of seventeen women that enter prison in this country, do so while pregnant.

• Children of incarcerated parents are seven times more likely to become incarcerated themselves as adults.

• Incarcerated women in the state of Washington have an average sentence of fifteen and a half months, which means that half the women currently in prison will be back in the community next year.

• In an effort to break this cycle, the Washington’s Correction Center for women has created a unique program that allows minimum-security inmates serving less than three years the opportunity to live with their babies in a designated unit. The Residential Parenting Program collaborates with Early Head Start to teach the women about parenting and to support healthy attachment, which is critical to an infant’s ability to learn.-KBTC
http://www.kbtc.org/page.php?id=304
A sad situation made sadder still with the exclusion of the babies' Fathers. The incarcerated women seem to make reference to the Fathers through the term “we”. The term “break the cycle” used by feminists especially relative to DV is heard frequently. The story illuminates some mothers, babies, and the exclusion of Fathers.
The article with photographs is located here:
Mother’s Day 2011: not so Purdy – Americas’s PBS documentary | Westmichigandad's Blog

Sex, money…
…and national bankruptcies

This is a discussion about three hundred and thirty-six billion dollars, money we do not have and money we can save, this is going to take longer than fifteen seconds probably even longer than five minutes, please use the links and review the material: an informed discussion is the best one.

Males and females have disagreements and males and females both say “it is my way or the highway”, in relationships involving children though, most Fathers hear “I’m hitting the highway and I’m taking the kids”. State, local and the federal government are right there to join the argument in saying “the kids go with mom”.
Various political interests present “power and control” in a variety of ways:
Duluth presents power and control over females here:
http://theduluthmodel.org/wheelgallery.php
West Michigan DAD presents power and control over males here:
http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/40/
SAVE Services gender neutral power and control can be found here:
http://westmichigandad.files.wordpre...wheel-save.pdf
Perhaps we need to enter relationships in a truthful manner without expectation of changing one another, and, expecting to honestly know one another.

“President Obama grew up without his dad, and has said that being a father is the most important job he has. Fatherlessness is a growing crisis in America, one that undergirds many of the challenges that families are facing. When dads aren't around, young people are more likely to drop out of school, use drugs, be involved in the criminal justice system, and become young parents themselves.”
http://www.fatherhood.gov/pledge

We can not promote Fatherhood by denigrating Fathers. We can not promote Fatherhood by incentivizing single motherhood. We can not solve all of our neighbor’s arguments.

Every one it seems links mothers to children to victimhood. It might be more appropriate to link children to their fathers. Not all women are named Britney or Lindsey or Casey. Are all women sluts http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13333013, are all women violent and abusive http://antimisandry.com/abuse-dv/? These women think not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InCbA...layer_embedded, and, http://phyllisschlafly.com/.

Are boys and girls the same? Some say no: http://www.michaelgurian.com/ or http://www.michaelgurian.com/boys_an..._teachers.html.

How productive can a man be after divorce and losing his children: http://www.saveservices.org/download...e-Abuse-System
What might the costs of faithlessness be? One hundred billion dollars annually http://westmichigandad.files.wordpre...dollar-man.pdf
Maybe another billion http://www.saveservices.org/?s=half+billion
Perhaps we could add another three hundred and ten million dollars: http://www.saveservices.org/download...estic-Violence

Are Fathers necessary http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com...-and-children/ lists several studies demonstrating the criticality of fathers to their children'’ development (the studies are available for download).

Could the figure be about three hundred thirty-six billion dollars?

USofA Federal Budget (FY2010)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-...-PER-1-8-1.pdf
Costs of Fatherlessness
Budget	Dollars
Account	in millions	reference
Child Nutrition	17,034	pp. 53
WIC	7,257	pp. 54
Minority Business Development	32,000	pp. 67
CHIP	32,000	pp. 67
Accelerating Achievement	23,000	pp. 116

...

AWOL1.gif

Whilst looking for a title to my first blog post, I caught myself wondering off into the future. Day dreaming of a beautiful world where there is no more hate, no more anger...a world that doesn't exist.


Absent With Out Love,yes I know what AWOL means but for many of us today we have withdrawn from this cruel world because we feel there is no love. The world has become bitter, it's full of hate and anger. The media feeds us with reasons to hate, reasons to feel unloved. Every f*ing channel either has crime, or inane tv ads aimed at making us feel like sh*t.


The following is my POV [Point of View], it contains no stats, no ideologies, no views of others...it is just simply my views. You may choose to reply or leave comment, but don't expect me to be drawn into any petty little arguement you choose to throw in my face.


So here we go...first off the bat is this, I am a man, I am a human with feelings, emotions, pains and all those things that we attribute to our fellow species, WOMEN!!! Sure enough we may not have those attributes, characteristics and so forth in the same order of priority as women, but we do have them. I cry when I see a baby, I wept when Lassy got hurt, I laughed when the baldy man made a f*ck up on tv. So pray tell me why do you women think I am less than you.


