The Truth About Women Who Have Been Influenced by Feminism

Excuse the pidgin English of the question below, but remember, it was written by a woman....

__________

Question: What is it about Asian women that makes men [mostly white men], wanting to be with them?

It is not so much the LOOK of Asian women that makes them popular with men (though many are beautiful). It is rather the demeanor, attitude, and values of Asian women that make them popular with adult males.

American women are worthless. They are fat, ignorant, self-absorbed, and sexually unskilled. They are so stonehearted that they have been murdering their unborn at the rate of 4,000 innocents a day for 30 years. They are psychologically unstable, romantically unreliable, and more prone than not to use the legal system as a weapon to merely get their way. American women are brash, obnoxious, loud, and irrational - and that is on their very best days.

And as to looks... when did you last hear an Asian woman talk about "comfortable shoes" or note that she didn't "believe in makeup?"

Asian women are (largely) diminutive, petite, and feminine. They are quiet and submissive, and have genuine values (whether or not Westerners would agree with them all) from having been reared in a Confucian environment. They are devoted to their family, and recognize that sexual skill is a necessary part of being a woman. They recognize that their primary loyalty is to their husband and do not have the "party" attitude of young American women. They are clean, manageable, marriageable, and sane. These are the reasons why Asian women are popular among adult males.

And I know that, during the time that I spent in Asia, I was greatly encouraged to find that the average Asian woman wholly rejects feminist philosophy, which is a short way of saying everything I wrote above.

I am married to an American woman who is beautiful, sexually skilled, a good wife and mother, and quiet and submissive. She is a real jewel. However, I had such a hard time finding a woman like her among all the aspiring female linebackers that typify the American female population, that if anything every happened to her, I would actively seek an Asian wife.

Along this line, it is important to recognize that the femtard interest in Western men's attraction to foreign women has nothing to do with their purported concern for "human trafficking." Femtard attempts to criminalize foreign matchmaking services and the ease with which foreign wives can obtain visas is rather an attempt to squelch competition from real women (which Western, femtard women are NOT) so that Western men are forced to settle for the screeching, obnoxious, and fat-laden banshees of the femtard left.

Even feminists, who generally are complete and utter fools, have enough sense to realize that the only way that a man would choose to marry or be involved with a femtard is if they had no other choice.

How One of the Most Powerful Women in History Predicted the Moral Carnage of Feminism

"I am most anxious to enlist every-one who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and pro-priety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' them-selves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection." Queen Victoria of England, 1870

Solving The Toilet Seat Crisis

I am tired of the continual controversy over whether a man/boy recently left the toilet seat either up or down.

I am also tired of the mainstream media's orgasmic fixation on the apparently poor economy.

I have an idea that will fix both problems.

The government should provide a bathroom attendant to every single household in America. When a person enters, he/she would ask, "How would you like the lid, sir/madam?" Then he/she would fix the lid and wait patiently while you finish. If you took a particularly long time, he/she could also offer you some gum, a magazine, or call an ambulance. Then, when you are finished, he/she will return the lid to its former state. Routinely, the bathroom attendant will clean the bathroom and replace the TP roll, and might be trained to perform other services such as cleaning out that annoying bathtub ring and perhaps compiling a weekly shopping list for the homeowners' toiletry needs. The bathroom attendant would be paid by the government from a pool of the unemployed. Preference would, of course, be given to people with Master's degrees in "Women's Studies" or "World Peace Studies."

Notice all the problems this solves:

1) Unemployment - one attendant per household will literally wipe out any crises with employment!

2) Disputes - the toilet lids always start the same way and end the same way. We pay somebody to keep men and women from fighting!

3) Responsibility - my plan helps us avoid it! Heck, why should anyone have to be responsible for setting the toilet in the state that THEY want it? Since we have all already obtained an entitlement mentality in the U.S. (and we already want someone else to fix the toilet seat for us anyway) and the government already tells us how much our toilets can flush, let's let the government take care of everything for us! It can even replace the TP roll for us! It can spray after we leave! It can take out the trash! It can provide stimulating conversation for us while we, ummmmmm, wait!!!

This plan, if you don't mind my saying so, rocks! This will be the greatest government work program in history and certainly will also be a hindrance to the growth of domestic violence! What do you say?

How this amazing idea escaped inclusion in President Obama's stimulus package is frankly one of the great mysteries of all of human history.

Why Isn't Child Support Based Upon A Flat Rate?

The reason that child support payments are not based on flat rate schedules which actually bear some resemblance to expenses that could reasonably be associated with the rearing of a child is because child support payments are not, in fact, intended to be used for the rearing of children. Rather, child support payments are intended to be used to transfer assets from a man to a woman.

