"I think the school staff were man-haters, and resented me because, as a doting father, I upset their prejudices. They thought incest was the only possible explanation for a father's love." by Dan Abshear
(henrymakow.com) In January 2007, staff at my eight-year-old daughter's public school in Missouri interrogated her for an hour to determine if I had molested her. There was absolutely no reason for them to do this.
I worked out of my home at the time and largely raised my daughter, while my now ex-wife worked. I had established rituals during her school days.
These included taking her to our favorite local doughnut shop in the morning and often bringing lunch to her at school.
During my visits to my daughter's school. I always found the teachers to be very warm and kind people.
However, the administrative staff were rather distant judging by their body language, and their unwillingness to interact with me. They were mostly middle-aged women.
On one unforgettable day, they interrogated my daughter for about an hour. When I picked her up, she was crying.
She said she was asked leading questions such as, "did your daddy ever touch you there? Do you think your daddy likes touching you there?" The answer to such questions was 'no,' of course.
I spoke with her for hours that night, which was difficult for me. In the days that followed, she did not appear permanently scared by that interrogation.
My daughter was completely unaware that parents were even capable of such acts described in graphic detail by school staff.
There was no evidence for these allegations. My daughter was and is a straight "A" student, and an incredibly balanced individual. What caused my daughter's school to make these outrageous charges and traumatize
One problem merely is the fact that we live in a safety driven PC society. Everything is done for "safety" and part of that IS treating everybody guilty until proven innocent (in our case guilty for being men)...
Everybody knows her. She is an active member of some homeowners association in suburbia. She doesn't work, and lives off her rich hubby's paycheck. She has nothing better to do than micromanage problems that are not her own. One day her little Tommy falls off a see saw (while she is talking to her girlfriends and not paying attention) and needs stitches from hitting his head on it.
She files a lawsuit against the city and WINS. The city freaks out (not wanting another lawsuit) and removes all of the seesaws from every park and creates an ordinance that no playground in the city can have a see saw. But look on the bright side now the playground is "safer". Anybody who asks otherwise is condoned for not caring about the children even if they present a reasonable argument (kids learn physics and mechanics, they learn to interact with others, etc)...
Lets take the moral of the story and apply it to something else... Rape. 1 Man rapes one woman (as sick as it is) in a city of 10,000. Somebody concerned about rape goes to an ad agency to create an campaign on the prevention of rape. The ad campaign states that to be completely safe you must never trust a man (not a shady guy smoking weed in a alley, but all men). Now all men are guilty of possibly being rapists. Men now cannot easily protest this as they would be unsympathetic to the victim of the rape even if some of them were victims themselves (from a female attacker). I don't really need to say more as the threads on this forum obviously address this...
My personal opinion is that a Safety Society (a feminine trait really) is actually self destructive mechanism that kills itself by hating a majority of it.
Ben Franklin- Those
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
Updated 14th-June-2012 at 06:56 AM by Douglas
Quote from Quasimodo88 I was in argument with this chick at my school. She pushed in line, and I was basically telling her that she can't do that. All of a sudden some dude comes over and tells to leave her alone. What the fuck is it with white knights defending rude women. Its pretty sickening to watch them roll over like trained dogs. Any tips on how to deal with them?
I have made it very clear, while politics is normally picking the lesser of two evils, one is far more evil than the other. I have no problem looking anyone in the eye saying that even with feminism, I still tend to go to the left if it came to a vote on most politicians.
The Party of No is at it again. Here is the next step in their pro-life agenda. They have done all sorts of things including ridiculous standards to perform an abortion. This time, you need the consent of the father in order to perform an abortion. The argument is that a father has a choice if the child is born or not. In a sense they are absolutely right, a father should have more input. But not the final say.
They say this is in the name of “father’s rights” but no one is buying that. Most people stand for the “financial abortion” by either parent so no one is stuck with an unwanted child. It is a ploy by the right to control women’s bodies. The icing on the cake that pisses me off is the mask of father’s rights.
Father’s rights isn’t about control of women it is about being involved with children. Its shit like this that makes father’s rights look bad. Yes, things get ugly when the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn’t, and the financial abortion option is on the table yet the mother still wants to have the abortion. Things can get really really ugly, and it is going to be a problem, but it still needs to be confronted. And no, as of now I don’t have the answer, but this sure as hell isn’t it. The Rest is Here Facebook
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.
Economics ~ the science of scarcity: perhaps in laymen’s terms we might say “the science of choosing between need and want” although that really does not address the issue of finite resources.
It seems for a very long time men, males and boys have been taught first to accept Child Support payments from their income, second to equate Fatherhood with Child Support (payments) and third, never to say in public anything disparaging about paying child support.
Reciprocally, mothers, women and girls are taught to expect to be entitled to their children’s fathers paychecks, and, most probably payments from society and governments. The entitlement to the father’s income can easily be correlated to the first Power and Control Wheel postulated by Duluth who asserted that a man controlling his own income was in fact abuse of the female in a male/female relationship.
