The liberals who did so much to destroy the family must share the blame for Baby P

A straight shooting analysis of modern life in Britain, and in the Mainstream Media no less...
"

These cases are not aberrations. They are the outcome of a process that has been going on for the past three decades and more, in which the fundamental values of civilised society have been systematically trashed and up-ended.

They are the result of the doctrine that all lifestyles must be considered equal and that no one has right to pass judgment on anyone else. Thus, women had a God-given right to bear babies out of wedlock. Stigma and shame were considered an affront to individual rights; disapproval of adultery or elective lone parenthood were dismissed as 'Old Testament fundamentalism'. "

Daily Mail Article

Wisdom from Angry Harry

"Feminism has very little to do with equality between the genders, and it also has very little to do with the rights of women.

First and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions - literally millions - of people nowadays have a vested interest - a vested interest that is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people operate."

Here

Women admit their sympathy for 'man flu' victims runs out after five minutes

And almost a fifth of women say they feel no sympathy at all for their partners' "man flu".

But men, by contrast, say they are prepared to take time off work to care for their suffering wives or girlfriends, cooking meals and cleaning the home.

A poll found that women were far less likely to sit by their man's bedside mopping his brow than the traditional stereotype suggests.

Continued

Of course, the article finishes with obligatory man-bashing...

"Pollsters suggested that men may be more keen to see their wives or partners get well soon so that they could take on domestic responsibilities again more quickly."

You'll notice it's the POLLSTERS THEMSELVES who attribute completely made-up "reasons" for men being apparently more caring than women.....cause, ya know, men suck and women rock.

Fidelbogen's excellent essay...

To remove man-hating from feminism would be to extract the DNA nucleus from a living cell, the fuel rod from a reactor, the teeth from a rottweiler. I would assert that man-hating is feminism's moral center of gravity, and that without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection toward males, feminism could not logically continue to exist—it would flounder without purpose, and disintegrate.

If you give the matter a little thought (and I have given it a LOT), you will see that no other theory so elegantly accounts for the observable facts of the case.


(cont)
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-feminism-hate-movement.html

"But I would NEVER do that to you...."

At the last minute, Husband pulled out of the deal. Never mind that he had lost his lucrative job in the City, she felt he had deliberately traumatised her and is suing him for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. '

'She's got the personality of an overindulged infant,'' he sighed, ''a spoilt brat who starts screaming the moment a toy is taken away.''

In the grown-up world that toy is money and what it can buy: status, power, glamour and arrogance. It also has a way of making these particular women precious. ''Because I'm worth it'' has become the catch-all legitimiser for any personal indulgence.

According to Susie Ambrose, a marital psychotherapist and CEO of Seventy-Thirty, an upmarket introduction company that takes its name from the work versus free time balance, there has been an unprecedented demand from married women recently.

''We are being targeted by women on the fence between leaving their husbands who are on the brink of losing their wealth, and wanting to meet someone extremely rich straight away,'' she says.

The rest is Here

So what am I supposed to think???

In the course of many, many debates, I have begun a TON of posts (or arguments) with the words "Women do" or "Women are". In short, I'm quite guilty of generalizing.

But here's the thing. When I say something like "Women only want men for their money", I base it on several areas of my experience. The main one would be the stress placed on boys to become a "good provider", and the importance women place on their man being a "good provider". Now, call me ignorant, but isn't this simply another way of saying "has money / good job"? Isn't the fact that this criteria shows up almost universally in women's list or "requirements" for an ideal husband cause for consternation?

The euphemisms change, of course. Now it's "responsible", "Stable" or somesuch, but the code words all mean the same thing.

Money.

THIS is where I would get the generalization that "Women pick men based on wallet thickness, while castigating men for mating based on attraction to physical attributes", or put another (more entertaining) way "Women want to marry wallets, Men want to fuck hotties". Men have been (largely unjustly in my view) castigated for physical attraction for decades, all while women's identical behaviour is celebrated as "empowered thinking", yet women have never had their own dirty little secret seriously examined, let alone outed and ostracised.

It's been attempted, sure, in such works as Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Man" (which frankly should be required reading for all men). But larger society was successfully prevented from examining these issues concurrently with those issues promoted by Feminism (ie, body-image, self-image for women/girls ONLY) via misdirection, fabrication, one-upmanship, and ideological control of the Media and Academics.

The generalization the "Women go for bad boys" might offend some feminists (who may even then drone on about how SHE dates only intellectual pussy-men with long hair and Volvos), but it's true, generally. In fact, it's empirically provable, as has been done numerous times in the past, and moreover most women wouldn't dream of denying it (when her "current" isn't around anyway).

But to say something like "Women are gold-diggers who only care about your wallet" offends many women, seemingly especially feminists.

Both of the statements can be shown to be true, empirically. This, again, is seldom argued. What usually stands for "argument" is the degree of importance the amount of income a man has (as in, that's not the ONLY thing women look for in a man).