This is also why courts have no interest in tracking the use of child support payments by a woman. The courts do not care what the money is used for, only that the assets are transferred from the man to the woman. We know that courts are capable of monitoring money - given the eagle eye that they demonstrate in tracking the income of a man who owes child support and given the scrupulous attention paid to men's incomes prior to the signing of an equitable distribution prior to divorce. Since courts are capable of closely supervising men's income they demonstrate that they are equally capable of supervising the outflow of cash from a woman's account. That courts show no interest in doing so indicates that they really do not care about children.

The truth is that child support payments are intended to keep the ex-wife or ex-lover in a comfortable lifestyle and function as a disincentive to marriage so that the swelling ranks of bitter, lonely feminists continues to grow. But as an excuse, "a man has a responsibility to support his children" sounds politically a lot more viable than does "a man has a responsibility to support the wife who committed adultery against him and then sued him for everything he had."

Child support is abusive and should be completely abolished. It encourages the violation of the marriage contract by women (which women demonstrate they are quite capable of violating, given that far more than two-thirds of all divorces and separations are initiated by women) and it ignores that men's commitment to rear children is based upon that contract of marriage. In other words, men never have agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children minus the emotional, intellectual, and physical contact that is necessary for parenting and they have never agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children without a wife/mother to assist them.

If women are just as capable as men (as feminists say that they are) then let them bear the full burden of rearing children when they file for divorce. Let the law say that whoever has the BENEFIT of full custody of the children also has the RESPONSIBILITY to actually provide for them.

Of course, feminism is not about responsibility, so expect such a theory to be viciously opposed.

Such a law would also have the added consequence of functioning as a disincentive for the ridiculous surge in divorce that is ripping Western civilization apart at the seams. Women, and feminists particularly, need to grow up and recognize that they do have a responsibility to their husbands, to their children, and to society. And if they choose to reject that legal responsibility entered into freely and without compulsion at the marriage altar, then let them bear the burden all alone.

Should No-Fault Divorce Be Abolished?

As I understand the story (and I am open to correction on this, though I think the broad outlines are correct), Ronald Reagan led the way for the adoption of no-fault divorce when he was governor of California in the 60's-70's.

Prior to that time, divorce in every state had required a showing of some fault on the part of one or the other partners. This was because marriage was considered a contractual matter which required some sort of basis for dissolution of the contract.

But that a showing of fault was necessary led to couples who were simply determined not to live together anymore engaging in what was disparagingly called "collusive divorce," in which one party would admit to some outlandish infraction that they had, in fact, never committed, in an attempt to end the marriage. This had, in fact, happened to Reagan. His first wife had informed him that she was, ummmm, otherwise engaged, shall we say, and that she did not intend to continue the marriage. While he fought for his marriage for a time, he eventually relented and agreed to confess in a divorce court that he was guilty of "cruelty" to his wife. This was, in California, the most common ploy for "collusive divorce."

Rethinking later, Reagan decided that it was a horrible blot on his character to have people believing that he had ever been cruel to the woman that he so loved. He vowed to do something about it, and spearheaded no-fault divorce legislation, signing it into law in 1970.

He obviously never foresaw the moral wreckage that would follow.

In Reagan's day, some people did decide to stay married rather than perjure themselves in court. They worked on their marriage and generally things turned out well. Since no-fault has spread, however, there is now no longer any brake on divorces and more kids will grow up without two parents than grow up with two parents.

In North Carolina, divorce is no-fault, but the division of assets can be based on fault. I know of one case in which the couple divorced on a no-fault basis (the only choice in the state) , but the husband received all of the marital property except for his wife's IRA as a result of his wife's continued adultery.

I would suggest the following modification, which would both avoid the "collusive divorce" of the past and would also place a brake on the unrestrained divorce of the present: Any divorce in which both parties agree - let it be done on a no-fault basis. But any divorce in which one party does not agree for any reason whatsoever (i.e., a contested divorce) should be dissolved only on a fault basis and only at severe cost to the separating party - loss of kids, loss of assets, loss of everything.

Marriage is more important to society and to the people invovled in it than is the "freedom" of any one party. Marriage is more important to society than is the feminist ideology which opposes it and seeks to destroy it. Marriage is (and prior to feminism had always been treated as) a contract - and in no other area of life would we allow a person to simply walk away from a contract without any consequences merely because she "wasn't happy" with it.

The social cost of divorce has become too high. Too many men's and women's lives, finances, and psyches are being ruined by a too-easy divorce law. Too many children are growing up frustrated, neglected, angry, and lost without two parents. It is, imho, time to end this thing.

Do away with no-fault divorce. And while you are at it, let's do away with child support, the subornation of perjury by women's shelters, and the presumption of female fitness in child custody disputes. Feminism has befouled the waters of justice for too long and the evidence of its cancerous nature is plain for all to see. The legacy of irresponsibility and attendant moral chaos begotten by no-fault divorce will be felt in this country for generations to come.

Tactics of Women's Shelters 3

In one DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order) proceeding, a woman alleged that her husband had beaten her severely in a Sadomasochistic event, and alleged that he had beaten her so severely that he had left bruises in the area of her buttocks.

