'A bookshelf of wounded manhood' belittles men's rights issues

The author clearly is a usual hysterical daughter-owner who is not comfortable with the growing MRA movement. The article itself is total senseless garbage, written only for the sake of the last paragraph. Yeah, troll, embrace the horror: your ugly "princess" is no longer entitled to rule the world.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

..I just sent my E-mail bro!!!

Haha. These morons cannot be mistaken for someone else: if a man writes a piece of garbage like this article, 99% that he has a daughter:

A New York City native, Lubrano has written for newspapers since 1980... He lives with his daughter in South Jersey, and has worked for the Inquirer since 1995.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/alfred_lubrano/

Male daughter-owners, not female feminists, must be the MAIN TARGET of MRA activists if we want to save the civilization from the disaster.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

Men are:

99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties (historically)
http://thewall-usa.com/information.asp
http://thewall-usa.com/women.asp
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

97%+ since the 1st Gulf War (DOD)
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/female.aspx
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

"The numbers of wounded women and female amputees, meanwhile, are considerably less than their male counterparts--at least 378 wounded versus 17,490; 11 amputees versus over 400--but they are historic for modern day warfare."
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2755/context/archive

A Pentagon study published in March on the mental health of soldiers returning from deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan found that more than one- third of U.S. soldiers received psychological counseling. A statistic buried in the study: 23.6 percent of women reported a mental health concern compared with 18.6 percent of men.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2755/context/archive

(currently, women are not even required by law to register for selective service, but even retarded or physically disabled men are, in addition to all the healthy ones)
94% of industrial deaths and accident (NIOSH)
(Even though murder is the leading workplace cause of death for women, a statistic often used by gender feminists, that number is only a percentage of the 6% of workplace deaths that women comprise. In other words, "a fraction of a small fraction.")
76% of homicides DOJ
80% of Suicides CDC

# Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004).
# Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men (Anderson and Smith 2003).
# 24,672 suicide deaths reported among men in 2001.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm
24,672 / 30,622 = .8056952
(or in other words, over 80% of all suicide deaths in 2001 were male)

also:
http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch205/ch205a.html
"Suicide ranks 11th among causes of death in the US, with 30,622 completed suicides in 2001. It is the 3rd leading cause of death among people 15 to 24 yr. Men ≥ 75 yr have the highest rate of death by suicide. Among all age groups, male deaths by suicide outnumber female deaths by 4:1."

http://www.glennsacks.com/distraught_fathers_courthouse.htm
"The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father. According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major:
"Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts.'"

A woman is the party filing for divorce in about 66% of divorce cases.
http://www.pobronson.com/blog/2006/07/will-this-marriage-last-who-wants-out.html
"How often was it that many more of women wanted the divorce more than the men?
2/3. The same as the amount responsible for divorce filings. And yet another study of divorced couples found that the majority of divorced wives and husbands both agreed it was the wife who wanted out.”

Women receive custody in about 84% of child custody cases.

In the spring of 2002, an estimated
13.4 million parents had custody of
21.5 million children under 21 years of
age whose other parent lived somewhere
else. About 5 of every 6 custodial parents
were mothers (84.4 percent) and 1
in 6 were fathers (15.6 percent), proportions
statistically unchanged since 1994
(Table A).
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf

Paternity fraud is rampant in the U.S.
30% of those named as fathers - bilked of child support unjustly
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48871

Of the top fifteen leading causes of death by disease, men lead in 12 categories, are tied in two and trail in one. Even though more women die of heart disease each year, men die of heart disease many years earlier.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/finaldeaths03_tables.pdf

93% of the prison population is male with over 60% having no High School education. America has now passed Russia as the country that has the largest percentage of its population incarcerated, yet we still claim to be the freest country on earth.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/
205 (and growing) wrongly convicted people have been exonerated by DNA evidence since the beginning of the Innocence Project.

204 of the wrongly convicted were men.

Most of them had charges of rape against them.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
As we see in the Duke Lacrosse rape case fiasco, false accusers are rarely prosecuted and when they are it is only as a misdemeanor (at most), while rape itself is vigorously prosecuted as a felony.

One attorney speaking at premiere for the movie, After Innocence, estimates that there are between 20,000 and 100,000 wrongly convicted still in prison.

We hear a lot about the historical oppression of women's voting rights, but few if any women who were born in the 20th century were every without the right to vote in their lifetime, upon reaching legal voting age. On the other hand, around 2400 hundred California men (42% of CA men killed in Vietnam) gave their life for their country without being allowed by their country to vote. The exact number is 2,381. Four of the twelve Iwo Jimo flag raisers died for their country without their country ever allowing them the right to vote.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/blumhorst/2005/blumhorst052805.htm

http://www.thewall-usa.com/names.asp
"The youngest Vietnam KIA is believed to be Dan Bullock USMC, at 15 years old.
At least 5 men killed in Vietnam were 16 years old.
At least 12 men killed in Vietnam were 17 years old.
There are 120 persons who listed foreign countries as their home of record.
At least 25,000 of those killed were 20 years old or younger.
The oldest man killed was 62 years old."

If you do a full count on all the men in the 20th century who died for their country without being allowed to vote the numbers will be staggering.

