Enter your search terms Submit search form

Epistle of Gisogod to the Washingtonians

Education

In recent years, girls in the Western world have tended to perform better at all educational levels. They are doing better than boys because just about everything in education has been arranged to bring this about. It's a conspiracy.

The feminist-indoctrinated teaching establishments want to cater for girls not boys. They want girly methods, girly subjects, girly material, girly testing procedures and girly syllabuses. Educationalists over the past thirty years have done their best to arrange matters so that girls are supported academically while, at the same time, they have stripped away anything that assisted the achievement of boys under the claim that it was sex-discriminatory not to do so.
The educational environment has been arranged to advantage girls specifically.

1. The element of competition has been removed - and competition is a great motivator for the male gender.

2. The assessment of many subjects is heavily based on coursework. This requires that children put in a more consistent performance throughout their schooling. Boys, however, are simply less motivated to work hard week by week and they are simply less able to maintain the docile consistency required of them. It does not suit their nature nor society's general expectations of them.

3. Strong classroom discipline and clear organisation have been abandoned by educationalists in favour of more informal settings. This has been a disaster for boys who need much firmer discipline both because of their nature and of their relative immaturity when compared to girls in the younger age groups.

4. Interpretation, empathy and creative writing are now believed to have more to do with 'real' education than the development of memory, logical thinking and focused argument. But it is in these latter skills that boys tend to excel. The devaluation of their status within the curriculum has directly undermined the chances of boys doing well in comparison to girls. Boys prefer to tackle hard facts, logic and rules, which need to be mastered, rather than to emote over something.

5. The course materials selected by schools are more 'female friendly' and of less interest to boys. This has had the effect of inspiring girls with a greater enthusiasm for schoolwork, while at the same time putting many boys off it.

6. There is an horrendous lack of male teachers in the primary school sector, and the lack of good educationally-oriented male role models is known to have very damaging effects on boys' attitudes toward schooling and education. Further, female teachers are often not able to gain the respect of boys who often resent the fact that they are 'moaned at' by women during daytime when at school, and then they are moaned at again by women when they get back home. Boys know that they are not going to grow up into women, and, in the educational arena, they feel somewhat isolated and alienated from the adult male gender into which they are going to develop.

7. Many female teachers are openly hostile toward boys. As with the rest of society they have been indoctrinated with the view that males, their values and their attitudes, are worthless. Feminist teachers see it as their job to advantage girls over boys educationally, and they dismiss any recommendations that might help the boys to perform better. For feminist teachers, boys are the enemy, and they need to be disempowered.

8. School reports to parents of children in the state sector say virtually nothing of interest and do not help parents at all in assessing how well their children are doing academically. School reports seem to do little but give a feeble idea of what the children 'have achieved'. Given that parents have little idea about what should be achieved, these reports mean very little to them. Nearly all parents are told that their children are doing well, and negative statements have virtually been proscribed. Boys are far more in need of regular monitoring than girls in order to ensure that they are keeping up to standards. Given the poorer current attitudes of boys to education, their greater propensity to be distracted and disruptive, and the fact that the education system does so little to inspire them, the failure to provide parents with accurate school reports when a boy is underachieving means that by the time they realise what is going on, it is too late to do anything about it.

9. The funding for boys' special needs is truly abysmal. The result is an extremely high failure rate for thousands of boys for whom the system does not cater at all. These then seek solace, status and satisfaction in areas far removed from education. These boys often turn their energies toward activities which are hardly conducive to educational achievement. The 'youth culture' promoted by the media and the marketeers, has enticed the interests of boys away from education and toward fashion, music, clubs, alcohol, videogames, drugs and girls.

10. 'Language' and 'academics' are almost synonymous in the educational sphere. It is clear that the best cognitive predictor of a child's future academic performance is the child's ability to deal with language. Girls have a definite inherent advantage in the language sphere compared to boys.

11. For thirty years educational establishments have used one of the poorest methods of teaching reading one could possibly devise. Despite all the evidence showing that this was not a good way to teach children to read, the feminist-indoctrinated educationalists - believing that girls were stronger than boys in right-brain functions - determined to advantage girls by forcing children to use right-brain, 'holistic' methods when learning to read. They are currently doing the same sort of thing in the area of Maths.

The idea behind teaching children to read using the 'holistic' approach was to disadvantage the boys. Refusing to teach the alphabet and replacing it with a phony look-say method of reading (recognition of the shape of words) disadvantages all children, but especially the boys. Much of the feminist-controlled teaching profession does not want an emphasis on phonics, because even though it would raise the reading standard of all the children, it would raise the standards of the boys more so than the standards of the girls.

The result has been that the reading abilities of all children have been retarded by some two years. But the aim of such educationalists was to advantage girls relative to boys, not to maintain high standards of reading achievement. And this, they have achieved.

Why is it that the educational establishments have, for so long, refused to teach reading using the best methods. The feminist influence within the educational departments of universities is not directed at helping children to learn. The feminist aim is to hold back the boys relative to the girls, and the Marxist aim is to make everyone the same by keeping everyone at the lowest level. The aims of the educational establishments in the universities are political rather than educational. Their resistance to anything that will improve the educational standards of children is partly due to the fact that the better the system is, the wider the performance gaps will be between children and, hence, the resulting adults.

Feminist influences are always to the detriment of boys. If millions of young men are functionally illiterate now, it is because the feminist-indoctrinated teaching establishments managed to persuade teachers to adopt a very inferior method for teaching reading, sometimes described as the Look-Say method. The idea behind this was to give girls an advantage over boys by teaching all children to approach their learning through more holistic, right-brained methods as opposed to allowing them to use their left-brained functions - logic, analysis, sequential processing etc. The fact that this policy continued to result in a deterioration of language skills for both the girls and the boys over three decades was immaterial to the feminist groups, whose only concern was that girls would be better off educationally than boys.

Boys are more left-brained, they approach the learning of reading by using a sequential, phonetic route. Girls, on the other hand, are more right-brained, and they attend more to the overall shapes of words when learning to read. The feminists thought that the wholistic approach to teaching reading would therefore be better for girls than for boys, and so they ensured that schools adopted this method. And the fact that the reading standards of both boys and girls suffered as a result made no difference at all to them.

The failure of the teaching profession to employ phonic methods for teaching reading over the past few decades has resulted in inestimable damage. Despite all the evidence accumulated over the years demonstrating that non-phonic techniques were decidedly inferior methods for both sexes - but particularly for boys - the educationalists demanded that phonics were not taught at school. The diabolical way in which reading has been taught for the past three decades led to a large decline in the reading skills of both boys and girls. The  feminist-indoctrinated teacher-training colleges nevertheless insisted on pursuing this course exactly because the boys would be significantly disadvantaged compared to girls. The degradation of the education of boys was no accident.

It is worth pointing out that even in the area of Mathematics the feminist influences continue to be detrimental to boys. What the feminist-controlled educational academics are purposely doing through their universities is  bringing in new teaching methods in Maths to ensure that girls outperform the boys. The progress of all children will be retarded when it comes to basic Maths, but it is the boys who will lose out the most. We already know that feminist ideology pervades nearly all government departments. And no departments are more ridden with this sex-discriminatory ideology than those in the world of education.

Various teacher-training establishments are now imposing on young children in the UK 'new' methods for doing adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. And these methods are almost as bankrupt and destructive to the children's future educational development as was the method they have been using to teach reading. The main reasons for these new ideas in the area of Maths are the same: to stop the more able children moving forward too quickly and to disadvantage the boys relative to the girls.

Feminists do not like to see boys doing better than girls, and they do not like the science subjects - they see them as being 'phallo-centric' - which is one of the main reasons why the science subjects in the UK are on the decline - both at school and at the university - and why the standards achieved therein are nowadays so appallingly low. This has happened despite the fact that the resources handed over to the educational system have increased enormously over the past decades.

Furthermore, children with special learning difficulties (mostly boys) have had imposed upon them teaching methods that will simply exacerbate their problems.