Political Science is the study of how man collectively decides how a group governs itself, for instance shall each member of an agrarian group contribute a percentage of the season’s harvest to a group pool of resources. MSW’s have a Master s Degree in Social Science which should inquire into our mental and emotional health an ally of Psychiatry and Psychology. In the 1970’s and 1980’s as MSW emerged, rather than emotional and mental health the field seemed to focus upon social engineering or the imposition of values upon societies (very akin to religion).
In our new millennium a new breed of MSW’s seem actually to be focusing on mental and emotional health most probably propelled by our advance knowledge of the brain as discovered by Research Ph.Ds. from the fields of Psychology, Psychiatry and Medicine.
Still though we live under the urban myth that Child Support is simply necessary, must be done, should not be examined, and, should not be discussed by men: a perfect formula for the financing of a matriarchy.
In 2011, after fifty years of socially engineered experimentation into
There is little doubt that the male gender role identify relies a great deal on the ability to provide, as a result the male identity is often tied to being able to provide for families and society as a whole. When the ability to provide is not there, the male identity weakens, and when it weakens on a collective level, societies that rely on traditional masculinity puts men into a state of crisis.
The ability to provide is also related to the economy. In a society that relies greatly on both consumption and finances as a way to survive, the primary way of providing is not through a job with stable monetary income. You cannot go out to the woods and do everything necessary for a healthy stable life anymore (well you can for basic survival, but if you want to go beyond that you are in trouble). In order to be a provider, you have to have a job.
The more jobs that are available, the more men that are capable of providing for their families. There is a bit more room for mobility without a degree, but more than anything else more people who want to work can. The more men that can find jobs, the stronger a masculinity based around providing will be.
As long as the ability to provide is linked to the economy, when the economy fluctuates, it will drag masculinity with it. When the economy fails, unemployment and underemployment is high, and men are out of work traditional masculinity will plummet with the economy, crash and burn. The high unemployment rates will lead to a level of displacement among those working, and put the next generation in an uncomfortable spot as they cannot be a “man” in the same way their fathers and grandfathers were. When the economy fails, men go through an identity crisis.
Clearly we have a problem here, this simply adds insult to injury of a failing economy. There are a few solutions. The first is to have providing not based on having a job. This really won’t work
The new feminism (second wave [the radicals]) who have to be a part of everything male while acting in a misandric fashion are creating a sadistic Matriarchy across the globe. If Men and women split everything 50/50 and women get 50% of the man’s 50 and 7/8ths of the remaining twenty five percent as special entitlements that equals 97.25% - maybe that is why females make the majority of retail purchases.
I can envision men reading this crossing their legs, wringing their hands uncomfortably, almost whining: I hope they read the rest of this, check out the links, STOP, breathe and then reflect: the truth is in the studies. We have for decades lazily subscribed to urban myth even though lies have been proven and dispelled: Warshak Apparently the Jewish community is concerned with a dwindling male membership The end of Jewish Men are not the Protestant and Catholic Communities facing the same situation?
Not all single mothers are sadistic but images of Britney, Lindsey and Casey should wake us up a little simply look up female violence on You Tube . “‘Oh say it is not true” exclaim the gentlemen twisting in their seats, perhaps, but this material is not made up Bringing Attention to Abuse By Females it is true; Google has tried to censor such material as hate speech preferring homosexual friendly comments (sorry their editorial preference and a true statement simply ask bloggers).
All mothers probably are not that violent despite the ones we have seen grabbing their children by the arm in the grocery store, we do know (even if we are afraid to discuss it) at least some moms utilize the electronic babysitter, we have been talking about it for decades, but could it lead to this: Should parents of obese kids lose custody? We know Fathers petition Courts for custody, joint custody, shared custody, parenting time, access to their children everyday, and, everyday leave the Court Room broken hearted despite the evidence demonstrating the criticality
Updated 24th-July-2011 at 11:32 AM by BobV01
Quote from Richard Below is an article that appeared in the Sunday Express (17/7/11).
There is no doubt that “official state policy” in the UK was to take children forcibly from families on a pretext to meet quotas set for adoption.
In this process, one can only wonder how psychologists “rubber stamped” such actions. For me the question is how could psychologists and social workers, en mass and consciously implement such a policy? Where there any voice of discontent, or were ALL psychologists blindly implementing such policy in the UK? Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 10,000 children ripped from their families 10,000 CHILDREN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILIES
Sunday July 17,2011
By Ted Jeory AT LEAST 10,000 young children have been dragged from their families and needlessly adopted due to a flawed target at the heart of Government, it was claimed last night.
Vulnerable children were handed over in their thousands under a New Labour crusade driven by artificial adoption targets.
A top Oxford academic yesterday branded the policy as Tony Blair’s worst mistake.
The expert in social work who did not want to be named said: “Forget the Iraq War. “Blair’s adoption target was the reason I left the Labour party.” Last night backing came from MP John Hemming, who said the policy led to the unnecessary adoption of 1,000 children every year.
He claims the target set 11 years ago was flawed from the outset because it contained a fundamental error of maths and he has called for a full Parliamentary inquiry to prevent further damage. One victim who had a 15-month-old baby taken from her and two siblings broke down in tears as she told her story to the Sunday Express, saying: “When you’re reliving it like this, it’s still as raw as the day it happened.
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.