In America there are over 270 women's commissions, but only one for men in New Hampshire.

There are over 700 Women's Studies programs on colleges and universities throughout the United States teaching thousands or tens of thousands of classes from the gender feminist perspective, but not one program or class, teaching men's studies from the masculist perspective.

Men are a significant percentage of domestic violence (26% of intimate partner homicides), yet are denied service at most tax payer funded domestic violence shelters. In contrast, women get every veteran's benefit a man does, yet comprise less than 3% of combat deaths or casualties and a woman makes the cover of Time magazine (person of the year/2003 standing in front of two men.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2003/200312225a.jpg

It appears to me American men are routinely treated like 2nd class citizens in their own country. CDC lists male victims of domestic violence at more than 34%, but men injured in Iraq (and all other men) are by law in California excluded from domestic violence shelter services. They would have a lot of trouble getting in a CA shelter if some evening the little misses puts a frying pan to their head. Only one shelter in Lancaster, CA accepts men and it has been extensively harassed for doing so.

Someone online pointed out in a post that some people say breast cancer is a greater concern in women than prostate cancer in men based on reported deaths overall. Are we considering that men today die on average 6 years sooner than women? I read somewhere that around 1920 the death rates were roughly equal. The death rates for prostate and breast cancer are similar, but because men die of other things more frequently-accidents ,war, heart disease etc., there are fewer men left to die of prostate cancer. “This would be akin to saying people from a nation like Zimbabwe are immune to Alzheimer’s- but in fact they die of other things before they can get old enough to contract Alzheimer’s.”

The Socialist/Communist wage gap myth based on the "comparable worth" paradigm:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/23/the-gender-feminist-wage-gap-myth-appears-to-be-growing-legs/

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/23/gender-feminist-wage-gap-myth-appears-to-be-growing-legs-part-ii/

Spending Gap:

http://www.amazon.com/Pocketbook-Power-Hearts-Coveted-Consumer/dp/0071418601/sr=1-1/qid=1167804358/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6478055-3977644?ie=UTF8&s=books
or
http://tinyurl.com/sf342
Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women
Bernice Kanner
From the Back Cover

Not too long ago, legendary adman David Ogilvy chided his peers for talking down to women. He berated those who ignored women or discounted them, misconstruing men's higher paychecks to mean greater spending clout. And he was right. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, women--who comprise just over 51 percent of the U.S. population, making them the largest consumer segment in the country--control six trillion dollars in buying power annually. Statistics show that:

Women make 88 percent of all U.S. retail purchases. Some experts even predict that, by 2020, women will control most of the money in America.

Women control 88 percent of all purchases.

Women handle 75 percent of family finances. 43 percent of those with assets over $500,000 are women.

One out of every 11 women in America owns a business.

Women influence two out of every three of the 3 trillion dollars spent in the U.S. each year!

Men die on average about 5 years earlier than women, but no compensation is made in the Social Security System's retirement age for this disparity.

Good call nbdspcl and good point. Daughter-owners should be the primary target of MRAs. I myself have a daughter and was clueless about many of these issues until a few years ago. I intend to be a *very* heavy influence in my daughter's life. Among other things I will make sure she learns that:

• She should expect no special privileges or treatment from men.
• She needs to pursue a career that can pay her own way for everything.
• If she wants children she either finds a willing man to have them with or she pays for the children entirely herself. NO handouts.
• If she gets divorced she should NEVER ask for any alimony or child support (but she must share the kids 50/50 with her ex unless he's proven a certified loon).
• Just because something may currently be legal doesn't make it right. If I EVER find her complicit in forcing a man into paternity or into support payments of any kind, I will disown her.

With tough love and a distinct absence of chivalry, I'm confident that we can raise the next generation with a much stronger sense of true equality and fairness.

If only all the fathers of daughters in the corridors of power and in mass-media had a similar approach to the issue. But, obviously, 99% of fathers of daughters are ready for the well-being of their pretty little darlings to destroy the world and especially men.

(A familiar and very illustrative example of such a moronic father of daughter is depicted in the "Die Hard 4" in the personage played by Bruce Willis (who has three daughters in real life too). The blind parental love often turns such fathers into caricatures on themselves.)

So, if MRA activists want to effectively fight with feminism, they must understand, that female feminists are just a human shield and disguise for the blind parental love of fathers of daughters.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

I have two daughters myself and have a similar philosophy. They are still 'my princesses' and they get showered with love and affection. They are also very good at wrapping me around their little fingers. BUT, they are still accountable for their bad behaviour and will grow up knowing that privileges are earned by accepting burdens and responsibility. There are no 'free passes'. And they will be aware of men's issues.

But Jesus, the propaganda in children's books and TV shows is shameless. Basically, little girls are trained at birth to believe they are discriminated against. Its an uphill fight all the way.

(MR covered the factual rebuttal in his usual, brilliant manner, so I'm going to toss a bit of ideological rhetoric into the fire)

Just as it's no surprise to hear a male or female feminist whine that 100% women is still oppression and "patriarchy", as they will surely continue to whine as long as there are living beings with testicles, it's no surprise to men's activists that we have enemies. We know and accept that feminists (and many women who happily suck up the fruits of feminism while disclaiming the label) hate us, even more than they hate most men. We have the temerity, the gall, the unmitigated nerve to stand up and say "enough". We're fighting a battle against a well-defended and long-standing enemy.