Given all the above, it is hardly surprising that boys are doing less well than girls and that they are also less enthusiastic about achieving high educational standards. The most important factors known to influence educational performance are nearly all stacked against them.

Boys are continually being short-changed in western educational systems by being denied access to curricula that contain much that is of interest to them. They are also being forced daily to deal with their school work through a feminine and feminist perspective.

For the past three decades, just about every single card in the educational book has been played specifically to disadvantage boys relative to girls, regardless of the cost to all children and to society as a whole.

Why Boys Don't Count in education

Many studies on girls in school and have found that girls on average do not perform any better in a single sex environment than they do in normal schools. This is quite disappointing to feminists who were hoping that girl students were merely oppressed by the boy students and that was why they had inferior marks. Why did they not speak up as often as the boys in math class? The same reason that they did not speak up in the all-girl classroom. They did not know the answer!

A while back, feminists pressured the makers of Barbie to pull the new speaking version of the doll off the market? One of the phrases that Barbie said was, “Math is hard!” The feminists were livid. They could hardly contain themselves and got the doll pulled from the shelves. The very idea that math might be considered hard was a threat to their little empire. Girls are so delicate, females so fragile, that the very idea of something being difficult will dissuade them from even attempting it.

Society’s liberal feminist leaders are insane because they condemn, ridicule and penalize those who have done well in the past. The American culture is battered in the class room. Those so unfortunate as to be members of the white race are put down. Those who happen to be of the male gender are ignored. Everything that has worked in the past, and everyone who has made valuable contributions to history, or has made a huge success in business is belittled and an attempt is made to intellectually destroy that person, concept or ideal.

The American Association of University Women is unconcerned with the boys in the classroom. The fact that the boys would be putting their education to work in a job, which males have been doing all along, make them of no consequence. Many women will start a job and give it up for their families and especially their children. The men will put their education to work in almost every case. This means that, as far as getting an education is concerned, the most important students in any classroom are the males. The females must be considered lesser students because less of them will be using their education for productive labor. Since this is an undeniable fact, why do feminist teachers ignore the boys?

The feminist mind can be seen busily at work, spinning its twisted web of personal insanity, and driving the educational system into ruin. Boys do not count for feminists. Whether sad lesbians or merely anti-male for some other reason, they are only focused on how the female can take the place of the male in our society. So, is it any wonder that they do not care about boys in school? Do they care at all whether a boy succeeds, optimizing his potential? No, it appears that they don't even care about the girls in school either. All they really are concerned with is their political agenda, no matter how many will be hurt by it.

Health

There exist an enormous disparity in the spending on men and women in the healthcare system. In Western countries, women live longer than males by a margin of about seven years on average; but at the same time there are many more health centers catering for women's special health needs than for men's needs. As example, funding for prostate cancer research in the US and across the Western world is significantly lower than for breast cancer, which is less common.

Suicide rates are significantly higher for males of all age groups. Workplace deaths and injuries occur at a higher rate for men. As for domestic violence, the percentage of shelters for battered men should make up a respective percentage of all shelters. Battered men and their children should be allowed to be admitted and receive assistance from shelters.

Western men die some seven years earlier than women. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on men's health. Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys. Men make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes as boys. They are many times more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media. Men also pay much more in taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government.

In other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to their health, their homes, their children, their education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even when it comes to their own personal safety. They are nowadays also being heavily discriminated against in the work place. How is it possible, therefore, that women still claim that they are being 'oppressed' more than men? In what areas? Where?

The UN Gender Agenda Cheats Men: on practically every indicator, the health of men lags in comparison to women. In almost every country around the world, men have a shorter life expectancy than women. One Dad On The Brink said then - "I am not surprised about the number of men committing suicide, considering their living condition..."

JUSTICE

It is often claimed that men and women now stand far more on an equal footing than they did some decades ago. Women can nowadays kick their husbands out of their homes, deny them access to their own children, and, in many western countries, even make them continue paying for children who are not even theirs! There are now some 20 times as many men in western prison cells as women. Men currently die, on average, some 7 years earlier than women. And so on, and this is supposed to be greater equality?

Men And Divorce. The stories are always the same: she took his house, his car, and his kids. She made more money than him and he still had to pay alimony. She accused him of physical abuse and the courts didn't even ask for evidence.

There are numerous situations wherein men are clearly being mistreated very severely by western governments and their justice systems. Activists seem constantly amazed at how this can be happening. Men can be thrown out of their homes, falsely accused, denied access to their children and so on - without any redress! Throughout the western world many men are now lobbying their politicians and protesting.

Politicians and the government workers have gradually 'discovered' that a great way to maintain big government is to break down people's close relationships and their families. This is why western governments nowadays do all that they can to interfere with people's relationships and why it is that feminists - and feminist thinking - are now so entrenched within government departments.

They positively thrive on the social disharmony and the discord that they create, by corrupting the justice system so that men will always be at the mercy of selfish, irrational and provocative women. If the laws in the UK continue to support the actions of those women instead of ensuring fair play and even-handedness, then men will continue to be violent toward them. It is those politically-correct and feminist laws designed to deny men equality and justice in their relationships that drive them to act violently. The laws themselves are a MAJOR cause of domestic violence across the nation.

Anti-Father Child Custody Courts by making allegations of fault (true or false, major or petty) against the male, guarantee that the female can usually get the children and his money. He will be thrown out of his home, denied access to his children and divorced with impunity. The idea behind all these actions is to make it very difficult for men to maintain close relationships.

This is why men now have to walk on eggshells in their dealings with women and children. They can be accused at the drop of a hat of sexual harassment in the workplace, of domestic violence and sex-assault at home, of abusing their own children, and the government will immediately step in and attempt to persecute and prosecute them in some way; even when there is not a shred of objective evidence in support of the case.

There is Gender Bias In Sentencing - Being male increases jail sentence lengths more than any other variable. We can also talk of Gendercide Incarceration, and the capital punishment is the most gender-selective of all repressive institutions. In most countries of the world, the proportion of those incarcerated and executed is at least 95 percent male, often higher.

Western governments are ploughing millions of dollars annually into demonising men through various bogus and highly-inflammatory campaigns associated with domestic violence and sex-assault, and they are constantly urging women to come forward to allege that they have been abused in some way. When it comes to children, there is nowadays an enormous amount of governmental effort being expended on luring them away even from their mothers.

Judges themselves are causing social problems. A judge will try a divorce case in the morning and place the children in the mother's custody. He will try a criminal case in the afternoon and send a man to prison for robbing a liquor store. The chances are three out of four that the criminal he sends to prison grew up in a female headed household, just like the one he himself created that morning when he tried the divorce case. Now we know that fatherlessness is a major factor when it comes to violent crime. As such, any government that promotes single motherhood also promotes violent crime!

This is not good for men. It is not good for women. And it is certainly not good for children. But it is wonderful for the government, the abuse industry, and the feminists.

THE ACCUSERS

MOST women CAN behave in a selfish, irrational and provocative manner - and can also now get away with it. These women are some of the most selfish people on the planet. They are emotionally-deficient, not normal, caring only for themselves, and they willfully damage others.
Men know this - and many of them will simply avoid the commitment of any close relationship for they will not wish to be the helpless victims of our senseless unjust legal system.

We should be conscious that a woman who kills her husband will be cheered by feminist groups. She may even receive a medal or an award for bravery from the British government. "Most women arriving at refuge centres are MORE violent, even toward their children, than are the men they are supposedly escaping from." In other words, where there is mutual violence in the home, the women themselves are often the main culprits. Evidence suggests very strongly indeed that women who kill their partners are not, in general, the weeping wallflowers that feminists like to portray them to be. They are often very violent, very manipulative, and impossible to deal with. And they really know how to provoke and hurt people.