What she did not know was that her husband had her credit card statement for a card that was only in her name and had been utilized at sex shops while he was out of the country. He testified that he had noticed bruises on her buttocks area numerous times and his wife had told him she had "fallen down the stairs." She admitted to having told her friends the same thing.

Despite her own admission of lying in court, the credit card statement showing that she had been frequenting sex shops while he was out of the country, her admission that on one of those occasions she had purchased "an S&M kit," and the husband's allegations that she was coming home with bruises in her buttocks area, the DVPO was continued.

This should indicate everything that you need to know about "Domestic Violence" in the modern family court system - it is not a concept that responds well to evidence. Because, as stated previously, "Domestic Violence" is to law what the "widget" is to economics - it is anything that you want it to be. The continuation of a DVPO and the consequent criminal and civil penalties that almost necessarily follow is not dependent upon evidence, but rather is based upon the "subjective fear of the woman." Therefore, what you will hear in a DVPO proceeding is not truth, but rather a template. This is a key issue that men must recognize in order to protect themselves.

By a template, I mean that what is needed to find liability of "Domestic Violence" is not evidence of violence, but rather to show that a man acts in such a way as to fit the neurotic, fear-fueled, hate-charged stereotypes pushed by feminists. Many men, once served with a notice of hearing for "domestic violence" have the attitude - "I have never hit my wife or even so much as pushed or grabbed her. She is not going to be able to produce any evidence in court. I don't even need a lawyer."

This ignores two basic facts: 1) The Domestic Violence Industry is fueled by perjury. 2) "Domestic Violence" has nothing to do with any act of "violence" that the average person would recognize. In fact, in my experience there are three issues that are normally at the center of a DVPO hearing: a man is mean, a man is negligent, or, by far the most popular, a man is controlling.

And here are a few of the specific, often used strategies encouraged, taught, and practiced by women's shelters that help women catch their men in acts of "domestic violence"....

First, be aware of any sudden changes in sexual preference on the part of your wife (I will use "wife" throughout, recognizing that by far, most of the perjury associated with allegations of Domestic Violence seem strangely coordinated with alimony, divorce, and custody proceedings, but keep in mind that any "intimate partner" could file such spurious charges). A woman who suddenly develops an interest in S&M, and insists that you participate with her, could be up to something.

Victoria, because she could not simply "leave" her husband without risking the disapproval of her strict Baptist and Catholic family members, tried to lure her husband into inflicting bruises on her through S&M "play" and based a DVPO allegation on that. Charlotte says that she was encouraged to agree to watch pornography with her husband, and then claim in court that she was "made to watch pornography." In any DVPO hearing, being "made to" do thus and so is a recurring theme. Though such allegations never survive the first question (i.e., "HOW did he MAKE you...?"), it is part of conjuring up the appropriate template for a judge to base his decision on: women are helpless victims and men are cruel, dangerous ogres.

Some women have been encouraged to engage in whatever sexual interests they may have - orgies, threesomes, gloryholes, porn, even sex toys (one woman claimed that her purchase of a vibrator was evidence of her husband's "abuse") - then claim in court that their husband "pimped them out" or "forced them to have sex with women."

Men should be very careful about 180-degree turns on the part of their wives. Since a marriage that is on the rocks almost always has sexual problems that are central to the conflict, men may misinterpret their wives' new sexual "openness" as a sign that their marriage problems are on the way to being solved. It may be just as likely that you are being set up. Beware! Make sure that your marriage is on a firm footing long before you delve into new sexual horizons with your wife.

Secondly, women are encouraged to get evidence of a controlling, cruel, or negligent husband recorded either on paper or on tape. When you are having marital problems, do not write anything about your marriage and do not sign any documents authored by your wife!

Victoria was committing adultery with a married father of three when her husband found out and insisted that it stop. Weeks of conflict ensued. One night, she "repented" to her husband, asked his forgiveness, and said she wanted to start anew on a "second marriage." She had him draw up a marriage contract for the "second marriage" stating all the things that they both agreed she had done wrong and stating the resolutions for change that she was willing to make. She then signed the document and posted it on the refrigerator. In the DVPO hearing, the central piece of evidence was the marriage contract, which, of course, Victoria alleged that her husband had "forced her to sign."

This desire for written evidence goes both ways. Angie G. says that she was encouraged to get her husband to write her cards and letters confessing to her any time he had committed some sin against her. This all, of course, became evidence. A boxful of evidence.

Another common tactic is taping. Be careful when your wife is wearing bulky clothing indoors when it doesn't seem indicated. She could be hiding a hand-held tape recorder in a large pocket or inside a sweatshirt. Women are taught to stand in doorjambs and talk across the room to their husband so that he cannot see the tape recorder in their hand. They are taught to place the recorder behind a cushion or pillow and record while they sit.