As usual, a feminist is accusing us of wanting to put women in some mythical half-nelson of social injustice which is rumored to have existed in the past as part of a vast conspiracy by men against women. The fact that the history of gender roles for both men and women wasn't "oppression" or a vast conspiracy against anyone is never considered. Nor is the fact that men were even more bound by their gender roles than women ever mentioned. The fact that men have always sacrificed themselves for women never enters the picture, either.

As for the feminist sociopath that wrote this article, consider that feminists have been fighting a war against an "enemy" who never bothered to show up. Their "victories" have been against the very people who make their existence possible, and who have given them every single thing they have ever demanded, just as the feminist man who wrote this article is surely doing with his spoiled brat of a child. Nothing we can do to him will ever compare to the hell that awaits when his feminist daughter realizes that he's just another evil, patriarchal ogre, so don't waste your energies on him gentlemen - he's doomed to a fate far worse than anything we could arrange with mere words and publicity.

Feminists are, at some level, deep in their reptilian brain stems, aware of the fact that the "enemy" has finally decided to have a look at the battlefield. We're forming up, and bringing the guns out in order to restore the "equality" they have long-since surpassed.

And it scares the hell out of them.

Naturally, after 40 years of unopposed success, the idea of actually having to defend their ill-gotten booty simply terrifies feminists. What's more, they realize that while we come armed with the facts and figures of their mass destruction, they have nothing but their tinfoil hats and a captive press to defend them. They cannot win, they cannot hold their ground. They know, at some level, that they're doomed the instant men decide to fight.

Well girls and boys, we've decided to fight.

We're proud to do it, despite our socialization by and for women, so this time you can't shame us into silence the way you usually do.

You might wonder why male feminists are the loudest of the chorus shouting us down these days. Simply put, they're on a gravy-train of easily accessible (if somewhat undesirable) pussy. All they have to do is parrot feminist cliches, and they get to fuck with far less trouble than they'd face in the absence of this particular ruse. It's a great reproductive strategy, so I can't fault them for using it. Of course they hate us for trying to end their free ride.

So, expect more of this author's sort of filth, especially from other men. Remember: first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. We're somewhere in between ridicule and fight. At any rate, try not to let it discourage you as this war we've finally decided to enter wears on; venom, lies and hate are the only weapons at the feminist's disposal, and they'll use them at every opportunity. Expect to be covered in their filth before the fight is done, remember that they cannot win, and that time truly is on our side.

Never forget that feminists are killing the goose that laid their golden egg. They're bound and determined to cut men open so they can have all the gold for themselves. What they don't realize, per the myth, is that it's only possible for women to be viewed and treated as equals (or, as is presently the case in most of our culture, superiors), when men do essentially all the fighting, earning, building, digging, dying, risk-taking and other nastiness that no woman would ever condescend to dirty her hands with. We've allowed feminism to progress because many years ago, the feminists had a point: women always did and still do deserve equality of opportunity and equality under the law simply because they are human beings. No more and no less.

Since men are hardwired to give people what we think they deserve (women give people what they think they need, when they give at all), and that's what most of us think they deserve, the feminists and their passive supporters are in for a very rude awakening. Men DON'T think they deserve better-than-equal treatment. We used to - that's why they were never expected to live up to our standards. But some of us have woken from our long slumber, and we're pissed off about the constant nagging, whining, bitching, griping and demands for more, more and MORE while the women demanding it offer less and less and less.

Surprise, ladies. You never knew how good you had it. What's worse for you is that the male guilt which built the pedestals that men have placed you on throughout recorded history will soon be a thing of the past. You've slain the golden goose with your limitless greed, and when the smoke clears from the battlefield where we've finally decided to stand our ground, you'll find that men no longer idolize you the way we used to. We'll treat you as true equals. And I personally guarantee that you're going to hate us even more for that than you ever did for asking you to raise kids while we did all the work. But we're already used to that, so you're out of luck.

It's your loss. Next time, remember to be careful what you ask for.

RandomMan that is one hell of a fine piece of writing. Had to hit the "print" button because it's that good.

I completely agree that feminists and the "I'm-not-like-them" ordinary gals are sensing a sea change in the psychology of the Gender Wars, and they are terrified to ponder what it means.

It means true gender equality is soon coming, because the protective ideology of male Chivalry is a chilly corpse just awaiting formal burial. ("Marriage Strike" scares you honey? Just wait until the plumbers and auto mechanics join the campaign!)

The mangina faux-journalista who wrote the linked piece above stated - "The model for success in this country is male in all aspects: To get ahead, one must be competitive, autonomous, ruthless, egoistic."

Sorry, I beg to differ. In actual practice, to get ahead one need only employ average feminine predatory skills, that is - present one’s vagina to the targeted male success object (“prey”) and then consummate the act via the feminist courts to harvest his assets as your own.

The thing that offends me the most about modern feminism is not all the man-hating, the victim-whining, the blatant hypocrisy. Those are attributes I can tolerate.