This is covered up by the feminist media of course. A woman had served some time in prison for killing her boyfriend. But, following vociferous claims from various women's groups that she had acted in self-defence against his violence, she was released. When she was out of prison only for ten days, she admitted that she was already in another abusive relationship with a man who 'slapped her about' frequently. The feminist view that all women are victims is a 'cover-up' about the true nature of most women who kill their partners. In general, women who kill their partners are not usually the 'weak and defenceless' type. Evidence shows that it is very rare for 'weak and defenceless' women to kill anybody. Feminists however will always try to stir up male hatred whatever the situation and whatever the figures show. In the case of intimate-partner homicides, the men who kill their partners are demonised, and so are the men who are killed by their partners. Whatever men do - even if they are killed - the feminists will stir up hatred towards them.

RAPE: False allegations

The government tempts women with money to allege abuse. It then ushers them into the courtrooms under the cloak of anonymity in the hope that they can conjure up convictions out of thin air without the need for any proper evidence.

Whenever a woman wants a bit of power, or a bit of revenge, it seems that her mind quickly turns to making wild and false allegations of abuse. There are thousands of men who have been convicted of sexual offences but are completely innocent. And there are thousands of false accusers who are permitted to remain anonymous and to get away with their foul deeds - and, mostly, profiting in some way. And yet our two-faced politicians not only say and do nothing; they have actually made matters worse throughout the years, simply in order to pander to the histrionics of groups of dysfunctional women - and to gather in their votes.

If you still believe that western justice systems presume a man to be innocent of assaults against women until proved otherwise, take note of two things. Firstly, the official assumption is that the man is guilty, not innocent ... Secondly, proof is not required for men to be convicted. The mere testimony of a single woman is all that is necessary to achieve a conviction. There is often no evidence in some cases but the testimony of one malicious lying woman. This sort of thing is happening in corrupt courtrooms run by corrupt officials right throughout the western world.

Indeed, a large section of the criminal justice system in western countries is nowadays staffed by a bunch of mercenary thugs whose remit is simply to pulverise any men who are the target of complaints made by women. They will threaten them, harass them, remove them from their own homes and even prosecute them; on the basis of no valid evidence whatsoever.

Those thugs - whether they be judges who have imprisoned men without any proper evidence, officials who have unjustifiably denied fathers access to their children, or police officers who have arrested and prosecuted men knowing full well that they are innocent - will be held accountable someday.

The vast majority of rape allegations made to the police come from women who are lying. Unfortunately, when it comes to allegations of sex-assault - no matter how patently frivolous - police officers are duty-bound to take action. Further, if the allegation is of rape, then this allegation will actually count as a real rape in all official statistics and official rhetoric about rape - even when such an allegation is shown to have no foundation! The evidence is that - in the UK - the vast majority of rape allegations are false, and they are made by women who are simply seeking to hurt men by inciting the police and the justice system to punish them on their behalf.

Furthermore, women cannot be trusted to tell the truth, simply because they are women. And when it comes to serious allegations of sex-assault made against men, it is simply not acceptable that these men should be prosecuted - let alone imprisoned - purely on the basis of the testimony of the alleged victims - particularly given that all those who do make such allegations to the police are clearly seeking some kind of revenge; or some kind of profit.

The very fact that the definition of 'rape' is completely fudged in most of the 'research' that purports to show otherwise makes it impossible to evaluate it objectively. The evidence shows quite clearly that many women will make such allegations for the most trivial of reasons i.e. in order to gain sympathy. And if they will allege rape simply in order to gain sympathy, then how many women must be making false allegations of rape for more 'urgent' reasons? For example young women accused an homeless man of sexually-assaulting them in order to explain why they were late for class!

There is surely very little doubt that when intimates are having serious relationship problems - and it is under these circumstances that most rape allegations are made - women are far more likely to lie and make wild exaggerations of rape, than are men in these situations likely to rape them. We know that many women often have a great deal to gain by making false allegations of rape; whereas, on the other hand, men have a great deal to lose by committing an act of rape.

In addition, women are encouraged daily by the media to make allegations of 'abuse'. The likelihood is very high that women are far more likely to make false allegations than are men likely to commit acts of rape. In 2004 for example, in the UK, for every 100 allegations of rape made to the police, only 6 resulted in convictions. Needless to say, feminists, the politically correct, the whole of the abuse industry and, of course, women themselves, have huge vested interests in covering up the truth about this matter. They all gain enormous rewards by demonising men.

There is also a question of definition - i.e. what is rape?
The term 'rape' has been so misapplied in recent years that even many of those men who are objectively found to have crossed the line into 'rape' have done so only because its meaning has been fudged by the legal profession to include actions that are not, in fact, 'rape'.
Fewer men will 'rape' than there are women who will lie about it.

After all, real rape requires some serious criminal intent with the possibility of a very long jail sentence, whereas lying about it is very easily done, there is usually much to be gained from it; women are daily being urged to see themselves as having been abused in some way, and millions of women are very emotionally unstable, and most of these would probably even admit to being so. For example, some 4 million US women have borderline personality disorder - and they are constantly making false allegations of 'abuse' - and some 15 million US women have serious emotional problems stemming from Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) every month.

Furthermore, women are the masters of emotional manipulation, deceit and distortion. These are the weapons that they use from the day they are born. And a well-known tactic of theirs is to manipulate other men (or the authorities in this case) into using some form of aggression against their 'enemies' on their behalf. And so, when you consider the fact that most allegations of rape are made not against strangers but arise between those who are having serious relationship problems, it is inconceivable that false and/or exaggerated allegations of rape are not made in great numbers.

It is also worthwhile noting that any researcher who would dare claim that his work shows that rape allegations are 70, 80 or 90% false would probably find himself in serious trouble, he would not go far in his career, and his work would almost certainly remain unpublished. Therefore most research on rape are unreliable, because:

1. Researchers only count as 'false' those allegations where the evidence that they are false is very strong.

2. The vast majority of rape cases are excluded from the 'false-allegation research' because they are 'gray'. And yet it is in these gray cases where most false allegations are likely to be made.

3. The definition of rape has been fudged to a ludicrous degree.

4. Millions of women are emotionally unstable and are also prone to making false allegations in all sorts of areas - including rape. It seems to be part of their nature.

5. Millions of women have a great deal to gain by making false allegations.

6. Emotional manipulation and deceit are tools that women are highly adept at using - particularly when it comes to getting other people - the authorities - and particularly men - to take on their enemies.

7. Most accusations of rape occur in situations where intimates are having serious relationship problems.

8. Feminists and the abuse industry are notorious for their dishonest propaganda and their lies concerning matters having to do with 'abuse', and their ability to intimidate academics, the judiciary, the authorities etc into supporting their claims means that the true number of false allegations is bound to be grossly underestimated - i.e. because too many professionals are genuinely too scared to look too closely into the matter of false allegations or to come forward with the truth about what they know.

Women make false allegations of rape for three main reasons.

1. To provide them with an alibi -  i.e. to explain why they did not return home until the early hours and why, perhaps, their clothing was dishevelled.

2. As a mean of hurting the man accused.

3. In order to get attention and sympathy. One must remember that accused men do NOT remain anonymous. 'Serial' rapists can therefore hardly get away with serially raping different women for that long. Women, on the contrary, do remain anonymous, so they can serially 'accuse' with impunity.

Should Accusers in Sex-Assault Cases Be Granted Anonymity? Why should female accusers NOT be allowed anonymity?

Anonymity encourages false accusations. It shields women who make multiple false claims. It shields lying and manipulative women. It makes them less credible as witnesses. It DETERS genuine victims from coming forward - rather than the opposite; as is commonly claimed by feminists. In no other area are accusers anonymous.

The government is putting in measures to allow the 'victim' to testify behind screens or through video links to shield her from the defendant. And it is also preventing the jury from accessing the whole truth by playing games with regard to what questions can be asked of the 'victim', and who can ask them. We seem to be using procedures practised by totalitarian states where accusers do not have to face the people whom they are accusing, and where accusers do not even need to answer questions that they claim cause them discomfort! They remain anonymous and in the dark, for they claim that questioning them is as bad as rape itself.