Beware of any conversation that starts with a series of naked allegations, for which a woman seems to simply be seeking your response. If you hear this, you are likely being taped for some legal proceeding! Look for conversations structured like this:

She: I want to talk to you.
He: OK.
She: You beat me.
He: Huh?
She: You beat me and you are an adulterer and you are controlling and you always hated my family.
He: I beat you?

Note how this conversation can be twisted to be used in court. He is so flabbergasted by the false allegation that he beat his wife that he cannot even respond. But the final question, "I beat you?", can be twisted into an admission, on the theory that, if you did not beat your wife, you would flatly deny such. If that doesn't fly, the attorney can allege, "Well, you didn't deny adultery or being controlling or hating her family, did you?"

And these types of subjective, neurotic, adolescent offenses are all that is necessary to fit one into the radical feminist template of a "domestic abuser."

Beware of conversations that simply come out of left field, and again, are phrased as naked allegations. Imagine a guy at work with his instant messenger turned on, and his wife pops up with an instant message:

She: You love my blow jobs.
He: Hey baby, how are you? Yep, your blow jobs are GREAT.
She: You want my blow jobs all the time.
He: You know it.

In court, this becomes, "He makes me give him blow jobs all the time. We can't even have normal sex. He doesn't care about my pleasure at all. I hate giving blow jobs." Remember, most instant messengers have a record conversation feature.

If a woman knows a long-standing marriage boundary, look for her to start violating it and assume that she has a tape recorder so that she can record her response. If you have asked her time and again to let her watch your favorite sports team in silence, or not to cook fish, or to not wake you during a nap, etc., women are taught to start violating these boundaries of consideration with impunity and to record the result.

One man had a study in which he did extra work at home. He had asked his wife not to bother him for anything unless it was very important while he was working. One day, she walked in, wearing shorts and a sweatshirt. Under the sweatshirt was a tape recorder.

She: I want to talk to you.
He: I am working, is it really important?
She: No. I just want to talk to you.
He: What is it?
She: I don't know. I just want to talk. What do you want to talk about?

Now, look at the position this man is in, who does not know that he is being recorded. His mind is focused on something important for work, and perhaps for years it has been a known boundary in his home that he is not disturbed while he works. His wife has honored this boundary. Her behavior has become peculiar of late - she is gone a lot (committing adultery or attending "Community Support" meetings at the local women's shelter) and seems to be picking a fight with him all the time. She has become uncivil, and has crossed every boundary of simple respect that the two of them have established. He is exasperated.

If he yells at her, it is evidence that he is mean. Anything he says beyond "Get out!" is probably also abusive.

If he calmly reminds her of the fact that he is working and, absent a compelling emergency, he is not to be bothered, he is controlling.

If he ignores her, he is negligent, distant, and does not regard her "feelings."

And remember, above I stated that in the 100+ DVPO hearings that I have witnessed, the issues are normally that the husband is cruel, negligent, or controlling.

Women's shelters encourage women to keep logs of any and all physical contact between themselves and their spouse. Angie G. says, "They didn't really encourage me to lie as much as they encouraged everyone to put everything that happened in the worst light possible."

One of the most effective means of getting a man to "get physical," giving birth to some event that can be presented in the "worst light possible," is for a woman to start feigning psychological problems or otherwise acting out.

One woman would scream and yell at her husband while her tape recorder was on, hoping that he would yell back. When he didn't, but rather approached her quietly and knelt on the floor attempting to embrace her, she kicked him and yelled, "Get off me!" In court, she was kicking him because he was "wrestling her and would not let her go." She, of course, was merely "defending herself." Without video, it is difficult to argue with that kind of story.

One woman would act out by screaming, yelling, and hopping in the middle of the floor while spinning around. Her husband, obviously, thought she was having a mental breakdown. He offered to "get her some psychological help" but she constantly refused because it might threaten her professional career. She would talk to people who were not there, talk to the dead, and zone out in public. Eventually, he became so unnerved by her screaming, waving her arms, and rotating in the floor that he started wrapping her up in a bear hug when it would happen, to keep her from falling and hitting her head on a coffee table or squashing the dog.

Of course, in court, he was "squeezing the breath out of me and wouldn't let me go." He was "trying to kill me."

Admissions of wrongdoing are calculated to provoke an angry, and perhaps physical, response. Women's shelter counselors urge the women who attend "Community Meetings" that they must "live their own lives," "live authentically," "expect your spouse to authenticate your feelings and needs," and other Oprahized claptrap.

What this means is this: tell your husband about the affair and tape the result. If he doesn't respond in a way that is helpful to you, keep talking about it and taping it until he does.

Women's shelter counselors have suggested to some women that they convince an especially attractive friend to flirt with their husband prior to the filing of a DVPO. The results are, of course, admissible in court, and this works especially well to nullify evidence of adultery on the wife's part.

And all women's shelters have a bevy of attorneys and private investigators that can be contacted, so traditional black ops tactics such as bugs, videotaping, tracking by P.I.'s, and general harassment tactics are always possible.