It's the utterly infantile lack of any self-reflective capacity that makes it an exercise in futility to try to engage in dialogue with a feminist.

Might as well ask a petulant two year-old in mid-tantrum to behave reasonably. They would look at you like you're crazy to ask them to deny their basic nature, and you would be.

Here's what I sent, accompanied by that entire list of men's oppressions.

To Whom It May Concern:

The authors repulsive, self-righteous indignation appears to me to be the height of a hypocrisy, covering up many truths that overwhelmingly refute his inane contentions.

How does such unbalanced tripe as his article ever make it into any journalistic publication having even an ounce of journalistic integrity?

Yes, there's are a number of things the author forgot to take into consideration that show men have historically been as oppressed or more oppressed than women, with far less societal "considerations" for their oppressions (see list below):

RM,

Here's a message from one of the members on my E-group written in response to your comments here(which I re-posted in my group):

"There is no need to recite feminist crapola in order to make your opposition to feminism acceptable. Women were always treated better than men in many ways. They have always enjoyed special rights that men don't have. They should not be "equal" under law because no female is ever equal to a man. Please, don't waste our time with that feminist crap. We don't need more male feminists."

He's referring to the fraudulent belief that feminism was "once" about equality and that women were worse off than men. Pretty much he says -- as I do -- that it is a load of horseshit. You may feel differently.

I agree with my member since any movement born out of KKK ideology is going to be based on hatred rather than equality.

The rest of your post, however, was right on point.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

I just received a response from the Philadelphia Inquirer. The response was written as follows:

"Thanks! Your letter has reached The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Here's how it works: The Readers Editor reads all submissions and narrows down the number under consideration. Then, if your letter is still in the mix, you will receive an e-mail (in addition to this one) seeking to verify your name, address and authorship of the letter. Please keep in mind that a verification e-mail does not guarantee that your letter will be published.

Because of the number of letters we receive, we cannot publish them all. However, letters on local topics that are not selected for the A-section page get a second chance to be published on the Regional Commentary Pages.

If your letter is chosen, please be aware that all letters are edited for length, accuracy and conformity with the Inquirer style. Our goal in editing always is to preserve the meaning you intended. If we have any editing questions about your intended meaning, we'll try to discuss them with you before publication.

We appreciate that you took the time to share your opinions with us, even if we were not able to print your letter. Please write again.

Sincerely,

Letters Editor

The Philadelphia Inquirer"

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

No surprise the Philadelphia Inquirer is one of the big companies that is run by a woman: Amanda Bennett.

The entire notion of "equality" gets really corrupted once you get special interest groups like feminists who want mandated equality of outcomes rather than fairly legislated equality of opportunity.

It would be pretty difficult to muster a convincing argument that women today lack equality of opportunity -- they're what now, 58% of all enrolled college and university students nationwide? Enjoying on average seven more years of life than men? With over 700 federal and state agencies and commissions looking after women's well-being, there being precisely zero for men?

And, can anyone name even a single socially approved form of discrimination against women?

When feminists decided to transform neo-Marxist class war ideology into gender war dogma and the screed about the "Evil Patriarchy," they foreclosed any logical discussion about equality. (Man powerful, woman victim - end of story, right?)

Feminists have been wailing hysterically about women being powerless for four decades now, at ever increasing volume and at ever increasing taxpayer expense. (VAWA now at $1.5 billion per year?)

If they were indeed powerless, wouldn't men have locked all these irritating, screeching harpies up by now?

...I had to share this with you guys..

In 1965, Senator Patrick Moynihan was condemned for his observation of the consequences of family breakdown:

"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos."

Rational expectations about the future? Now there's something completely missing from feminism.

FEMINISM-- Fuck Every Male Idiocy Now Is Socially Mandated

If you want to see how feminists react to rational expectations about the future, pay attention to how "not-quite-yet President Hillary" is responding to her latest poll numbers.

Behind Obama in Iowa. Losing the women's vote as well. Walking on razorblades about whether she can risk going negative because people already do not like her shrillness and angry poltergeist multi-personalities.

You gotta appreciate the ironies of a feminist female pol trying to out-victimize a smooth black man in modern America.

At least Obama hasn't played the race card.

Maybe Hillary and Barack could just face off and toss custard pies at fifty paces and call it an "election?"

Next time you see Mrs. Clinton on tee-vee, check out the look of panic in her eyes.

"Maybe Hillary and Barack could just face off and toss custard pies at fifty paces and call it an "election?'"

Now there's finally something I can vote for.

I often read and put in my two cents worth on the computer blogging now days, because I am now a Disabled Veteran...

During my career in the Army, I was an Equal Opportunity Facilitator to the Commander.
I did well at this role in my training, but as a Government organization Political Correctness often took precedence over the real issues at hand.

My question is do people really care about the facts? I don’t care how much you can support a debate with the facts, it is my opinion that most people and politicians’ only believe what they choose to believe!

I wish I could feel that truth in fact, was more prevalent than a “twisted truth” or lie (as I learned in my Christian education); but I really see little effect by those of us who challenge this politically charged world.

Racism, Sexism, Homosexual-ism, Fascism, Marxism, Conservatism, Liberalism, now called Traditionalism & Progressivism, the list goes on and on...