When have women discouraged this behaviour among themselves? What have they done (as a group, either collectively or through a series of individual choices) to discourage this mindset?

Nothing. In fact, quite the opposite.

Women are more openly mercenary and conniving now than at any point in our history. There are fewer reasons to even associate with women in our current society - let alone genuinely trust them - than ever before.

And far from working to change this path, women have enthusiastically plunged down it, to cries of "You go girl!".

And I can say these "Women" satements, and many others, because not only are they true, but women have done nothing to disabuse men (figuratively speaking) of the notion, and don't seem to think the effort is worth it.

Men's health spending, Women's health spending

As for sophisticated, pioneering technology selectively designed for the benefit of one sex, laparoscopic surgery was largely confined to gynecology for more than twenty years. Using viewing and manipulating instruments that can be inserted into the abdomen through keyhole-sized incisions, doctors are able to diagnose and repair, sparing the patient a larger incision and a longer, more painful recuperation. Laparoscopic tubal sterilization, first performed in 1936, became common practice in the late 1960s. Over time the development of more-versatile instruments and of fiber-optic video capability made possible the performance of more-complex operations. The laparoscopic removal of ectopic pregnancy was reported in 1973. Finally, in 1987, the same technology was applied in gallbladder surgery, and men began to enjoy its benefits too.

Years after ultrasound instruments were designed to look inside the uterus, the same technology was adapted to search for tumors in the prostate. Other pioneering developments conceived to improve the health care of women include mammography, bone-density testing for osteoporosis, surgery to alleviate bladder incontinence, hormone therapy to relieve the symptoms of menopause, and a host of procedures, including in vitro fertilization, developed to facilitate impregnation. Perhaps so many new developments occur in women's health care because one branch of medicine and a group of doctors, gynecologists, are explicitly concerned with the health of women. No corresponding group of doctors is dedicated to the care of men.

So women receive more care than men, sometimes receive better care than men, and benefit more than men do from some developing technologies. This hardly looks like proof that women's health is viewed as secondary in importance to men's health.

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/cancer/kadar.htm

Medical research, funding, and care for men is another issue that we have been outright LIED to, by feminists, in order to increase the disparity in care between the sexes - not narrow the gap.

It seems the more ardently a feminist advocates a position, the more likely they are to be espousing a view that contradicts reality.

Medical Issues perhaps?

Part of the answer lies in the “everybody knows” body of knowledge. Everybody knows that prostate cancer is neither as prevalent nor as deadly as breast cancer, right? Furthermore, those who have prostate cancer will likely die from something else before they die of prostate cancer. Well, according to the latest figures I have seen from the American Cancer Society, the incidence rate per 100,000 people is 135.2 for breast cancer but is 172.3 for prostate cancer. That’s about 27.5% higher for prostate cancer. Oops! Furthermore, the death rate per 100,000 people is 27 for breast cancer, but is 32 per 100,000 for prostate cancer. That’s about 18.5% higher. Double oops! How about one more statistic? The last estimate that I have seen shows that among new cancer cases (excluding non-melanoma cell skin cancers), prostate cancer is projected to be the most common cancer in the country - outstripping both breast cancer and lung and bronchial cancer. Is there such as thing as triple oops?

Prostate cancer is the only cancer that doctors not only debate how to treat - sometimes leaving the decision to the patient - but are also are in disagreement about whether to treat it at all even though it kills at a higher rate than breast cancer. One reason is that cancer specialists admit they don’t understand what causes prostate cancer. Sounds like a good candidate for research, right? Well, according to the last figures I have seen, government spending on breast cancer research is 180% of that for prostate cancer. As for clinical trials involving newer ways to defeat the cancers, the number of those involving breast cancer patients is four times that of prostate cancer victims. Kinda makes a guy wonder, doesn’t it?

http://xeniagazette.1upmonitor.com/main.asp?SectionID=17&SubSectionID=452&ArticleID=161684&TM=79187.41


The outright refusal of many feminists to acknowledge that men are shortchanged in society has one consequence that is nothing if not mean-spirited, possibly even evil. namely, constant haranguing for "women's health" has made research on men's health anathema in research communities. There is no funding, no political will, and no publicity of this state of affairs.

Prostate Cancer is just one of hundreds of health issues men have that are being deliberately ignored in the name of "Diversity" and "Equality", which is Orwellian Double-Speak for "Punish the Menz, especially the white ones, for the insecurities of neurotic women".

Our political leaders have left us to die on the vine (but hopefully not until the last dollar can be extracted), and as such deserve no less than our utter contempt and antipathy. Universities and research bodies across the nation have betrayed men, sacrificing them to the altar of Political Correctness. Our medical Establishment has woefully underserved men, and continues to do so to this day.