We then have the rants of women in regards to men, one that springs to mind is Germaine Greer. This woman with a heart that is so full of hate, representing millions of women, who blasts men at every opportunity, the question is why? Her incapacity to live in a the real world is obvious, she sits behind a desk writing verbal abuse. But come that day where she must venture out onto the street, her heart will be full of dread. Some guy who may have caught her rants about the soldiers, he may just snap and plug the hated filled b*tch with bullets, who knows.


Then we have the feminists who blog to their hearts content, writing garbage and hate for the purpose to either lay some good looking woman or to incite violence against men. What they don't see is that pound for pound [kilo for kilo] a guy will knock seven bells out of the hairy legged, flat soled shoe bitch in a second. Again like Greer and her ilk these femtards sit behind desks and pc's inciting violence and hate.


We have the media who lets be honest is run by stupid ignorant money grabbing dipsh*ts who slowly are starting to realise, men are not watching!!! Why does the f*cking dipsh*t media potray me as some dumb f*ck when it comes to buying insurance? Why does the media in sport create this 'us and them' mentality. Its the media that has killed sportmanship. You know that handshake you give when you got beat by a better team or a better man. The media like the above sit in their ivory secured towers of concrete, filling us with hate filled news, magazines and internet trash. Remember those buildings can come down with you people in them, it just takes one person or a group to snap and then you are gone.


Now we have the Governments, you know those educated folks who we vote in to run our countries affairs. These wimpy arsed, chicken sh*t wankers who pass policies telling us how to behave as men. Oh come on humankind has been around a few thousand years we know right from wrong. All these guys/girls are doing is creating a society that hates itself and others. These sickafants have no idea, they live in fear of when the next time they venture out into the real world and cop a smack in the gob [Look at the Fat Controller] or a bullet in the head.


AWOL - yes absent with out love, there is no f*cking love to be found, men are just opting out. We have had enough, we don't want to fight your dirty wars. We don't want to lay down and die for those who have no love or respect for us.

As men we are grouping together in small pockets, finding comfort in one another. We are bonding, yes male bonding, you know the thing that all of the above has tried to destroy. We took the crap you where feeding us, but now it makes us sick.


We are becoming absent from this world of hate and anger. The men of this world are starting to find what made us men...LOVE. It's our love that scaled mountains, its our love that sent us into battle for freedom, its our love that made us lie down and die for our families. Yes its the love that men have that made you hate us so much.

AWOL - Absent WithOut Love

PWCM

Background

In the UK at the moment there is a lot of justified rage at the way men are continuing to be discriminated against on state pension. Since 1946, there has been deliberate discrimination that set the age that men get a pension from the state at five years higher (65) than women (60) even though women have always lived longer. The gender death gap has increased since 1946, largely due to unequal gender health expenditure that now enables women to have an average life six years longer than men.

The UK government currently have a 'plan' to equalise the ages by 2018 but they have already shown a willingness to back-peddle on this date and have allowed the equalisation of retirement ages to be later and later.

The mathematics of discrimination

I'm now going to explain why women having the same retirement age as men is NOT equality. My proof for this is based on the United Kingdom but I believe much the same result would come from looking at any other country's data.

Working from government statistics (197Kb - Xls) for the year 2008 (the latest year that nationwide statistics are available) it can be calculated that the average age of adult male death is 74 years and six weeks. Similarly, the average age of adult female death is 80 years and four weeks. So, for all but two weeks, the difference is that women outlive men by six years. (If we look at the difference based on average age of death of child and adult, the gap widens to over six years.)

The voting age; the ages of compulsory education; the age when people must start paying taxes and National Insurance (supposedly, state pension fund): all of these have affected the genders the same way for almost everyone alive today.

At a retirement age of 66, the average life expectancy after retirement is:
Males: 8.1 years
Females: 14.1 years

This means that the proportion of adult life spent in retirement is:
Males: 10.9%
Females: 17.6%

Proposal for equality

For equality between the genders to be achieved, there obviously has to be parity on retirement time. Without that, men are paying into a state pension fund where the vast majority of that fund is going to women. To correct this, the genders must have the same chance at retirement. I suggest that to work on absolute time in retirement is not equitable as that could mean men effectively paying in less for the amount they draw; instead the proportion of adult life (not total life) is the way to achieve equality.

Assuming males retire at 66 this gives us:
Males: retire age 66 years, to get 10.9% of adult life in retirement
Females: retire age 71 years, 19 weeks, to get 10.9% of adult life in retirement.

Clearly, the idea of retiring at the same age to get "equality" is very attractive to women and once the United Kingdom accepts this point, it will be hard to move from it. I therefore propose that the only time to campaign for gender equality in retirement age is before 2018, while there is still time to legislate for a continuing increase in women's retirement age until there is equality between the genders.