About the only “ism” not listed is Masculine’ism, heck that isn’t even real word! Mr. is a traditional title and Ms. was not, but you can find “Ms.”in the dictionary now days how come, is this because some people hated the idea of marriage or is it just backlash of malcontent women?

What about us malcontent men; I don’t know about you but I’m tired of apologizing to the world about the “Western Man’s” history.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that stated; something to the effect that if Civilization could have developed a government or society that functioned different and more effective concerning human relationships, they would have done it!

So do all us blogging have any effect at all concerning our societies positions?

It sure seems to me it DON’T; hate to be a defeatist but I’ve been fighting this fight all my life... Good Luck Men.

So do all us blogging have any effect at all concerning our societies positions?

Yes.

It sure seems to me it DON’T; hate to be a defeatist but I’ve been fighting this fight all my life... Good Luck Men.

Fighting what fight? You believe men should protect women simply because they are women. You're not "fighting any fight." Every post you make is brining outdated, idiotic ideals to light. It's like trying to force a square block into a round hole. You're just regurgitating used up fraudulent old traditions and advising men that ARE making a difference with their articles, "blogging", protesting, and anything else you label as insignificant -- to stop "because it won't work(even while changes are happening slowly but surely) -- while you're sitting on a MEN'S RIGHTS wesbite posting, which is quite hypocritical.

To tell the truth, I think you're a woman here to troll the forums with a bunch of false defeatist nonsense. I may be wrong. Either way since men like you DON'T make a difference you'll be ignored from now on.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

All I did was pose a question, what’s your problem wise guy?

I do not know how effective blogging really is, and that is what I said.

As far as my education being outdated or my values not being the same as yours well that’s just Tuff for you.

What makes you the expert on anything Bozo, do you think you run this organization?

Furthermore, who are you to say what others pay attention to; you are an ego maniac with the IQ of a toilet seat, so shove off!

What have you done for the Taxpayer asshole.

..well folks it seems the old warhorse mr. reality is giving the new GI on the block a warm welcome!!

OLD GI

..Internet blogging is actually a very effective tool to educate one another!!!
bounce around different mens rigths web sites for a little while, and you will see them growing!!

I thank you for informing me about the effectiveness of Men’s groups and blogging.

I am new to this type of activism, and it is nice to hear from someone that knows the ropes. The environment I came out of was not designed in assisting men’s needs, in separating them from females.

Even though we live in a “democratic” country often the needs of the minority are put above that of the majority. It is “back ass-ward” as our values are redefined daily.

I don’t like to use foul talk, and I hope I can be forgiven; but I don’t like personal attacks either. Thanks for writing back to me in an intelligent manner.

Old GI

I think that the issue between MrReality and OldGI runs much deeper than just values. Men jumping up to protect women from real and imagined threats is natural. It's hard-wired into us.

Which makes perfect sense. Back when humanity was living out of caves it was very important for the stronger males to defend the women and children from animals and other males at all costs. This was necessary to perpetuate the species.

Our bodies and minds are designed to keep us alive under primitive conditions, not to render impartial verdicts in court rooms, or to maintain objectivity while reading about defendents in newspapers. To jump up in defense of women under a wide variety of circumstances, to posture and attack other men, is perfectly normal. But this natural reaction is leading to horrific consequences in this age of so-called women's lib.

Some of us have had nightmarish experiences with the criminal justice systems of our countries which have opened our eyes. We've learned that at least on a political level, we can no longer afford to be chivalrous. We must struggle for our rights as men, or we will continue to be exploited.

But even many MRIs would still be playing the tired old game of saving damsels from other men or from themselves, if their personal experiences hadn't warned them away from it. So I fully understand both points of view being expressed, and I hope to see them reconciled. We have a lot of work to do before men are liberated, and we're fighting traditionalist+ socialist values, and against biology itself.

FEMINISM-- Fuck Every Male Idiocy Now Is Socially Mandated

"To jump up in defense of women under a wide variety of circumstances, to posture and attack other men, is perfectly normal. But this natural reaction is leading to horrific consequences in this age of so-called women's lib."

SoSickoftherelies,

I write this in answering the last two posts.

Absolutely correct, I agree and war is based in training and survival instincts.

Maybe training could allow men to function effectively beside women in a hostile environment, without instinct kicking in; but why subject the men to that additional stress? It does not make a bad soldier because they desire to protect a woman instinctively, unless you feel that training is the answer to all responses.

Maybe it is, but that is a sad note when considering the rites of men.

I had a Feminist tell me years ago, that men had to be re-trained how to think.

I sure hope that is not the case, I can’t stand someone telling me how to think, it reminds me of many a politician now days.

Respectfully,
Old GI

*Chuckles*

He's still talking shit from his foxhole -- located in his backyard -- while proudly displaying his antique militairy uniform. I'll bet he wears that thing while posting online.

Operation: Pathetic.

*Ignoring the fake ass G.I. Joe*

Moving on: Men are not hardwired to protect "women" in general. Men protect those they believe are weaker than themselves. They would just as easily protect a smaller man. It's that sense of justice that nearly every man has. The problem is there are men who still view women as "weak, soft, flowery creatures." In truth, what is killing men is their own flawed perceptions of women which the narcisisstic, self-serving, and quite manipulative western female takes full advantage of. That's why women always say "women and children" because in short a "child" needs to be protected.