A couple of my favorite tactics under this "traditional black ops" category are these:

A woman admits to her husband that she is cheating on him. She tells him, over a period of weeks, "I am going to X on Thursday. You are not invited." "I am going to Y on Friday. You are not invited." Eventually, he realizes something is up and decides to follow her and catch her with her boyfriend. Of course, he does not realize that a P.I. has been hired to follow him following his wife. In court, this is evidence that he is "controlling," though apparently he is not "controlling" enough to stop his wife from committing adultery.

A man slapped with a DVPO hires an attorney. The attorney begins to delay the hearing, knowing that speed is his enemy (it does take time for lies to start to unravel, so don't get upset when your attorney starts to file continuances and generally tries to gum up the works before your DVPO hearing). In the time between the filing and the month or two that an attorney may be able to delay the hearing, the man who has been falsely accused begins to receive three or four telephone calls per night. Every time he picks up the phone, there is nobody there, but rather a robocaller then dials someone else's number. After the 15th time the poor sap is fussed out by a total stranger for "calling in the middle of the night," and after the fifth straight night without a full night's sleep, he is willing to do most anything - including just give her the assets in return for her dropping the DVPO.

An attorney or police agency obtains a warrant to track your cell phone signal as a way of making sure that you are not "stalking" your wife, since you, as an accused domestic abuser, are also a potential murderer. Now, don't be ridiculous - neither your wife nor her attorney (and probably not the judge either) actually believe that you are a threat to her - they just want to know where you are going and what you are doing on the chance that it may help their property division or alimony case! You are not informed that your cell signal is being used to keep tabs on your location. When you show up for your hearing, you are asked, "Have you ever been to a strip club?" "Who lives at 123 Main Street? You've been spending a lot of time there, haven't you?"

And remember, the attorneys that are accessed through a women's shelter are generally not paid by their clients (i.e., your wife). They are paid by block grants to "Community Organizations (women's shelters) from the federal government under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). So don't think that the same cost restraints that you face with your attorney will be faced by your wife. There are plenty of cases of attorneys still performing pro bono work for a woman that contacted them through a women's shelter even two years or more after the DVPO hearing. Free.

These are but a few of the tactics routinely encouraged or made available at women's shelters. Do you see now why the tactics of women's shelters are not admissible in court in my state?

When you see inexplicable behavior on the part of your wife, whether it looks like anything recounted here or not, protect yourself. The perjury-driven Domestic Violence Industry may be setting you up.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

What's Wrong With Feminism?

A very foolish attorney recently remarked to me, "Feminism died in the 80's."

If only....

In fact, feminism is very much alive today. So alive that it is pervasive. So pervasive that we do not even notice it any more, much like our own living room furniture.

And feminism can be truthfully said to either be responsible for, or to have aggravated, every single social problem in the modern Western world.

It exists as both formal and informal feminism. Formal feminism is the feminism of the pro-abortion movement, NOW, and academe. It is the feminism of fascistic legislation and of political lesbianism.

But there is also an informal feminism - a watered-down version that is simply accepted unthinkingly by the consumerist mobs. It is a feminism of Oprah Winfrey, the feminism that believes domestic violence to be a serious problem (against all evidence to the contrary) and that votes for women "because they are women" and that participates in the cult of the child.

Both types of feminism are wrong. Both are wrong, and both are wrong propositionally and morally. And because it has now become an accepted part of our cultural furniture, we do not even realize that it represents a mild toxin that is slowly poisoning every institution upon which civilization has been constructed.

1) Feminism is wrong because it lacks virtue. Feminism is simply a movement built around the cowardice and avarice of women. Men, of course, are motivated primarily by principle. A man gets up and goes to work in the morning, not because he enjoys it, but because he recognizes his responsibility to provide for a family, his responsibility to his employer and fellow employees, and because it has been drilled into him since childhood that men are to make a positive contribution - even at the cost of their own lives - to society. Men go to war because they recognize that there is something that has more value than their individual wants, even more valuable than the life of an individual - matters such as freedom, security, and country. Men are capable of going and doing battle in both wartime and the workaday world because they are possessed of courage - the willingness to take risks.

Feminism, however, is based upon the neurotic fears of women. It is certainly not all women, but as feminism is woven more deeply into the warp and woof of society, there are certainly more and more women possessed of these neurotic fears. The fear of domestic violence, for instance, is a neurotic fear of women, conjured up in illogical and irrational skulls for political gain by the leaders of the feminist movement who are equally neurotic - though driven so more by hate than by fear. I have personally sat in on more than 100 domestic violence proceedings in my state - not one of them even alleged violence in any sense that the layman would understand it. The "violence" complained of was that a woman was being "controlled" by a man (and one of my friends has noted, accurately, that a man is guilty of being "controlling" only when he refuses to yield control to a woman), of "namecalling," or of "holding to strict gender roles," as many religious people do. I saw one man separated from home, children, and bank accounts for lifting his hands to absorb the blows thrown from the fists of his wife. I have seen a dozen men arrested on evidence that would get a mere contract case thrown out of court.

