Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Prominent Feminist Leader Gloria Steinem Brags About Her Employment Under The CIA.

       Despite the feminist movement claiming its anti-establishment roots and rhetoric, had some of its prominent leaders receiving funds and under the employment of pro establishment organizations or government agencies like the CIA. Gloria Steinem, one of the greatest feminist heroines is one of them. She brags about how working for the CIA was "free" and better to work than a private foundation like the Ford Foundation; and she had rights to secrecy under her CIA employment. She claims that the CIA was not a conservative agency as many so-called liberals of her time claimed but they were "enlightened liberals" as the likes during the Kennedy administration. Now ask yourselves this; if you got the CIA hiring and sponsoring feminists, how the hell has nobody called them out on being part of the status quo and funded by the very establishments they claimed oppressed women?

An update to this post, here's official documentation of Steinem's time under the employment of the CIA, and she was also helping them in backing up communist organizations:

Monday, March 23, 2015

Feminist Myth Debunked: Women were the majority of voters since 1964.

Just how much power do female voters have here in the United States. To highlight the numbers let's look back at the 2008 Presidential election shall we? And while we're reflecting on these numbers just keep in mind the claims by the feminist movement that women here in the US have no power and that politics is controlled by men. Quote:
"Story highlights
65.7% - The percentage of eligible female voters who voted in the 2008 election.
61.5% - The percentage of eligible male voters who voted in the 2008 election.
70.4 million -- The number of women who cast ballots in the 2008 presidential election, versus 60.7 million men.
56% - The percentage of female voters who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, versus 43% for John McCain"
"The number of female voters has exceeded the number
of male voters in every presidential election since 1964"
So essentially women have been voting in the very politicians the feminist movement claims have been enslaving women since 1964. Which other "oppressed" class votes in its oppressors?

Saturday, March 21, 2015

A Survey Reports: 84% of Working Women Rather be Stay-at-home Moms.

A survey from "Forbes Woman" polled working women on how many of them saw being stay-at-home moms the ideal lifestyle and 84% of them answered that they did find that opportunity desirable, and 1/3 of them disliked the fact their husbands did not have the economical ability to provide for them alone. This is direct opposition of the bold faced lie the feminist movement told women in the 60's and 70's that women would find fulfillment and happiness in the workforce:

"According to a new partnered survey cosponsored byForbesWoman and TheBump.com, a growing number of women see staying home to raise children (while a partner provides financial support) to be the ideal circumstances of motherhood.  Forget the corporate climb; these young mothers have another definition of success: setting work aside to stay home with the kids.
For the third year running, ForbesWoman andTheBump.com surveyed 1,000 U.S. women in our joint communities (67% were working outside the home and 33% stayed at home with their children) about their employment decisions post-motherhood, and how their family finances and the economy affected those choices.You can find survey highlights here.
At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out “The End of Men,” or Google “gender paygap” for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out ofDodge). But it’s true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.
What’s more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.
Radical feminists–who’ve long put women who opt out of the work force on the defensive, espousing and that feminism is rightly about access to all opportunities, not adherence to one script–will of course take issue.
But as a choice-feminist, Morgan-Steiner sees the opportunity for women to make this choice and I agree. No feminist voice can or should make a woman feel bad for the decision to choose family over career. But from the perspective of a young woman who works to balance career and life (even without a husband and child), I feel there’s something more at play beyond a simple choice. Instead, I believe working women have been wedged between a clichéd rock and a hard place."
And that is something we already know to be a lie since pioneering feminists who set the foundations of feminism like Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir claimed that housewives are mentally ill to be happy in "comfortable concentration camps" that traditional marriage was for women and also that motherhood, femininity, and female physiology were embarrassing weaknesses.
"Ann Marie Slaughter worded the demands placed on working women beautifully this year in her Atlantic essay “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.”The myths of the happy, “have-it-all” working woman are not necessarily lies, she writes, “but at best partial truths.” No matter how hard we try or who we marry, having kids while simultaneously to achieve career success sucks. (Unless you’re Sheryl Sandberg, but I’m not even buying that one)."

Monday, March 16, 2015

French Divorce Laws late 1700's though 1800's.

Despite the feminist movement telling us that women were nothing but chattel int he 18th and 19th centuries, Both men and women alike suffered rigorous indissoluble marriages until 1792. Where the new divorce law was considered very liberal even to our standards:

"Divorce and Women in France Divorce first became legal in France on September 20, 1792. It was abolished in 1816, and, despite divorce bills presented by legislators in the 1830s and in 1848, it was only re-established in 1884 under the Third Republic. Throughout this period, France's political climate shaped its divorce laws; divorce was regarded as a republican, and even a revolutionary institution throughout the nineteenth century.