Why do women who say 'rape' need to hide? There is no shame in being raped, robbed, abused or murdered. So, why do they hide? They hide from the cameras, they hide behind a veil of anonymity in the courts, and now they are to hide from the defendants themselves. What are they hiding from? People who need to hide are the ones who fear the truth coming out. And we know that the women who are hiding, are hiding because they've made the same accusations before, against other men. It comes to no surprise then that in the UK, 95% of rape allegations result in no conviction.

But innocent men have their names paraded before the public when charged with sexual assaults. They are put on pedestals to provide target practice for the media, and they are paraded about so that other women from their pasts can assuage their anger. They are also made very vulnerable to blackmail from women who will lie to gain financial reward, through compensation or through media payments for their stories. And they are likely to lose their jobs, their friends, their families. Innocent men. Remember this. They have not been found guilty of anything.

The women however remain anonymous. And they are encouraged every single day by feminist vindictiveness to 'get even'. They are indoctrinated daily to feel abused and offended and to 'phone this number'. These instructions pour out of almost every media in the land. And as these hateful feminists push the boundaries of what is called 'rape' further and further away from the conventional notion of rape, so it is that the accusing women will have to hide deeper and deeper in the dark, and more and more will the law have to be corrupted so that more men can be convicted.

Finally, we must always remember that, whether or not the accuser is truly a victim, she is NEVER an impartial, independent witness. She is only there in the courtroom to get that man locked up. Whatever happened, if anything, she is there to get him locked up. She is, therefore, almost bound to exaggerate. This is what people do when they have sufficient hatred to want someone locked up. They do not even necessarily make a purposeful effort to exaggerate, though certainly many of them do, but human memory is a funny thing. And we all know that it exaggerates in situations such as these. The accusing woman is not an objective, independent witness. In fact, she is a very hostile, and, therefore, very biased witness, or she wouldn't be there. And so, if anything, she should be subject to the utmost scrutiny. Instead, however, she is to be hidden, and certain questions must not be put to her.

Feminists do not understand why it is morally wrong that men who are accused of sex-assault should have their names publicised during a trial (and who are, therefore, 'innocent') while their accusers remain anonymous. They do not care that their very own feminist laws create more domestic violence. They do not concern themselves about the appalling consequences to people that occur as a result of their encouragement to others to make false accusations. They do not see the need for women to take responsibility for their own actions. It troubles them not in the slightest that families break down and children lose their fathers as a result of their nefarious activities. They wouldn't bat an eyelid when it comes to lying about the evidence and presenting phony or distorted research findings. They see no problem with corrupting the justice system in order to imprison more men or to remove them from their homes.

Large rewards induce people to make false allegations. Ridiculously large financial compensation for victims of injustice induce those who have simply made errors of judgement to cover up their tracks rather than to admit to their mistakes. In other words, there are now huge forces around us that actually encourage lying and deceitfulness.

Employment

FEMINISM IN THE WORKPLACE

Feminists started to say that ''there is nothing sadder than a girl that has her chances of pursuing a future limited because of her gender''. They forget to mention that men are limited in what they can do as well. They cannot go up to a prospective employer and say: "You must hire me because I am a man". They have never been able to do that. Men have always had to prove themselves worthy of the job, and even then they sometimes did not get the position. Intellect, physical prowess, and even gender are valid limiting factors in many occupations.

Women have been given access by the courts into new areas of work since then.  All government agencies were immediately forced to aggressively hire and promote women, and if you have the misfortune of having to deal with any government agency nowadays, you will almost certainly be dealing with one or more of the tyrants’ chosen ones.

Next they had to soften up the workplace to make it more women friendly. The average woman of the 1960s would have been disgusted and shocked by the language, pictures and other masculine trappings of the normal workplace. Rather than telling the women to “take it or leave it,” the court decided to use its iron fist once again and demanded that men no longer could act like men at work. They could no longer put pictures on the walls that women disapproved, no longer use the same language or tell the same jokes at work. Their freedom was gone.

Finally came the law suits against companies which had a policy to hire men with families over single women, or women who had a working husband. It was decided that the companies were not smart enough to be in charge of their own hiring policy. The government would decide for them. The courts ruled that large companies would have to hire a certain number of women, or they would have to pay huge fines. The courts have gone so far as to dictate the power structure inside a company. A company cannot make up its own standards as to how it will hire or promote. It must follow what the court dictates: hire the right kind of people, and promote them based upon court ordered criteria.

Then they started working on the volunteer military force. The army standards made it impossible to ever get women in large numbers into their ranks, so they dropped the standards.

As the women have come in, the work has changed to accommodate them. Suddenly,  jobs that require heavy lifting were redefined. Why was this done, if women can do the same job as a man? Every activity where the definition of the job has changed because women wanted the paycheck, is an example of a job that women could not do. We pretend that women are doing that job now, because the courts insist that we must in order to keep our own jobs, but people know better. The fact that working conditions are routinely modified to accommodate the lesser toughness of women seem to justify the opinion that women should stay at home, but instead we have a world today that pretends that "women are the same as men''. You must believe this fact, or else you will be fired, fined and ostracized! But it is a lie upon which we can never build or maintain a strong and healthy society.

For those who say that: ''feminism is simply a political and social movement whose goal is the opening of an opportunity structure for women of all situations'', it is interesting to see the various ways in which oppression can be made to sound palatable. They say that it is an "opportunity structure for women of all situations". When a company is sued into submission, is it merely creating an "opportunity structure"? And that structure is created out of the debris produced by dismantling basic freedom.

We now have companies sued out of existence by women who feel threatened by a “hostile” working environment. These companies are put into a no-win situation. They must hire women employees because the liberal courts will award money to the turned down lady if they do not. Once they do hire her, she is a walking law-suit ready to happen. She is a china doll, in a room full of bulls. Sooner or later, the company may have to pay damages because the delicate flower had a petal creased by the facts of life at work. She then has the hypocritical gall to act like she was the offended party.

The fact that damages are awarded makes clear this entire government abuse scheme: if you create a company with your own money who has the right to tell you what individuals you should hire as employees? If you feel more comfortable with having an all male company, whose business is it? If a man comes to you looking for a job and he is supporting his wife and children on the income that your company will be providing for him, you have the right to hire that man over any woman applying for that position, even a moral obligation.

The government is taking that moral choice away from all employers now, and instead is forcing companies to hire women for positions for which men are often better qualified. The government is counting the number of women you hire. You can be prosecuted or sued for not hiring a woman over a man if your decision is based upon gender. If you believe that a woman's place is at home, you can be persecuted and run out of business. It is now a crime to believe in patriarchy and promote it in your business.

The sexual harassment is another area of concern. Sexual harassment policies are de facto directed against the male style of inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace, while ignoring the female type of inappropriate behaviour. Many sexual harassment laws restrict men's basic freedoms, and cause them to be constantly on edge. For example, a man telling a joke or simply referring to a co-worker by a nickname is grounds for dismissal or lawsuits, which is a gross exaggeration.

How many times have you heard of a sexual harassment suit in the last few months? It seems that a new one occurs every day. Each one of those legal actions represents a woman who could not take care of herself in the workplace. She is helpless and cries out to the court to take care of her. She is too fragile to be at work, but insists on being there anyway. Things like jokes, pictures on a wall or attentions paid her by men, are all too much for her to handle. In fact it is so overwhelming for her that she must be paid 6 or 8 figures by her ex-employer to compensate for the trauma of going into the workplace.

In the decades prior to feminism’s rise into totalitarian proportions, gentlemen did not tell dirty jokes in mixed company, and generally, ladies would be shocked if they tried. It was an era when women were treated as fragile creatures, too delicate for men’s coarse nature. Today, the fragile female denies her delicate condition, demanding to be given the opportunity to show how tough she is. She can be a fighter pilot, astronaut or dock worker, just like any man. However, when given the chance to prove herself, she demands instead that the workplace treats her just like the delicate lady that she is: no dirty jokes, no advances by men, and no heavy lifting.

There is that story, told to all of our little girls, that they can do anything they want in life. They can do anything a man can do. But is it true? Do women really do what a man does? If the workplace has to bend over backwards to adapt to her presence and all her needs, is she really up to it?