Women play psychological games with men that cause men to do what women want. In all reality the man sees the woman as somewhat of a child, even though she is not(her actions are just a result of men doing things for her and thus she has never been forced to grow up). She perpetuates this cycle of men treating women by children, reaps the benefits and then cries oppression for a cycle she created. Thus gaining even more entitlements from men. It's a sick game they play and telling them they need to be protected because they are women perpetuates this fraudulent cycle although some has been do not know it as of yet.

Western women promote chivalry because it gives them power over men along with preferential treatment. That's why some of the main enemies we have is coddling and the female entitlement mentality.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

It appears women are very used to having their "nests" protected by the "builder of the castle." Men and women are both very territorial, but in recent times it appears it is men who are losing all their territory for the sack of women's.

It appears the law no longer treats a man's home as his castle, just a place he can stay, until the woman decides she wants him out of her nest. It's time for those "power and control freaks" to build their own lives without the assistance of men in anyway. Government subsidization (Government as husband and daddy) shows just how much women are insistent on having a provider.

Yes, it is time for men to help women - to help women take the baby pacifiers out of their mouths (end Gov't subsidies, privileges, perks + chivalry, etc.) and let them experience the full range of life efforts required to be equal to a man.

All that is required to begin to effect this change is for one man at a time to make the decision then work to effect it. Other men will eventually catch on, or (under gender feminism's boot heel) things will get worse, then more dullard men will catch on.

If femi-supremacism is as totalitarian as everyone suspects, and I suspect it is, they will keep pushing and pushing the femi-fascist agenda in government to the detriment of all males.

How much are you willing to take before standing up to the radical, gender feminist, male-demonizing, male-bashing, man-hating agenda?

*Men protect those they believe are weaker than themselves. They would just as easily protect a smaller man.*

I disagree. I think that men love to bully smaller men, so they can prove what a bunch of tough guys they are for the ladies. This is why judges are so biased against men, in favor of women-- including conservative judges, who should be the polar opposites of socialist feminists.

FEMINISM-- Fuck Every Male Idiocy Now Is Socially Mandated

Yes, it is time for men to help women - to help women take the baby pacifiers out of their mouths (end Gov't subsidies, privileges, perks + chivalry, etc.) and let them experience the full range of life efforts required to be equal to a man.

All that is required to begin to effect this change is for one man at a time to make the decision then work to effect it. Other men will eventually catch on, or (under gender feminism's boot heel) things will get worse, then more dullard men will catch on.

Quoted for Truth.

Any man that still thinks a so-called "real man"(according to their opinion) should run around protecting women simply because they are "women" needs to wake up and smell the coffee. As a business owner I am always looking for a decent return on my investment. The majority of women will not stand up and die for me if I do so for them. Thus I don't do it. The only thing women deserve is what they earn. No pedestals, no chivalry.

Protect your homes, land, goals, and assets. Not women.

In case some of the chivalrous relics out in the world did not notice slavery was outlawed sometime ago..

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

I disagree. I think that men love to bully smaller men, so they can prove what a bunch of tough guys they are for the ladies. This is why judges are so biased against men, in favor of women-- including conservative judges, who should be the polar opposites of socialist feminists.

Sounds like you got teased alot when you were young. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how it sounds. Sadly, I have seen many "big brother style" protection incidents between big men and small men.

The truth is men are trained to see women as weaker and thus in "need" of protection. They are also socialized to see men as "needing it more" than women(referring to sex of course), which gives women an advantage based on a lie. Women are more sexual than men; this is fact. A man has no bodily organ 100% dedicated to sexual gratification, women do. Also, a woman can have multiple orgasms. All of this adds up to women training men that they must compete with -- and consistently prove themselves against -- other men in return for the woman's pathetic favor. It's a holdover from medieval times when men would challenge each other for a shot of putrid vagina.

That's why "some men" try to act tough in front of women. However, with the marriage strike I don't see that nearly as much anymore. I hardly see men complimenting women anymore. Which is a GOOD thing.

As far as the small man/big man theory I am speaking of being in a fight. I have seen plenty of larger men come to the rescue of the small guy in fights if the small guy is being picked on or harmed.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

There's such a thing as evolutionary psychology, Mr"reality." No wait, I'm wasting my time. Just believe what you want. Attack other men who otherwise agree with you; see if I care.

FEMINISM-- Fuck Every Male Idiocy Now Is Socially Mandated

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach to "actual psychology." The scientific nature of this "theory" is in question. It may be based on facts, but that has not been concluded as of yet. To be "So sick of THEIR lies" you're sure telling a few whoppers yourself every now and then.

Also, just because there is such a theory does not necessarily mean that is what is at work. Especially if it is only hypothetical at the moment.

Socialization however is quite real and facts show that men are socialized to pander to women. This goes beyond natural male/female attraction. Men are told that "all they want is one thing" over and over and over until they begin to believe it. The feminized media then bombards men with messages that they must have sex daily. If you read "Spin Sisters" you will see how many of the programs are controlled by powerful women. My statement about women being more sexual than men is a biological FACT not a theory. The FACT that women have an organ 100% dedicated to sexual gratification and men don't can be verified. So can the other FACTS I pointed out about how men are "programmed" from birth with tons of responsiblities.

