feminism

If you butter your bread on both sides your hands get messy. You can not eat your cake today and have the same cake tomorrow: you can not have it both ways. Equal or special, you can not have it both ways. Pink for this and pink for that but we want everyone to be equal: you can not have it both ways. Build a family or fuck around: you can not have it both ways. Tell the truth or spread an appearance you can not have it both ways. Girls want to run around professing their pride in being a slut, yet complain when others use their own words: you can not have it both ways. It is time for us all to grow up, attain some maturity. You can not promote Fatherhood by attacking DADS. You can not promote children by excluding Fathers: you can not have it both ways.
From the OED
Slut
n. a slovenly or promiscuous woman
Promiscuous
adj.
1 having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships: she’s a wild, promiscuous, good time girl I promiscuous behavior
2 demonstrating or implying an unselective approach; indiscriminate or casual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...lk&FORM=VQFRAT
http://slutwalknyc.com/
http://www.slutwalkchicago.org/
http://www.facebook.com/SlutWalk
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/130720908.html
http://www.slutwalkminneapolis.org/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...5iDybwYXL0awvJ
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851725.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42927752...ave-slutwalks/

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.

My Parents’ failed experiment in Gender Neutrality
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235300?gt1=43002

Courtesy Jesse Ellison
The author, in her overalls, with her cousins in Maine
My Name Is Jesse

But I am not a boy. Inside my parents' failed experiment with gender neutrality.
By Jesse Ellison | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 23, 2010
When I was 2 years old, my father started building a big house behind our tiny starter house. For days leading up to the arrival of the giant trucks and backhoes coming to dig out the foundation, my mother tried to get me excited. "Don't you want to watch the big trucks?!" she'd tease. When they finally arrived, the neighborhood boys parked themselves on our property, transfixed. I glanced out the window and immediately turned back to my toys, ignoring the commotion. As my mother recalls, "It was really a wake-up for me."
This now-infamous family anecdote wasn't the first time my parents tried to shake off gender stereotypes. As a toddler, they dressed me in overalls and cut my hair in an androgynous bowl cut. I didn't have Barbies; I had wooden blocks. Even my first name is evidence of their experiment in gender neutrality. You can't imagine how many times I've had to explain, "No, not Jessica, just Jesse. Like a boy."
In 1978, the year I was born, feminists like my mother were embracing the notion that gender roles were entirely rooted in the way that you were raised. In the 1970s, the feminist fringe was giving up bras, shaving, and diets; they were lighting their own cigarettes and opening their own doors. It was the "new feminism," and where the first movement was concerned with legal equality, like the right to vote, these women were focused on de facto equality: asserting that it was nurture, not nature, that made women and men different. To bust out of gender oppression also meant to assert that there was absolutely nothing different about our biological makeup.
My family, by and large, was removed from societal pressure. We lived in rural Maine, we didn't have a television, and my mom and dad had matching short haircuts. (A few years before that, they'd had matching braids that went all the way down their backs.) But my parents' little project in gender neutrality (namely, me) was, from the get-go, a total failure. As soon as I could speak, I demanded they replace my overalls with a long, pink, lacy dress. Far from gender-neutral, I was emphatically, defiantly a "girl."
"We all thought that the differences had to do with how you were brought up in a sexist culture, and if you gave children the same chances, it would equalize," my mom says. "It took a while to think, 'Maybe men and women really are different from each other, and they're both equally valuable.' "
Since then, of course, countless studies have shown that men and women think and behave differently—to the point that it's not the existence of these differences, but the source of them, that is the subject of any debate. By the time my generation came of age, women could call themselves feminists and also embrace the standard trappings of femininity. We could wear pink, spend money on fancy shoes, and simultaneously expect—no, demand—the same success as men. Femininity and feminism were no longer a contradiction.
But maybe my generation is evidence of our having swung too far in the other direction. In the last decade, the reigning role models for young girls included Paris Hilton, swathed in pink and practically bedazzled. "There's so much emphasis on appearance that is part of what women have to do [today]," says gender-studies professor Susan Brownmiller. "You have to be a babe, in addition to everything else. Looking like a sex object but also claiming the rights of women who are not sex objects—that's tricky." By turning our back on our mothers' gender-neutral principles, all while taking it for granted that they had fought the great fight and won, we were unprepared for the fact that sexism still exists.
My generation is different from my mother's, in countless ways. But just because we chose high heels over Birkenstocks, it doesn't mean our commitment to equality should be any less than ardent. Now that I'm older, and a little bit wiser, I love that my parents were so consciously trying to foster androgyny. Ultimately, the whole point was to ensure that I had the freedom, and choice, to be whoever I wanted—which is, after all, what feminism is all about. And even though it's still cause for confusion, I even like my name. Actually, given that the alternatives included—true story—Oyster and Wing, I love it.

Dear Potential Participant,

My name is Kristen S. White and I am a fourth year student at the
Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. As part of a research
study I am conducting, I am looking for participants to complete an online
survey. To be eligible to participate, you must be at least 25 years old,
separated or divorced from your child(ren)'s other parent, divorced no more
than once, and your child(ren) were under age eighteen at the time of you
divorce.

All information that you share will be kept confidential and private. The
survey is available online and will take approximately 15 minutes to
complete. If you meet the participation criteria and are interested, please
click on the link below:

http://www.surveymo nkey.com/ s.aspx?sm= fEW6OSj18Zl0aWwm PFRzXA_3d_ 3d

The intended benefit of this study is to better understand how divorced
parents might use their parenting plans as an effective tool to assist them
in coparenting after their family reconfigures into two families. While
there are no obvious anticipated risks to participation in this study, it is
foreseeable that some respondents may experience unexpected feelings or
distress as a result of responding to the questionnaire. Should you choose
to respond to the survey and experience distress, please contact me at
kristen_white@ mspp.edu and I will assist you in finding a local facility or
clinician to help you manage your reaction to this study.

Thank you for your participation and help in my research.

Please contact me at kristen_white@ mspp.edu with any questions.

Sincerely,

Kristen S. White
Doctoral Student
Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology

MRAs beware
Men Against Sexism – NOMAS, conference to end sexual assault, Portland Oregon State University, Oct. 28 – 30, 2009, as described in the Google Banner Leads above and below, here at AM. NOMAS: Pro-feminist, gay-affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men’s lives (NOMAS | Pro-feminist, gay affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men's lives.).

My apologies, but I will brief on this, at this time. Takes a bit of time to work up an empirical piece, this shall have to do for now.
I would hope AM'ers and the general public has read about, or is minimally aware of the "Boyz Crisis".
Try investigating "Boyz Crisis" through a search engine, some of the original research is listed, so to is a plethora of Op-Ed pieces by American University Women, feminist bloggers, Salon et al.
I understand it is tiring…as is written elsewhere here, “be the change you seek…”
Feckless had a bit of run at this subject:
http://antimisandry.com/facts-figures/excerpts-myth-male-power-15771.html
dyslexic banana hints at it:
http://antimisandry.com/feminist-flipside/what-rights-have-feminism-taken-away-men-16181.html#post112089
ChristianJ squarely addresses one of the many tendrils here:
http://antimisandry.com/australian-mens-news/foolishly-seeking-gender-equity-math-science-15018.html
Alleged imbalance to press for female advantage, minimizing a boys energy level, loss of male role models, failure to have a safe and secure environment where boys can celebrate their own sense of self and have dreams of their own without feeling shamed because they are male, differences in learning styles. And now every manner of feminist diatribician spewing hate epithets seeking to engross female advantage.

Origins of a Mad Dad and injustice

Mad Dad, usually a misandric term used within feminine diatribe, has greater and as of yet unexplored origin, and within this definition we find the freedom to exonerate Fathers. The following is offered for reflection with no commentary. Written by Plato, statements attributed (by Plato) to Adeimantus and Glaucon (citation follows below). Thanks given, by Bob van Ee, to friends at Slate and Fray for the very timely reminder.

Adeimantus talking with Glaucon about Justice

[Adeimantus] Do you want our conviction that right action is in all circumstances better than wrong to be genuine or merely apparent?
[Glaucon]…And now for my first heading, the nature and origin of justice. What they say is that it is according to nature a good thing to inflict wrong or injury, and a bad thing to suffer it, but that the disadvantages of suffering exceed the advantages of inflicting it; after a taste of both, therefore, men decide that, as can’t evade the one and achieve the other, it will pay to make a compact with each other by which they forgo both. They accordingly proceed to make laws and mutual agreements, and what the law lays down they call lawful and right. This is the origin and nature of justice. It lies between what is most desirable, to do wrong and avoid punishment, and what is most undesirable, to suffer wrong without being able to get redress; justice lies between these two and is accepted not as being good in itself, but as having a relative value due to our inability to do wrong. For anyone who had the power to do wrong and was a real man would never make any such agreement with anyone – he would be mad if he did.

(Plato, trans. 1955)
(Desmond Lee)
Lee, D. (reprinted and revised 1987)103-104 Plato the Republic Penguin Books Ltd, London, England [ISBN 0-14-044048-8]