False Sexual Harassment Claims

Large Sex-Harassment Payout.
Many of these sex-harassment situations are actually being provoked, instigated and encouraged by the accusing women themselves; because they can see a way of making a financial killing without having to do much work and/or as some kind of revenge for something or other.

Women Do Not Deserve Equal Pay

The reasons why is that, statistically speaking, women earn less than men. There is nothing sinister about this, for the figures simply demonstrate the consequences of women's biology and the choices that they make.

Men, on average, earn more than women during the course of their lifetimes, but this is no terrible injustice done to women. They pay more in taxes than do women. In other words, the average man puts more into the pot than does an average woman. Your average man is therefore supporting women!

When it comes to benefits, such as health, pensions and income support, a whopping 70% of the budget is actually spent on women's needs; it is absolutely clear that the support given by men to women is phenomenal, and it shows just how much men truly hand over to women via the government coffers. Further, men also hand money over directly to women when they stay at home to look after the kids. Why should feminists try to make women go out and earn the same as their partners?

Men put a lot more into the pot, and they take a lot less out of it. And it is still the case that while men die seven years earlier than women, they are still expected to work for five more years before receiving their pension.  But do notice that, working for five years longer and receiving seven years less of pension, adds up to a massive twelve years of financial injustice. A truly blatant, ongoing act of sex discrimination. An enormous act of discrimination.

However, statistically speaking, compared to men, women just don’t value winning the marathon that much. Therefore, they get paid less. And quite right too, because they work fewer hours and they achieve less. It is also pointless for women to keep moaning about the fact that employers are reluctant to give them special consideration when they have children, and to demand exactly the same pay when they don't actually put in the same number of hours. Why should anybody who works full time (man or woman) have to subsidise other women in the workplace, just because they choose to have children?

Feminists tell us that women who have children should not be disadvantaged in the employment sphere. But, as with everything else, feminists think that the world should cater exclusively for their own selfish needs.  They believe that women who have children should not in any way have to curtail their employment prospects or their incomes.

Thus, despite the fact that such women will take leave from work (for years, perhaps) and that they will not be able to put in the same number of hours that their colleagues do, feminists argue that they should be paid the same and be given the same status!

Abuse

"Woman" = Victim        "Man" = Perpetrator

While it is true that men are many times more often the victims of violence, miscarriages of justice, homelessness, suicide, and industrial or military accidents - and, in fact, the majority of victims in almost any area one chooses to investigate - and also more prone to most diseases - government agencies continue to spread the false impression that the majority of 'sufferers' are women!

The notion that "women are victims" seems to be the defining feature of women. And the defining feature of a 'man' is that of a 'perpetrator' of some kind.

And yet it is men, mostly, who have created and maintained just about everything that has brought about civilisation and protection from the harsh realities of Nature. Indeed, apart from the production of offspring, women have contributed very little to civilization in comparison to men. There is no reason why men should be treated like worthless, dispensable garbage by their very own societies and their own legal system, and also to be placed at the mercy of any woman - no matter how malicious or mentally deranged who makes - or threatens to make - false allegations against them.

The demonisation of men and the stirring up of hatred towards them is almost endless, as are the lies that are continually being told by those who seek to profit from the whole disgusting enterprise. In the olden days, the police used not to investigate domestic matters unless they were clearly serious. Then along came a bunch of vindictive feminists who claimed that women all over the country were being brutally beaten by their partners and they blackmailed the politicians to intrude more and more into the private lives of people. And then they got the politicians to make sure that men would be presumed guilty of 'abuse' following any accusation by a woman. Thousands of others (lawyers, judges, therapists, psychoanalysts etc) jumped on the bandwagon. The abuse pie began to grow.

Western governments are determined to place themselves in the roles of husbands and fathers to undermine the intimate relationships that men have with women and children. In this endeavour, they are supported by the multi-billion dollar 'abuse industry'. It is an industry that will never stop expanding the definitions of what it deems to be 'abuse'  and forever stir hatred against men. In other words, there is no end to the ways in which the psychology of people can be engineered so that they feel 'abused' by the propaganda. Unless stopped, the abuse industry will keep demonising men in order to nourish itself.

Every week we see men going to prison purely on the basis of dubious - and often uncorroborated - testimonies from alleged victims of abuse. One of the best ways to ensure that maximum justice prevails is to insist that no information in these cases is ever kept confidential - including the identities of the participants. Removing all confidentiality and anonymity would also reduce the general hysteria that is purposely inflamed by the abuse industry - mostly through misinformation and spin - and it would help to educate better the public with regard to the serious underlying issues.

The Abuse Industry is a large industry, led by mental health professionals and pressure group organisers, who all have a vested interest in the expansion of the very problem that they are pledged to combat. The greater the so-called "epidemic", the more they can justify their demands for resources.

How is it that all the lofty professors at the universities, the feminists, the police, and all the experts in the government concerned with matters of crime and abuse, and those who write in the media have failed to mention to the public that the vast majority of rape allegations must surely be false? And these massive forces are used as some kind of justification to demonise men, to hurt them, to discriminate against them, to push them through outrageously unjust legal processes which have been corrupted through and through, and to make it possible for women to destroy their lives completely for no other reason than that they wish to.

One example of the deceptions commonly employed when it comes to the figures for 'rape' that are touted by most western governments is their purposeful inflation which is done by including all allegations of rape in the rape figures - despite the fact that the vast majority of these allegations will be judged to be false. These figures are then compounded even further by a factor of anywhere between 4 and 20 in order to account for the number of women who, allegedly, failed to report their rapes. And the most malicious of deceits perpetrated by western governments, feminists and women's groups during the past two decades has been their assumption that unproved allegations of rape are, in fact, real rapes!

In the UK, for example, only some 5% of allegations result in convictions. In other words, when the police and the lawyers and the doctors and the juries have done all the investigating that they possibly can, the result is that some 95% of cases are judged NOT GUILTY or NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. So where, exactly, is the valid evidence to suggest that these 95% of women have, in fact, been raped? There is no such evidence! These 'rapes' are simply manufactured out of very thin air by various groups that promote male hatred in order to reap some kind of benefit for themselves.

Governments Benefit Hugely From Domestic Violence Hysteria - The hysteria over domestic violence is largely geared toward one aim: removing as many children as possible from the care and protection of their fathers.

Family

Family law is one area of keen interest among men's groups. Fathers' rights advocates say there is a systematic bias against men in child custody matters.

Europe is dying. Around 25 years ago, birth rates fell below replacement levels across most of Western Europe, and they have been locked in a broad downtrend ever since. Women were designed to have babies. What is the point of them otherwise? Women were designed by Nature to reproduce! What we have today in the west are non-women. They can't even keep the population afloat. We westerners are going to become extinct. Western women are evolutionary dead ends. They have pampered themselves into the abyss.These days most of them can't even wire a plug or boil an egg despite all this 'education' and 'feminism'. They are too busy masquerading as 'victims'. Western women are the most pampered and over-indulged organisms on the planet.

THE MYTH OF THE TWO-INCOME FAMILY

We often hear people say: “You just need two incomes today” to justify the fact that both parents have to work full time. It is true that with only one income, you might have to give up some non-essentials like living in a big house or owning the toys you couldn't otherwise afford. You will have to rent instead of buying, often have to settle for apartments instead of houses, and to drive used cars instead of new ones. Having said this, the real advantage of having one parent staying home is that the children will always be supervised and will never be “home alone”. There is no doubt that a mother at home is a plus for any child growing up. Taking that away from a child is not an option for a loving parent.

What about the money? Most women burn almost all of their income on extra expenses created by the outside job. An extra car, working wardrobe, baby-sitters (whether it is called day-care, pre-school, or some other method of passing off the responsibilities of motherhood), added income taxes and extra costs for eating out more often. The mother is gone, and so is the money. What little extra there has been created overall has been consumed by the government dipping deeper into the perceived fuller pockets.