Like you said, believe what the fuck you want buddy. Reality does not require your agreement to exist.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

GI..Mr. Reality...Pardon my diplomatic pretensions....but!!

...One charectoristic of a greater, more effective (leader type) man is the ability to dis-agree with others...but continue to press allong in a common direction !!

Ok, ok, I admit in having a traditional 19th Century view of men’s & women’s roles, and Feminist hate me for it, (come to think of it I guess some men do too) as exhibited on this forum.

Anyway, I got a legitimate question; “how do we live with women, and particularly feminist in the 21st Century?”

Draggin um around by the hair, caused an uprising we are still paying for...

Old GI
____________________________________________

I got to share a little story: When I was in Alaska in the early 80’s I asked a trapper if they had a problem with “Women’s Lib” up there?

The guy just laughed and said: “let me tell you something, if I didn’t go out trapping and hunting; and my wife didn’t split wood, preserve food, take care of the baby and keep our cabin going we would all be dead! We ain’t got time to argue who does what!”

So “just maybe” technologies got something to do with all this power struggle B.S. today.

I'd like to think that all of us here are intelligent not to "live with" feminists, in this or any other century! I think that a more important question is how do we deal with them, and the answer is by reaching out to men who've been shafted by the legal systems of their respective countries, and encouraging them to embrace a broad view of men's rights, and by getting them to become politically active.

In the US, 900,000 men per year are targetted with restraining orders. Can you imagine if one tenth of them became hardcore MRIs, donating $50 or more per year to the men's rights cause of their choice? You'd hear a lot less about men being framed on rape charges, that's for sure.

FEMINISM-- Fuck Every Male Idiocy Now Is Socially Mandated

...have one very important thing in common if nothing else; we are both men and we both support men's rights.

Let's focus on that for now.

My apologies to Sosickoftheirlies, it's funny that we started arguing though -- since we usually hardly ever disagree.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

It was bound to happen though, since we think as individuals as not as sheep repeating the party line. (Unlike a certain social movement I can think of...)

FEMINISM-- Fuck Every Male Idiocy Now Is Socially Mandated

GI brings up some good points, and I admire his experience on this issue.

But, I have to go with Mr Reality on this one. Men are hardwired to protect the weak, it's a part of chivalry.

Chivalry is not about women at all, it's about doing what is right and protecting all creatures who are being bullied or oppressed, any creature.

Women have used this against us for centuries, now they have almost killed it off for good, or maybe they have already.

So now, we men are at each others throats over this. The manginas won't give up chivalry, and the rest of us are wondering why we should keep doing it.

As a few others have stated, the feminist movement is failing because men are finnally standing up to the hypocracy. I believe men around the world are beggining to look at chivalry in a whole new light, and they see how it has been used against us.

Keep up the good work with the informative posts. We're going to win this fight. I don't even know why women would start such a ridiculous squabble. The sheer greed and self-absorption of the majority of the female gender trumps common sense once again.

These cows actually believe men pandering to them is THEIR RIGHT and they are actually fighting to keep men enslaved. Unbe-fucking-lievable. The arrogance of women knows no limits.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

""I'd like to think that all of us here are intelligent not to "live with" feminists, in this or any other century! I think that a more important question is how do we deal with them,""

You are so right, it is not just a matter of simply living with Feminism - it’s dealing with them!
That’s brilliant, and so obvious I don’t know how I missed it!

You are also correct when you say it doesn’t matter what century you live in...
So there’s hope for the future!

Thanks Sosickofthierlies, you really got a gift for focusing on the issues, and it is never from a selfish position, the world needs more men like yourself.

Startin to learn something here...

C.U.N.T = Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.
(an oldie but a goodie)

I never recited "feminist crapola", other than to agree with the 18th century notion that started the women's movement: the idea that women should be equal before the law, and should have the right to vote and to own property. If you know the history of the women's movement, you know that what we call feminism started out around 1795, and that the first widely-published feminist pamphlets were written by the same man who publicized the cause of ending slavery. At the time, I would have been a firm supporter of their cause. But that was two centuries ago, and much has changed.

Don't mistake someone who considers men and women to be equally important parts of the human race for a feminist. I'm not.

...feminist propaganda. You also require a refresher on supporting "men's rights" rather than regurgitating woman-centric nonsense. I'll be glad to oblige, but after that I am through with you. There are already enough self-hating men on the feminists' side to deal with after all..

Your group might need a refresher on early feminism

"Egalitarianism" is not "feminism" which denotes a woman-only ideology, not equality.

I never recited "feminist crapola", other than to agree with the 18th century notion that started the women's movement: the idea that women should be equal before the law, and should have the right to vote and to own property.

Not without equal responsibility and accountability they don't. In truth, part of what started the notion of a "women's" movement were the early writings of heart-broken, seriously deluded men whom postulated the notion of women as being emotional, intuitive, in touch with nature, and creatures of boundless love.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_23/ai_54600098

These men in effect "deified" women and this in turn leads us further down the dark road of female narcisissm.