And I have noticed a strange correlation between the lodging of claims of "domestic violence" and the occurrence of divorce proceedings, alimony or equitable distribution actions, and child support or custody trials. Very convenient....

Of course, women are encouraged to lie about such things. They are teased by women's groups, the media, lawyers, and the state to skip their own responsibilities by leaving their husbands - yet maintaining their home, kids, and an adequate income without working in the form of child support and alimony. Feminism appeals to that vindictiveness that is so pervasive in the human spirit that the Ninth Commandment forbids it, and to that sloth so extreme in the modern world that more than 50% of all tax revenues are spent on social welfare programs in America.

Unthinking, illogical, and hormonal women are encouraged to break their marriage vows at eternal cost to their own character, to their own children, and at the cost of justice itself, in order to repay a man for what are usually only perceived slights and to get a second chance at life and love (a second chance that the vast majority of my female clients find is only illusory - guys really are not interested in neurotic women who don't keep marriage vows and who come with the baggage of a passel of kids and a pile of false allegations in their wake).

2) Feminism is wrong because it is illogical and anti-intellectual. Travel over to Yahoo! Answers any old time and surf over to the "Gender and Women's Studies" section. About once every two days or so (sometimes far more often) some FemiFascist will post something like this:

"Why do half the people who post in G&WS always have such hateful things to say about feminism? Don't they realize that this is our safe space? After all, we feminists do not invade their WWE Wrestling Forum, do we?"

Which is again a manifestation of cowardice, and the very cowardice which begat political correctness. People who know they are wrong, after all, are not likely to willingly engage in discussion with those who can prove them wrong publicly. So there is an anti-intellectual bent toward feminism. Any disagreement with the political movement of feminism is conveniently labeled "misogyny" and dismissed. Anyone too effective in combatting feminism on the public college campus is threatened with "sexual harassment" charges and "sensitivity training."

But the desire to squelch dissent is, of course, the first sign that someone realizes that their own jig is up. After all, how is it possible to square the following two propositions, both central tenets of feminism?

a) Women are capable of doing anything that a man can do.
b) Therefore, standards for law school, medical school, the military, police departments, and fire departments must be lowered so that women can be adequately represented.

Illogic, thy name is feminist. And this is why Women's Studies programs across the country are regarded by academics as having about the same intellectual rigor as fingerpainting class in Vacation Bible School.

At its root, all virtue is true. All genuine virtue is based upon truth. And the illogic, anti-intellectualism, and indulgence in the lie that is feminism divests the movement of even a basic perception of virtue - intellectual or otherwise.

3) Feminism is wrong because it is unjust. Feminism depends upon the craven moral cowardice of men in order to thrive. And if one does not demonstrate sufficient submission to the goals of "womyn," then filing false allegations of abuse, harassment, domestic violence, or rape are a justifiable punishment for any man foolish enough to believe that truth trumps the whining, "I'm-a-victim" outrage of the hormonal woman.

An Air Force study, mentioned previously in this blog, found that 60% of all rape allegations studied were proveably false. Duke Lacrosse, anyone? Upwards of 90% of all allegations of domestic violence do not even allege anything that a layman would consider "violence" - such allegations are again based on the political resentment that FemiFascists have at the audacity of some men to behave like men, and not give in to the whims and neuroses of the women in their lives.

And let us note that the filing of false allegations is hardly an incidental development. The changes to the Violence Against Women Act made during the Clinton administration had the effect of lowering the standard of evidence for the granting of Domestic Violence Protective Orders from the "preponderance of the evidence" (a more than 50% chance that the allegations were true) to the "subjective fear of the woman" - which could mean anything, including that somebody unfortunately mixed an Effexor and a Prozac today. Such an unheard-of lowering of the standards of evidence could only have the effect of encouraging false allegations - and consequently resulting in unjust prosecutions and convictions.

When you are right, you do not have to lie in order to make your point. The Ninth Commandment, as a basic precept of both moral righteousness and of a civilized society, still forbids the lodging of false complaints - whether the issue is money, children, politics, or merely getting one's own way. I could go on about the reverse discrimination implicit in affirmative action programs pushed by women's groups, but what I've said is more than enough to demonstrate that the agenda of feminism is wholly unjust.

4) Feminism is wrong because it is untrue. Every single statement made by feminists over the years has eventually been revealed to have been hyped up, at the least, and blatantly false, at the worst. From the so-called "Wage Gap" (which does not exist - women who have worked at the same job the same number of hours and the same number of years as their male counterparts make 98 cents on the dollar - a difference that is statistically negligible) to the early-90s myth that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women in America," everything that fits the feminist agenda is either blatantly untrue, illogical, or unproven.

Duke Lacrosse, anyone?

5) Feminism is wrong because it is neurotic. Carey Roberts has written an article on ifeminists.com (see www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0607roberts.html ) titled "Is Feminism a Mental Disorder? Of course, it is, and he especially identifies a neurotic condition which he labels "Domestic Violence Hysteria," which he considers to be "highly contagious."

Mrs. Dale O'Leary has written an article titled "Radical Feminism as a psychological disorder" (www.tldm.org/News11/RadicalFeminismPsychologicalDisorder.htm ) in which she proposes that feminism is a "psychological disorder caused by two generations of unforgiveness in the maternal line."

She notes that psychological health, for women, depends on a healthy relationship with the male authority figures in their lives - particularly with one's father. Dominating grandmothers, with imitation by a girl's mother, produces such broken relationships with men that only hatred ensues and adherence to feminism is born. The hatred which is so evident in feminism is, of course, the hatred of the scorned lover, as the feminist wishes for the love of a father or father-figure (such as a powerful husband capable of supplying her with both wisdom and leadership), but because she has an irrational fear of all but the wimpiest of men (since both her grandfather and father were such), she is continually frustrated and angry.

The cure for feminism, the psychological disorder? According to O'Leary it is the forgiveness of both parents (the wimpy father and the passive-aggressive or merely aggressive mother) and the enjoyment of the leadership of a strong man.

Finally, Charles Corry, Ph.D., labels feminism as simple "misandry," and calls it an unstable philosophical framework through which to understand the world (see www.dvmen.org/dv-121.htm ). This, of course, would indicate why so many women today are - unstable.

6) Feminism is sociopathic. The basic characteristic of the sociopath is the inability to recognize any authority above his own wants and perceived needs. The sociopath is willing, for instance to deal drugs (against society's mores) and murder customers who have not paid for such or perhaps murder competing drug dealers simply because that is his job. He is a drug dealer, and he murders in the same way that the factory worker punches a time clock - without remorse or consideration of consequences.

It is undeniable that 4,400 times a day in America since Roe v. Wade, women have willingly destroyed innocent children in the womb for the mere opportunity to escape from responsibility. It is undeniable that the more feminism advances, the more social problems such as crime, psychological disorders, and welfarism explode. The social, moral, and psychological carnage is revealed in the millions of children left fatherless by feminism's attack on the family, the millions of men falsely accused of crimes by neurotic women or merely treated as ATM machines by society, by the dissolution of millions of families and the consequent personal and economic carnage that has followed in its wake.

But perhaps most sadly are the thousands of women who realize, too late, that feminism has sold them a bill of goods. Women who realize that they were a sucker play in someone else's chess game - women who no man will now have, who deal with the guilt of their attack on perhaps the one man who ever loved them and their children, and who face the future alone - cast off by those shelter workers who years ago promised them that if they left their husbands, everything would be all right.

Feminism destroys everything that it touches, because it is fully evil. Men, children, families, the very fabric of society. But because there is a force out there - call it God or Karma or whatever - in the end, those men and those children whom feminism has attempted to destroy can ultimately rise above the evil of feminism. But the women who choose the "easy" path offered by feminism end up alone, overmedicated, infertile, rejected, and with a weight of guilt almost impossible to shed.

There may well be justice in this world....

Are Men, or Women, Mediocre?

I admit it is, on the face of it, a stupid question. "Mediocre," as a concept, refers to a relation to the mean or average, and when one takes a category as broad as "men" or "women," it is impossible to relate it to the mean or average since the category itself comprises the mean or average.

However, it is a question that I was recently asked by a woman. "Why are there so many mediocre men in the world?" And my response was, of course, "How do you know it isn't the women who are mediocre?"

She meant, of course, that in her quest to locate the perfect man, she was running into dozens upon dozens of men whom she considers to be woefully inadequate. And my response, of course, was intended to sensitize her to the fact that it may not be the men she is running into that are the problem - maybe it is the standard she is using to judge, or (horrors!) maybe it is the judge herself!

In my counseling, I often see women whose expectations regarding relationships are imbalanced, to say the least, and outrageous, to say the most. Again, my counseling experience goes back 20 years, and I can honestly say that it is worse today than it was in, say, 1988.

Women come into relationships with two influences present, and one influence lacking, which makes it absolutely impossible for them to build a quality relationship as they once did in the past. The two influences that are present are feminism and the media (which I often refer to as Oprah, in recognition that all mainstream media today is a progenitor of watered-down feminism and is female-centered), and the influence that is lacking is a religion, a coherent philosophy, or some other dominant worldview that is actually attached to reality.

Women today expect for their relationships to make them happy. Happiness, of course, is not a goal (both religion and classical philosophy recognize this) but is rather a byproduct of making correct choices and of fulfilling one's duty. Yet feminism, and our feminist culture represented by the media, teaches women that they have no responsibility that they are obligated to fulfill. Don't want a baby? Abort it. Don't want your husband? Leave, and use the power of the state to get him out of your hair! Want his money but not his presence? Don't worry, child support and alimony will relieve you of the duty of providing for a family and false allegations of child abuse or domestic violence will allow you to keep your kids. Women expect, because both Oprah and Sex in the City tell them it is so, to have the world (i.e., men) catering to their every whim for as long as they (men) are wanted, then to meekly walk away when they are no longer needed. But don't forget to mail that check!

Because women no longer have any duties (so society tells them), they cannot properly understand what it means to love another person. Love is, after all, not an emotion, but it is rather a settled commitment to be loyal, faithful, and act in another's best interest even when your emotions may make it difficult for you to do so. Because women are no longer capable of love, they spend their years flitting from one unfulfilling relationship to another all the while wondering what it is that is wrong with men. Why don't men want relationships? Why can't men make them feel loved? But of course, those of us who are men - who learned to love our fellowman in the military, on football fields, and in the workplace - understand that we only FEEL acceptance when we have committed our loyalty to something larger than ourselves. Since feminism and the media tells women that there is nothing larger than themselves and their notional fancies (which change from moment to moment), women - to the extent that they buy into feminism and the dominant feminist culture (whether they consider themselves to be feminists or not) are incapable of finding the one thing that they seek: a loving, stable relationship.

The problem is, the problem isn't the men. Men are getting the blame - just as Nazis gave the blame to Jews - but the blame belongs firmly with women themselves, whose character, development, and ability to love has been compromised by feminism. So there is an endless cycle of blaming, resentment, fear, and frustration that women feel toward the men in their lives which undermines every single relationship in which they engage. Yet the perceived problems never find resolution because the perceived problems (men) are not the real problem (women’s buying into feminist fallacies) – and no matter how many times you attack the wrong problem, it isn’t going to solve the real one.

The other dynamic that I have noticed is something that became plain to me one night while at a club. There was a Country & Western song that was popular some time back, called, I think, "I Ain't Settlin'," in which a band of foxy female country music singers extol their own virtues and warble on about how just any old man will not do for them - in other words, they refuse to settle for anything other than the greatest man on earth.

However, I noted while working in the club that, though this song was generally popular, it tended to be popular with women who were about four feet eleven ,weighing approximately 200 pounds, with A-cups for breasts, nappy hair, no job, a passel of kids, thrice-divorced, and a face not wholly unlike that of the average hedgehog.

Now sure, if you are 5'8 with DD breasts, a multimillion dollar income from country music, and a body and face that causes premature ejaculation as you walk down the street, it is easy to sing, "I ain't settling." The problem is, that snotty attitude that "I am too good for the average guy" has been internalized, because it is constantly promoted in the media, by the female population at large, who really can't get away with it. Frankly, for the average women who sings "I Ain't Settlin'", the average guy would be selling himself quite short.

So, it is to a certain extent a problem that is innate to women. Women tend to be emotional and vain. That has always been true. The real problem, though, is that feminism has come along and told them that they are justified in their vanity and told them that what they want emotionally is more important than life as it really exists. Women have bought this bill of goods by the millions.

And therefore it is women, not men, who are the problem. And if a solution to the widespread social ills, as well as the personal struggles of women, is to be found, it will be found consequent to a change from women themselves.

To Be A Feminist....

To be a feminist, one must believe the following:

* Murder of the innocent unborn is good, and false allegations levied against innocent men are good, but the prosecution of Crystal Gail Mangum would be a setback for women's rights.

* Women are capable of doing anything that men can do, therefore standards must be lowered in Business School, Law School, Medical School, the military, police departments, and fire departments so that more women can be allowed to do what men are already doing.

* Women never lie about rape, but when they do, they should not face any consequences lest some other woman be discouraged from also lying about rape.

* Feminists respect diversity, unless a woman chooses to be an Evangelical Christian and a stay-at-home mom, in which case she is to be ridiculed.

* Feminists are righteous for insisting on the easy availability of sex for unmarried women, and men are goons for treating women like objectifiable sex objects.

* Women are enslaved by their dependence upon a husband for income and protection, but are set free by their dependence upon government for income and protection.

* The male patriarchy oppresses women, which is why ex-husbands must be exploited for child support and alimony under threat of governmental force.

* Women are capable of fighting in combat, but must be protected from a "hostile work environment" produced by bikini calendars.

* Women are capable of leading the world as President of the U.S., but are victims of "domestic violence" if a man fails to "properly regard their feelings."

* Men and women are the same, except that women never lie, are more nurturing, are more peaceful, are better communicators, and have an intuition that can be trusted in everything from workplace politics to international relations. However, men and women are the same - except where women are superior.

How Feminism Corrupts Women

A lot of men today are seeking to find wives outside of the United States. There is a widespread perception that Asian and Eastern European women are better life mates because they have not been polluted with the false philosophy of feminism.

Let's put that idea to the test, shall we?

It appears that, in fact, feminism DOES corrupt women, and that those least touched by feminism make the best mates!

;)