So, why does she work? Girls and boys are exposed to a propaganda machine from the time they are born till they die. This pulp factory includes television, newspapers, magazines, school system, even the churches. Cartoons depicting women super-heroes, as if that is what a woman should strive for, are becoming more popular all the time.The kids are told that women and men are exactly the same, with the same competitive drives, same roles in life and the same need to have a career.

The result of all this deceitful propaganda is that boys grow up believing that women can be and should be totally self-sufficient. As men they are more likely to walk out on a family because “women can take care of themselves”! A girl grows up thinking the same thing and then suddenly has children and the whole facade suddenly comes down. She ends up as a single mother because she believed that women are free to practice single sex without consequences, or her marriage comes apart from all the forces attacking it from outside. Now what? She finds that she is living on one income all by herself (or living off her parents), and no longer has time to raise the children properly. The kids grow up after all, but they haven’t been raised. They have no idea what a solid family is. How can they possibly create one of their own?

That “second income” might be the most expensive money any family will ever earn.

Paternity fraud

Paternity fraud: the term came into common use in the late 1990s, describing the act of falsely naming a man to be the biological father of a child when the mother knows that he is not, particularly for child support purposes. In many jurisdictions, the husband of the mother of a child is held to be the father. In cases of paternity fraud, there are potentially 3 victims: the defrauded man, the child misidentified and deprived of a relationship with his or her biological father, and the biological father who is deprived of his relationship with his child.

Paternity Fraud as domestic violence against men

Domestic violence takes physical and non-physical forms. Men suffer considerable acute and long term emotional, psychological, economic and social harm from paternity fraud, and as such, Paternity fraud represents one of the more common forms of domestic violence against men.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law offers no protection to the male victim of this form of domestic violence. This rewards and encourages the victimizers, leaving men largely defenseless. The coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate the ongoing victimization of the male spouse - even after the relationship has ended.

The law often assumes that the male spouse is automatically responsible for any children that are born during the marriage. This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, when adultery was a seriously punishable crime, and before the invention of safe and effective paternity testing which - if made standard - could virtually eliminate this form of domestic violence.

Media portrayal

Another issue of concern is the perceived anti-male bias in the media. Men's rights activists claim that men are portrayed unfairly on television, radio and in newspapers and magazines. They claim that not only does the media not pay serious attention to men's rights issues but that men are portrayed in a negative light compared to women, particularly in advertising with archetypes such as the "dumb dad" (especially when advertising to children). The lack of concern over male issues such as suicide, the education of boys, etc... has led activists to use the term "Lace Curtain" when referring to the bias of the press.

Real Men: The Need for Masculinity

As our society has become more progressive, we have made every effort to eliminate the masculine from the picture. Real men are becoming harder to find, as the Political Correctness movement has launched an all out effort against them. Here is a list of the qualities of a real man that the feminists hate so much:

1- A real man does not do housework because it is women’s work. When his wife is ill or an emergency comes up, a real man will lend a hand but generally a real man has a real woman to do his housework.

2- A real man supports his family. His wife does not earn a paycheck, but she spends most of his! His family is financially supported by his efforts. He will do whatever it takes to keep a roof over the heads of his family and ensure that they have plenty to eat.

3- A real man does not leave his wife for another woman. He is true to his marriage vows and will do whatever it takes to hold his marriage together. His world is his wife and family.

4- A real man is a solid father. He teaches his children manners, and ethics. His children are taught to mind and be concerned about other people’s feelings and property.

5- A real man is the king of his house. He has the final word on major decisions. He is very concerned about the happiness of all of the members of his house and does not make decisions that will emotionally harm any of them. His decisions are based upon fulfilling all the needs of his family: emotional, moral, and financial. His reign is kind and merciful. The subjects of his rule are proud of their position and not embittered by their role.

6- A real man is a gentleman. He is not rude or thoughtless of others. He is firm but not hostile. He is honorable and honest. If you break down on the road, you want a real man to stop and help you. If your daughter is getting married, you know that she will have a secure, honorable and happy life if she marries a real man. Your grandchildren will be well mannered and happy if their father is a real man.

This is the individual that feminists hate. He is the focus of all their hostility. They have done everything in their power to train boys in school and anywhere else, telling them that being a real man is evil and should be avoided. Boys are directed towards being effeminate. Feminists want men who cry, are sensitive, and let women run things. If they had their way, all little boys would be dressed in skirts and little girls would wear blue jeans. Feminism has been able to destroy the training that boys used to receive. Instead of real men, they are becoming animals. They are chasing sexual encounters and more toys, instead of the things that create a stable society and long term families. What we are in dire need of is more real men, and the real women who will join with them!

Babes in Film Land

People have their point of view shaped and warped by the nonsense they see on the screen. We have lowered the standards of our military to allow women to serve. We have done the same for the fire and police departments. We have forced the government to hire and promote women at a ridiculous rate, and are trying to do the same to private companies. It is hard to find a happy housewife scenario in a movie or television show today. Instead the "powerful" woman, the woman who leaves her kids for her career, the woman who breaks new ground over the same old ground that men have been going over for centuries, is the focus of the movies and television shows today.

To Hollywood, any role other than housewife, is proper for the actress in a movie. The role of housewife is only allowed in a movie as long as the starlet kills, leaves, or at least cheats on her husband. Of course the husband is always a mean spirited, abusive good-for-nothing. How much of this one-sided, mythological, phony nonsense can we take?  There is no doubt that much of the support for feminism in laws and company decisions would never have occurred if it were not for the misguided brainwashing that people have received from Hollywood. The brainwashing continues and feminism survives for now. The question is: how long will families stay compatible with it, and can Western culture promote broken families forever?

MEN DO NOT EXIST

Men can unjustifiably be deprived of their homes and their children, they can be falsely imprisoned for years on end, they can be falsely accused and punished with impunity, they can lose their health, their lives and their limbs on the battlefields and hardly anyone makes an issue out of such things.

Yet women, apparently, are damaged for life should someone fondle or even mention their sex-organs inappropriately, and there is not a day that goes by wherein the western media are not heaping hatred upon men for such relatively trivial events.

And a major reason for this wholesale neglect of men in our society is because they forget to look upon themselves as 'men'.

The economy needs this and that. Immigration is causing this and that. Genetic engineering will lead to this and that. Crime causes this and that. But when it comes to 'men', they don't exist!

This neglect of 'men' has something to do with the fact that there are very strong political forces at work that are deliberately designed to prevent the issues of concern to men from reaching the public consciousness whereas those of concern to women are purposefully highlighted to extreme levels.

For example, the politically-corrected liberal media go to extraordinary lengths to downplay the gender of men who are suffering in some way. Men with prostate cancer become 'patients'. Dead men on battlefields become 'soldiers'. Drowned men on ships become 'sailors'. Men in prisons become 'prisoners'. The men held in Guantanamo become 'combatants'. But where women are suffering in some way, the complete opposite is true. Their gender is highlighted at every opportunity.

When a ship sinks, those who died are referred to as 'sailors', 'crew', 'observers', 'victims', 'the dead' and 'submariners'. One of the main reasons that male journalists, authors and activists of every persuasion seem to be uninterested in the topic of 'men' - is because there has been a purposeful and deliberate policy among the most influential of media to suppress the topic of 'men' and to keep it out of the public consciousness - except, of course, where men are behaving badly in some way; in which case their gender is mentioned over and over again. This is why men are getting such a raw deal in so many areas of their lives. They don't exist!

There is no 'vote' on "men's issues"! - because the very notion of "men's issues" barely exists out there in the political world and in the real world. There is barely a consciousness of "men's issues". And this is what men's activists have to fight against. Issues of concern to men need to be highlighted, discussed and promoted on every political website and in every newspaper - whether the feminists like it or not. After all, they and their promotions of women's issues are absolutely everywhere.

And what men's activists need to do is to try to encourage male activists and journalists in all areas to open their eyes to "men's issues". For example, if they are writing articles having to do with war, then they should be hassled to focus not just on the guns, the terrain, the number of casualties, the political and economic outcomes etc, they should be urged to think about what it all means for the men involved. Feminists and women themselves do this sort of thing all the time. They look very closely at what things mean for 'women' in just about every area under discussion.

It is partly because the issues of concern to 'men' have been swept under the carpet for so long - and, hence, very many bonds that unite men have been broken - that there is far greater disharmony, rudeness and aggression - particularly between men - right throughout our societies. After all, if men never focus their attention on the things that they have in common - as 'men' - then they are definitely missing out on something extremely important both for themselves and for their societies. Men come in all sorts of guises and they have many different views. But if they were to focus their attention more on issues that have to do with 'men', they would find that they have a great deal in common. And this would be true even for men who are poles apart on many other issues.

Men argue about all sorts of things. They do not just argue over politics. They have widely different views on economics, religion, philosophy, history, science, and on just about everything else that you can imagine. But if these men would just spend some of their time reflecting on issues that relate to them as 'men', they would mostly discover that they have far more in common than not. And to a large extent this is what the men's movement is about.

NO EQUALITY

Here is a list of issues which are men's most significant disadvantages compared to women.

1. Men are conscripted; women are not.

2. Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.

3. Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).

4. Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion - they can only get the children women want them to have).

5. Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.

6. Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.

7. Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.

8. Men only "borrow" their children; a woman can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation - with the reasoning that they have to work).

Before marrying or committing, you should read the Lover's contract
Would You Sign This Contract?

"A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'domestic violence'. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion. She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to her and her children for some considerable time into the future - and this being the case even if her children turn out not to be his."

Women Manipulate Men

Men's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get objects in the environment to do their bidding. Women's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get **men** to do their bidding. Men manipulate the environment. Women manipulate men.

This is why, for example, men devote so much of their time fiddling around with gadgets, solving problems and playing games, whereas women spend much of their time and money altering the way they look and 'chatting about relationships'.

Most men would be staggered if they understood the lengths to which women normally go in order to manipulate them. But they seem to be completely blind to it. And the reason is that, for the most part, men are just not operating in the same realm. And this, for example, explains why women are apt to get so uptight and make false accusations against men ('date rape') when the relationship does not go according to their plan the following day. (They see such a thing as a 'failure to manipulate the man successfully' and this goes right to the very core of their egos.) Whereas the men involved in such situations were usually not thinking about 'relationships' at all!

One of the reasons why we are facing so many problems here in the West is that feminism and political correctness have hidden from view the truly manipulative nature of women. Indeed, if you look closely at the details surrounding much of the inter-gender disharmony that takes place these days (domestic violence) you will usually see therein a woman who failed to get what she wanted out of the man involved - rather than the other way around.

For example, he whacks her not so much because he wants to control her, or because he wants to achieve something, but because she persists in going on and on and on and on about something that she wants. And in doing so, she is well-trained in the art of using the verbal knife in order to hurt him and to drive him crazy. Indeed, if you study the court cases, it transpires that many men have killed their partners because they could no longer stand the sound of "her voice going on and on and on".

50 years ago, if a man slapped his wife, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN were usually of the view that she deserved it in some way. And the reason that they usually thought this, was because they knew how easy it was for women to manipulate men, and they also knew how hard it was to provoke normal men into assaulting women - particularly their loved ones. In fact, most societies - and religions - seem to have been aware of this for thousands of years. In the West, however, the astonishing ability that women have to manipulate men has been hidden from view. And so when there is some kind of inter-gender conflict taking place, the only focus is on the behavioural actions of the men involved. The women are purposely portrayed as passive dummies who are completely innocent. And yet nothing could be further from the truth. When a man is watching a football match, he sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc that have to do with the game. A woman sees a group of men wasting their time, pointlessly kicking a spherical object around a field. When a woman is watching a soap opera, however, she sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc having to do with the manipulation of relationships. A man simply sees a story unfolding.

It is fundamental gender differences such as this that feminists and political correctoids have managed to hide to the detriment of us all. Women have probably always got what they aimed for throughout History. They were biologically designed to manipulate and to use men for their own purposes. This is why they survive in so many circumstances in which men do not.

Why Women Have Little To Lose In War? When two bull moose are battling over a harem, the females simply wait until a winner emerges and then go with him. Contemporary human females seem to retain some of this generic passivity. They cannot fathom the life-or-death stakes these conflicts present to men. Deep in their hearts they know that the victor will ultimately spare their lives.

The Methods of Women

Feminine traits are called weaknesses. Reasonable persons however see very well that those traits are just tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs.

Women have so many means at their disposal, so many variations and combinations of methods, that it is hard to even conceive of a powerless woman. If one were to reflect rhetorically, it could be said that the average woman has more weapons at her disposal than the combined NATO forces. The real question should be; "What does a man have to counter this?"; his natural means of self-defense - physical force, is denied to him by our feminist society. He cannot even withhold his earnings, because they are considered community property; and if his wife divorces him, she may still take his earnings through alimony and child support.

If it is true, as Rousseau writes, that the methods of women are "more powerful" than those of men, and if it is also true that one of the main functions of government is to protect citizens from each other, than we would expect greater restrictions to be placed on women, and that fact to be reflected by more women being sent to prison than men. If restrictions were doled out equally between men and women with regard for whose methods were the most numerous and powerful, we would expect to find, because of their slightly larger numbers, more women in prison than men. Yet, as we have seen, the prison population is 94% male; this is not justice - but obscenity.

Men Behaving Badly?

Many males in western societies seem to be behaving very badly these days. They seem to be becoming more involved with crime, growing more dishonest, to be increasingly hostile and aggressive toward others. They seem less committed to their partners and to their families. They are clearly doing less well in terms of their education. And they seem to be more preoccupied with their own narrow self-interests than they used to be.

Why is this so? What can possibly account for this apparent deterioration in the behaviours of western men? Are they simply responding to the way in which western societies treat them these days? The major cause of the significant deterioration in the behaviours of men is, quite simply, feminism. Fatherlessness is a major factor when it comes to violent crime. As such, any government that promotes single motherhood probably also promotes violent crime.

Indeed, the evidence that damns feminism is overwhelming.  The evidence shows that feminism is not only the primary cultural cause of the current-day bad behaviours of men, it is also the primary cause of very many other serious societal problems.

1. Feminism - together with political correctness - has been the most influential ideology in western societies for the past four decades. There are no other ideologies that even come close to it in terms of the extent to which it has penetrated western societies.

Feminism has penetrated very deeply western governments, the laws, the social services, the universities, colleges, schools, the media, families, the bedrooms and western minds. It has been hugely influential. And one of its main successes has been the wholesale demonisation of males.

2. Political correctness has been aggressively supported by feminists. They have done their best to promote any activity which undermines men - particularly white heterosexuals.

Feminists and the politically correct have engaged in a wholesale onslaught against white heterosexual men. White men have been persistently accused of being racist by highly vocal racial activists and racial minorities, and their history and their forefathers have been thoroughly undermined and blackened - to the extent that many racial activists are now demanding reparations for past slavery. Heterosexual men have been continually portrayed as being violent, abusive, oppressors of women by mainstream feminists and a whole plethora of abuse professionals who have a vested interest in portraying men in this way.

Heterosexual men have also been represented by the beautifully orchestrated gay lobby as being bigoted and fearful of their own sexuality. All men have been assaulted almost ceaselessly by various women's groups, children's groups, social service workers, therapists and analysts who have sought to indoctrinate the population with the view that men are abusers of children. The ubiquitous feminist-fearing mainstream media have consistently sought to demonise and humiliate the entire male gender.

The all-powerful western governments together with the legal profession have almost disempowered men completely when it comes to their families, their relationships and their homes, on the grounds that women and children are often better off without them. In view of all this, is it surprising to find that men are behaving badly?

If feminists keep telling men that they consider them to be worthless, and continue to accuse them of things that they have not done, and persistently undermine them in relation to their family and their children, and continually seek to portray them as abusers and oppressors, who should be surprised if men finally turn their back on women? Indeed, who should be surprised if men decide to give feminists a bloody nose?