If you know the history of the women's movement, you know that what we call feminism started out around 1795,

False. A term close to "feminism"(It was not referred to as the English term feminism) did not even surface until the late 1800s -- by romanticists -- in France, born more out of numerous ridiculous romantic notions of women as superior, pristine symbols of virtue and/or even godly rather than actual facts.

The true origin of actual modern day "feminism"(Not earlier French romanticism or notions of egalite') has a much darker origin although just as fraudulent and ignorant.

and that the first widely-published feminist pamphlets were written by the same man who publicized the cause of ending slavery.

Writing about something that did exist does not necessarily verify the existence of something else said person writes about. I can write 2+2 =4 and then turn around and write an article on aliens from outerspace. One does not verify the other.

At the time, I would have been a firm supporter of their cause.

I'm a firm supporter of equal outcomes for equal work, not feminism which was never based on what I support. Feminism was born out of lies, greed, and WKKK ideology and is a much different thing than actual equality.

It's just too bad you don't realize this.

Thus a portion of my mission is two-fold:

1. To destroy lies that promote "feminism" as "equality" usually based on the fraudulent claim that women who support feminism are actually about equality. This means -- in part -- exposing women that claim to want equality but still seek entitlements and lighter jail sentences than men.

2. To eradicate the chivalrous notion that men must always protect women -- even to their own detriment -- while at the same time giving no leeway for female greed and narcisissm.

Don't mistake someone who considers men and women to be equally important parts of the human race for a feminist. I'm not.

You're doing enough supporting of feminist ideology to be called one. You feminist...

No equal rights without equal responsiblities. A gender that is not required to register for the draft should not be given the right to cast votes in a government and country they are not required -- by law -- to defend in the time of need. When women say "equal" they really mean "preferential treatment" and the exclusion of responsibility for those rights. Feminism was built upon such a hypocritical attitude along with male doormats believing in it. Like you do.

In conclusion: Trying to show a man that panders to women the light is like trying to have cows grow wings. It's a useless battle. Have fun arguing with yourself. I'm spent on this discourse..

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

I knew it was a mistake to re-engage a troll.

As I've said in the past: you're a misogynist, a hatemonger and worse still, you're a loudmouthed, bigoted idiot.

Not to mention the fact that you're a troll who regularly bashes MRAs. Good plan, moron.

You do more harm to the men's movement than feminists could ever dream of doing.

So why don't you crawl back into that hole under your bridge and die already, leaving us grown-ups to chat, OK?

(Sorry about the name-calling Scott, but this fruitcake's long overdue for a taste of his own medicine).

The “rights with responsibilities” thing gets a little tricky if you start to closely examine what people believe they have to do to minimally fulfill their “responsibilities.”

For example, the typical American believes they have fulfilled all of their responsibilities as a citizen of a supposed Democracy, by simply going into a voting booth once every four years and punching a card or touching a screen button, to elect the millionaire lawyer of their “choice.”

One of my political mentors called this America’s “five-second democracy.”

The ratio between rights and responsibilities gets hard to define, when you choose to look at the details.

BTW – It saddens me to read two of my favorite MANN posters engaging in ad hominem vitriol. (I appreciate diversity of thought and articulate expression as the bedrocks of real democracy, and I don't have to agree with a poster here to respect their qualities...)

As Neil Young sang in my home town just a couple weeks ago –

“And there ain't nothin'
like a friend,
Who can tell you
you're just pissin'
in the wind…”

(Ambulance Blues)

My comment was certainly vitriolic, but there's only so much hate and MRA-bashing I can take, especially when it's coming from someone who's so far off-base. It was late, and I was tired. Hence the flames.

It's not a matter of agreeing/disagreeing - there's nothing to agree/disagree with in the post I reacted to, and there's some serious irrationality going on therein. Ultimately, there are some very faint and distorted shadows of what we're all after in MrReality's post, but for some reason, he reads the idea that both men and women deserve to be treated as equally valuable human beings as "feminism" or anti-male when it's nothing of the kind.

All of this suggests to me that MrReality is not dealing well with reality. Ask yourself: what sort of state of mind is required to call me a "feminist", based on everything I've written around here? Or to mis-read what I wrote so badly? Again, given what he wrote, I have to question MrReality's apparently tenuous hold on "reality".

The more human response on my part should have been concern for a fellow man's well-being, and I do fear that MrReality is not well.

RandomMan, so far as I can tell, it is always "late" for MRAs and we typically get accused of vitriol when we speak/write honestly.

You can even get banned from most so-called men's sites if you don't put the rhetorical toilet seat down after you censor yourself.

(Dr. SYG taught me that. Also Mike LaSalle.)

Personally, since I like to abbreviate posters' handles like RM and MR, I'm starting to get a bit confused.

One of you makes a lotta sense.

The other one ... not so much.

;-)

Nothing but more Ad Hominem attacks from the peanut gallery complete with well-categorized "anti-male shaming tactics" just like feminists.

*sigh*

Why am I not surprised? Just in case the fake MRA wack jobs were unaware; FACTS don't require agreement from two idiots on Men's Activism.

I think I'll leave you two to your male-bashing business. Carry on weaklings..

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek