Australia: Dumped PM Kevin Rudd 'wanted to see a female prime minister'

Male feminists, among other things, are just plain dumb. Now dumb is a state of mind while stupid is an action. Dumbness leads to stupid actions, most times but not always. There are very smart people who do stupid things, and very dumb people who do smart things. But usually, dumb --> stupid.

I'll bet Mr Rudd is considered smart by many, and overall, he may well be. But he also may be dumb. Or, smart, but did something stupid in an ongoing sort of way. That'd be, of course, supporting and furthering feminism. Why? Because feminism is so obviously about knocking men down and trampling on them that for a man to support it shows he's either a) dumb or b) smart but acting stupid. Mr. Rudd seems genuinely surprised that the following chain occurred:

1) As PM, he supported Australia having a female PM
2) A female pol with such ambitions appeared
3) She worked within the party to oust the current PM and get herself the backing needed to get appointed to the office

Rarely does a PM in any country who is otherwise popular, healthy, etc. voluntarily leave the post. He is almost always "ousted" via internal politics (it's not like the US where the peple at large keep or oust the president). But did Mr Rudd think that if a female PM candidate appeared she wouldn't do the same thing everyone else does? I mean, really?

This sort of reminds me of the male college prof who is all about having more and more female profs join the faculty. But when tenure review comes up, he's told he won't be getting it because there's only room in the budget for two new full-time but tenured profs, and the admin'n has decided they both have to go to women to "level the playing field," or something like that. But even worse-- sorry, we have to let you go, professor. We need the money to fund the positions they're getting.

In short, if you're male and you side with feminists, don't be surprised if they treat you like the "useful idiot" that you are-- once used for their purposes, you'll be summarily discarded.

BTW, nothing in the foregoing should be taken as meaning or implying that there's anything wrong with a country having a female PM, though Australia's current female PM doesn't seem to exercise "gender-blindness" or "true inclusivity". Like all pols, eventually her sins will catch up to her and she'll lose her job. Happens to everyone, you can't be at the top forever when both others and one's natural lifespan are working night and day to see you replaced. And could you still be an effective PM at the age of 110? Probably not. Eventually, you need to retire or take the red card from the ref (in this case, that'd be the Governor-General of Australia). What it does say is this: Any man who actively pursues and supports the idea of men getting replaced in a role that he himself holds really shouldn't be suprised when he gets blind-sided by a woman who is indeed puruing that goal earnestly. I mean, what do you expect? Pols, of all people, should realize that power is a zero-sum game. Whenever someone gets more, someone else gets less.

One of the Big Lies feminists told in the '70s was that both power and economic opportunities would expand as women began competing with men in the workplace. Most economists knew this for what it was: BS. But the avg. person bought the line. Economists know that as the number of ppl pursuing a good (in this case, power and stuff) goes up, the fewer ppl as a proportion of the new population will get it and so the price will go up. Just as important, the number if ppl who got some of the good will drop, in some cases, will not get any of it. This is what happened to Mr Rudd and indeed to men in all sorts of areas (think Title IX, lack of repro choice, lack of fair representation in "family courts", etc.). Only unless or until men generally realize (and start acting like) we are in an overt competition with women as a class for limited resources of all kinds, our fortunes and status will continue to wane. We have no trouble competing with one another for stuff, yet when faced with women, we become naive or just cave in. It's that phenomenon that, if it continues, will be our ultimate downfall as an economic and political class of person.

Sun Tsu wrote about war two and a half thousand years ago, and his works have been referred to ever since. One of the most powerful tenets of his words is that you don't win wars by fighting your enemy directly, especially if your enemy is more powerful than you; you win by outmanoeuvring the enemy, by frustrating their ability to respond, by removing their capacity to fight. If your enemy is unable to fight back, then you have won.

And that, my friends, is what's happening to us.

We have been royally outmanoeuvred when it comes to women, and our options for fighting back are getting more and more limited. Think about it.

It is acceptable, even laudable (in the eye of society) for a woman to be a feminist, to become an active fighter for the rights and supremacy of women. Yet it is completely unacceptable (in the eye of society) for a man to hold the same position, he comes a chauvinist pig, a misogynist, an anachronistic barbaric Neanderthal who deserves derision.

It is acceptable for women, men and society as a whole to put the needs of women first. Whether that is reproductive rights, health care or any other form of support right down to being first off the sinking ship, women can be first in line. Whereas putting a man first is seen as selfish and hateful.

In other words we're in a war of attrition where not only are we not allowed to fight back, but it's unacceptable even to nail our colours to the wall and verbally support our own side.

I am not promoting or suggesting violence or aggression in any form whatsoever, just drawing a parallel between the plight of mens rights as a whole and the reality of war. When it comes to mens rights and our current situation, even Sun Tsu would give it up as a lost cause....

Sun Tsu also mentioned a few other things:

"Know your enemy as you should know yourself and you will never taste defeat."

Feminists may have outmaneuvered men and society, but they have many weak points.
1. Hatred of Men -- How many people will accept someone who explicitly hates any group?
2. A whole variety of double standards.
3. A number of initiatives that enrich women at the expense of men and society.

Feminists may have men in a bind but it doesn't mean we can't push back. Pick a weak point and push. Bring friends.

Here is one idea: Push for a law exempting rape victims from the responsibilities of the results of that crime. That's right, no more 9 year old boys having to pay child support to their rapists. What would the general public think of anyone opposing that? The unfortunate implication of that is that it would give men a financial incentive to cry "rape" as a response to unplanned pregnancies and impending child support. And with weakened standards in rape cases, feminists would know they have to oppose such an initiative.

A lot of times it is a matter of attacking the edifice of feminism one brick at a time while looking like you're just correcting a single inaccurate statement. Destroy enough bricks and the Temple of Feminism starts to get kind of rickety.

Wonder what Sun Tzu would say... this isn't a military war and that was his world, though agreed a lot of basic principles are transferrable because his ideas were not particular to warfare.  They were really just competitive psychology and strategy applied to physical warfare (though he also discussed other things in The Art of War as well, such as public administration).  Competitive psychological principles need not be militarily applied.  They are applicable to sales meetings, sports competitions, business decisions, all sorts of things-- wherever there's a conflict of interest, they're useful.  And as feminism shows, they are not gender-specific.

This particular conflict it may be suggested doesn't really have an end-game, unless you might suggest as certain of the nuttier feminists want, a categorical elimination of human males.  As long as there are men and there are feminists, the conflict either will be there or has the potential to arise.  But if you want to see what a feminist "victory" looks like, you have only to look at parts of the inner cities of many of America's cities: Large numbers of single mothers living off welfare, their kids supported by public assistance.  No husband, and in many cases, no desire for one, either.  The result: Poverty, drugs, directionlessness  and gang violence.  If that's a "victory", I'd say it's pretty Pyrrhic.

Deleted, moved