This is a DIRECT result of a Propaganda campaign designed to remove any social consideration of men as human beings. You can always tell the where the next attack on men is coming from...just look at the "awareness campaigns" on the feminist horizon. PHMT, "only men can stop rape"....ever notice how no matter WHAT the issue is, it's ALWAYS the fault of men (The Patriarchy(tm)), and women NEVER have a role except in the positive?

Woman=Good, Man=Bad.......sorta the same as Aryan=Good, Jew=Bad.

A New Direction

I've recently decided to make this blog more of a priority (whew, now both of you can rest easy there'll be more witty commentaries from me). With all the focus on the injustices, and legal concepts/ramifications facing men, very little attention is being paid to the rampant misandry running through our society.

It's no secret that I firmly believe that making people think for themselves, with actual real data to base decisions on, is the ONLY way men will ever attain equality. Until we erase the false notion that men are priveleged, and in no need of consideration, well, we'll get no consideration.

Fortunately, the tide has already turned and men are gaining "cachet" with the media.

I will be blunt. Though I will tolerate feminists posting here, any reference to the crime of rape will be immediately deleted. I'm sick of the subject, it comes up mostly as a block to real discussion, and it is NOT a "Men's Issue" anyway, so it merits NO attention from me.

While it's quite likely that no one will read these posts, it's a damn sight better than banging your head against the wall trying to get an ardent feminist to listen to a word a man says....

Too hot for Glenn Sacks

This post was deleted from Glenn's Blog. He removed the post, because it was not "acceptable".

I'm beginning to agree with those who think Glenn has gone too far in his moderation.


---------


Jeezus. OK, all you feminist posters on here saying that MRA's should do this, that or the other, or that unless we do or say certain things we are "rape apologists"....

Screw you.

All of you.

I will NOT play your game.

It's monotonous, it's got nothing to do with men or men's rights....hell, the loudest calls for MRA's to jump through hoops are coming from a woman who has never, and will never consider the actual argument of anyone on anything, she will just simply stuck her fingers in her ear and said "Oh yeah, but what about rape"?

Seriously, we could write up a bot script (hey, maybe that's what she is) to do that.....any thinking going on?, because all I see is a one track soundtrack and outright refusal to really "debate"....more like kneejerk disagreement, with ZERO substance....

I will state it categorically, for my own bad self.

I DO NOT GIVE A RAT"S PATOOTIE ABOUT RAPE. I might have at one time, but no longer.

The feminist posters here have made it VERY clear that there is ZERO impetus to engage, it's simply derailment and obfustication. Even when presented with clear cut examples of genital/sexual torture, feminists cannot come up with enough (fake even) "sympathy" to avoid looking like the evil, man-hating people they prove themselves to be...

When Feminists have "taken care of" Male reproductive rights, sentencing disparity, MGM, Divorce and Custody imbalance, Misandry in the media, Father's rights, etc....THEN and ONLY then will I give a flying f**k about rape.

Happy?

----

Now granted, it's an obnoxious post.....but why censor? Because it's an "extreme" position? Because it might "make MRA's look bad"?

I'm sorry, I don't think we have an image to protect, and I think we already have a "rape-apologist" image anyway...why not use the "bad" reputation to get some things said that NEED to be said.

Women aren't the only gender in society. Women have shown vanishingly small interest in problems faced by men.

Why is it bad that I (a man) have decided to show the same level of interest in "women's issues"?

In short, why are MRA's held to a higher standard....ESPECIALLY when one of our biggest complaints is that we are held to a higher standard in society....?

Silliness....


Edited to add:

The approach criticized above is not my own and therefore I have no control over it's use. What I will do, whenever possible, is encourage men to speak their mind, the truth of their thoughts and feelings, without "filtering them for PC sensibilities".

Only when men can feel as free as women to say what's on their mind will there be a truly egalitarian society. Unlike some, I believe this freedom is ESSENTIAL for any of the other goals to "stick" in the public consciousness.

In short, as long as it's "taboo" to call bullshit on certain feminist arguments (ie "rape crisis" bullshit and the like), men will forever be subjected to double standards that are impossible to overcome. Receiving these double standards at the hands of a men's rights activist is especially nauseating....

If nothing else, the fact that it is FEMINISTS who demand MRA's be more "accommodating" to them should give one pause, and in my view is cause to reconsider that course of action. If nothing else, women deserve the EXACT SAME level of interest in their "issues" that they have shown in regards to men's issues. Additionally, men should make no bones about this idea at all. When confronted, a simple "I care just as much as you do" response is sufficient.

After all, I've spent years on this subject talking to feminists, and visiting feminist sites. Not one example of feminist support of men's issues.

Not one.

In 40 years.

Yet we MRA's have to be "accomodating" to these people? We have to debate THEIR issues on MRA blogs? WTF???? Ever heard of, I dunno, SOCIETY as a place to debate "women's issues" (ie, get told what the "reality" is, then told what will be done, and how much it's going to cost)?

Nope, not going to play that game anymore.