This is the kind of thing that has been going on in western societies for a long time. And many millions of men are - and have been - responding to this by turning their backs on their own societies. Indeed, they are not only increasingly refusing to support their own societies, many are, in fact, responding by giving them a bloody nose! - crime, violence etc. Let us look at the reasons why western men might have become this way as a result of feminism and political correctness.

1. The constant feminist-inspired demonisation and denigration of men throughout the West has resulted not only in many of them feeling worthless, with the result that they now reject the worthwhile values of their own societies (with some turning to crime, drugs, irresponsible behaviours etc.) it has also undermined any reason for them to shape up. Furthermore, the ubiquitous negative descriptions of men that continually pour out of the mainstream media simply make many men feel quite entitled to behave in accordance with those very same descriptions!

2. The western educational system has been so heavily biased against boys for the past few decades that they are doing very badly at school. Not only have the educationalists been using diabolically poor teaching methods but the curricula have been so feminised and politically corrected that boys quickly lose any interest that they might have had in being 'educated'.  This, coupled with poor standards of discipline, has led our societies to having to bear the burden of millions of undisciplined, uneducated males in their midsts.

3. The effect of feminism and political correctness in education and in the mainstream media, where 'great white men of noble character' are hardly seen to exist any more means that there are few good role models for boys in their growing years. And the images of men that are daily inflicted upon young men and boys are overwhelmingly negative. Is it surprising, therefore, that so many men actually have no real concept of what a 'good man' is? Such men do not exist in the world that is being presented to them.

4. Thanks to the wholesale corruption of the family courts and the "no-fault" divorce laws, men no longer have any real motivation to devote most of their lives, their love, their money etc into bringing up a family. Why should they - when it can all be taken away from them at the whim of their partners? Furthermore, prejudicial 'relationship laws' - such as those pertaining to domestic violence and child abuse etc - make men feel very insecure within their relationships. And to add to all this there is the daily carpeting of man-hatred that pours out of the feminist-dominated media telling women and children to report their partners for abuse of some sort.

There are only two main ways in which men can deal with the relationship insecurity that all this brings about. Firstly, they can stop caring very much about their relationships so that they are not too hurt when they eventually break down. Secondly, they can refrain completely from committing themselves to, or from investing in, any long-term serious ones. And, indeed, this is exactly what western men are doing.

5. The welfare system hotly promoted and buttressed both by the feminists and the politically correct supports single motherhood. And the same is true for the laws concerning child-support payments and alimony. These not only make fathers and husbands redundant, they also encourage their very own women and children to see them in exactly this way. Men are, therefore, easily rejected, and they are often also treated with contempt. They are, after all, redundant. And another word for 'redundant' is, of course, 'worthless'.

6. Family and marital breakdown are the major cause of misbehaviour and poor socialisation in males. Indeed, those who are brought up without their fathers at home are far more likely ...

... to live in poverty and deprivation
... to have trouble in school
... to have more trouble getting along with others
... to have health problems
... to suffer physical, emotional, or sexual abuse
... to run away from home
... to experience problems with sexual health
... to become teenage parents
... to offend against the law
... to smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs
... to play truant from school
... to be excluded from school
... to leave school at 16
... to have poor adjustments to adulthood problems
... to attain little in the way of qualifications
... to experience unemployment
... to have low incomes
... to be on welfare
... to experience homelessness
... to go to jail
... to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems
... to engage only in casual relationships
... to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership

But feminists have always done their best to break up traditional families and exclude fathers from them, because they believe that traditional families are oppressive to women. And this particularly huge catalogue of societal ills that has arisen directly from their assault on marriage and family was successfully repressed by the mainstream feminist-fearing media for two decades.

7. The encouragement of immigration - legal and illegal - by the left-wing politically correct (supported heavily by feminists) has led to a breaking down of the main culture and a large increase in the size of the criminal underclass. This has led to millions of young men engaging in crime or being closely associated with others who engage in it.

8. Taxes are far too high as a consequence of the ever-burgeoning government and its ever-increasing activities. Indeed, most western governments now appropriate some 50% of their people's purchasing power. It is women - and feminists in particular - and other 'minorities' - through their politically-corrected activists - who are the main supporters of big government and heavy taxation. And the result of heavy taxation is that people are less motivated when it comes to working for a living and, for many men, it makes crime a more attractive option.

These are huge negative influences arising from ideas and policies promoted by feminists that impact upon all males and affect all males very badly. Feminism is the main cause of the most pressing problems facing western societies. The way in which societies are constructed, the values that they hold, and the methods through which their aims are sought, have a great bearing on the way in which people within them behave. When an ideology has been hugely pervasive, influential and dominant for four whole decades it should not be allowed to escape from being seen as significantly responsible for the social consequences that are associated with it. Furthermore, if western men continue to be persistently attacked, accused, vilified, undermined and demonised, disempowered within their families and discriminated against through the justice system, their behaviours are likely to grow considerably worse!

And if feminists continue to pursue their aims without regard to the way in which they are alienating millions of men, in the not-too-distant future both they and their supporters are going to be in for a very nasty shock: it could be revenge on a planetary scale. Finally, given that feminists have ruthlessly pursued their aims without regard to the well-being of men, why should men not now do the very same?

Why should men strive hard to support a family that they will eventually lose? Why should men work for long hours? - particularly given that the state will take much of their earnings in taxes. Why should men with limited resources bother to save any money when their governments will tax it and subject it to significant devaluation? Why should men commit themselves to one particular woman when so many are now available for fun? Why should men not seek hours of pleasure from superficial pursuits - such as those deriving from their various gadgets, toys, sports and videogames? Do not women spend many hours watching soap operas, and thinking about fashion, cosmetics and romantic fantasies? Why should men not be aggressive or offensive toward women given that women are nowadays aggressive and offensive toward them? Why should men pursue 'nobler' aims when these are persistently undermined by feminists and their governments?

The bad behaviours of men mostly reflect the fact that western men are now following more their own desires. And they are caring less about how this may affect others. In fact, they are doing exactly what the feminist handbooks and women's magazines have been urging women to do for years.

ANY POPULATION THAT PRACTICES FEMINISM BECOMES DIM-WITTED

The long term effect of feminism is to make any population that practices it dumber. The overall IQ will become lower over time because very intelligent women will be drawn into the feminist web and fail to reproduce at even replacement level.

Unconsciously feminism seeks to destroy intelligence, there are some hidden factors:

1- One of the primary goal of feminism is to promote the freeing of women from the "mundane" task of raising children. Feminism has set as one of its goals: zero children, which is of course suicidal but they failed to recognize this.

2- Should a woman who practices the religion of feminism become pregnant, she will be encouraged by her fellow feminists to have an abortion.

3- Feminist Women are driven to have careers, so, even if they want to have children, they will postpone it until it is too late (they fear that childbearing will destroy their chances at getting ahead). If they get around to it at all, they will only have one, two at the most.

4- Women who do the best in school, the most intelligent, will be the most sought after by the feminist clergy who dominate the school system. These bright young women, will be pushed and directed away from any thoughts of being a wife and mother. They will be pounded with rhetoric about how terrible past women had it and how important it is that they do not give in and "go traditional". By the time they have finished college, they will have been so completely brainwashed that it is very unlikely they will start a family.

5- When all the brightest young ladies fail to have children, it leaves only the less intelligent the burden of carrying on the important task of creating the next generation. Those who are not doing well in school, do not draw the feminist sharks to them. They are allowed to proceed on their own course. These woman, who often make wonderful mothers, will go out into the world and have families, however the higher IQ ladies are lost to the gene pool. The next generation will be that much dumber than the previous generation. If this is being done generation after generation, the results of this feminist sifting process will accumulate over time; there will be fewer and fewer intelligent people in each generation, and the West is doomed!

Today, the best and brightest in our society are reproducing well below replacement level (2.1 children). They may boast and be arrogant, but they are a dying breed. The next time you see a bright young man or woman, think of it as a dinosaur; especially when looking at a stunning woman or movie star, picture a tyrannosaur in your head, you'll see, she will immediately lose all power and her beauty will start to wane.