The divorce law of September 20, 1792, was indeed a revolutionary departure from what had come before. Under the ancient regime marriage was indissoluble; after 1792, couples could divorce quickly and easily. This law acknowledged both the principles of marital breakdown, in which neither spouse would be named the guilty party to the divorce. In the former case, couples could divorce by mutual consent, or one spouse could sue for divorce simply for incompatibility of temperament. So that unilateral divorce would not be used carelessly, a waiting period of six months was imposed. In divorce for a specific cause, grounds included immorality, cruelty, insanity, condemnation for certain crimes, desertion for at least two years, or emigration. Even by modern standards, this was an extremely liberal divorce law. It made divorce affordable even to the very poor, it was equally available throughout France, and it was not based on any double standard of sexual morality that would have put women at a disadvantage. This divorce law reflected the Revolution's commitment to the rights of the individual and its antipathy to Roman Catholicism."

After Napoleon took power, divorce laws became more conservative in what could be considered grounds for divorce. Despite all that, women still filed for more divorces than men despite there being an apparent double standard; which is very well erased given the fact that the "Women's Club" was a club where women shared husbands:

Under Napoleon, divorce became much more difficult to obtain. In 1803, as part of the establishment of the Civil Code, the law was made more restrictive: grounds for divorce were reduced to adultery, ill-treatment, and condemnation to certain degrading forms of punishment. Divorce by mutual consent now required the permission of family members, and the grounds of incompatibility were eliminated completely. In addition, the sexual double standard was introduced into the law: women could be divorced for simple adultery, while a man could be convicted of adultery only if he brought his mistress into his home. Divorce as also made more expensive and more difficult proceedurally. These changes in the law had the desired effect: they strengthened patriarchal authority with the family and they drastically reduced the number of divorces to roughly a tenth of their number under the 1792 law. In spite of their disadvantaged position under the new law, women continued to outnumber men as petitioners in divorce cases after 1803. Women appear to have had more cause to be dissatisfied with marriage -- not surprisingly, since it place them socially, economically and even physically under the tutelage of their husbands."

A disclaimer to be made is that women in France could inherit, own property and hold political office:

Source for the above screenshots: "Changing Identities in Early Modern France" edited by Michael Wolfe pages 79-85

Let's continue:

"With the return of the monarchy to France in 1816, divorce was abolished entirely. Under Louis XVII, Roman Catholicism became once again the state religion, and, in accordance with its doctrine, judicial separation became the only option for unhappy couples. After the fall of the Bourbons in the July Revolution of 1830, several attempts were made to reestablish the Napoleonic law. In 1831, 1832, 1833 and 1834, a divorce bill was introduced and easily passed by the chamber of deputies. However, each time, the chamber of peers rejected even the far more restrictive law of 1803 that was proposed. France's aristocracy clearly rejected any return to the revolution; their vote against these divorce bills was as much a rejection of the revolutionary heritage as of divorce's social effect s.
The revolution of 1848 brought a new attempt to reinstitute divorce in France. In May of that year several members of the Executive Commission deposed, in the name of the government, a divorce bill to be considered by the constituent assembly. Adolphe Crémieux, the minister of justice, along with Arago, Lamartine, Marie, and Garnier-Pagès, proposed that the law of May 8, 1816 be rescinded, and that the Napoleonic law, title VI of the civil code, be brought back into force . They offered only two modifications: any judicial separation could be converted into a divorce after three years, and a spouse convicted of adultery would be prohibited from filing for divorce.
The restitution of divorce met with opposition as early as the beginning of April 1848, nearly two months before a proposal reached the national assembly and even before the women's club took up the issue. Critics of divorce maintained that the only moral foundation for marriage was its indissolu bility. The reintroduction of divorce into French society would challenge the purity and strength of all marriages, even those which it would not dissolve. In their view, indissolubility was not just a religious principle, but also the cornerstone of social order and stability.

While this divorce bill differed only slightly from those proposed by liberal legislators in the 1830s, men of all classes found it threatening because radical women demanded the right to divorce in 1848. The wome n's club, presided over by Eugene Niboyet, held a meeting to discuss the divorce question in early May 1848, and published articles supporting divorce in their newspaper, La Voix des Femmes. The Vésuviennes, a quasi-military organization of Parisian working women, also advocated the return of a conservative divorce law. It was part of their plan for a new egalitarian marriage, in which men and women would share domestic duties and public service. In a series of lec tures given at the Collège de France, Ernest Legouvé also advocated the reestablishment of divorce. Well-known for his support of women's rights, Legouvé argued that women in particular would benefit from divorce, since its only alternative under the present law, separation still left wives under their husbands' control. A few days after Crémieux presented the constituent assembly with his committee's divorce bill, a group of 200 married women gathered at the Plac e Vendôme to congratulate and thank him. Many critics portrayed divorce as the first step toward the political and social emancipation of French women, and perhaps even toward sexual freedom for women. Both radical women and their male opponents viewed divorce as one of many demands that could be the first step in completely transforming relations between the sexes, although such a conservative law was unlikely to prompt any drastic changes. Even many socialists, notably Proudhon, d oubted whether women should be politically emancipated, but men across the political spectrum knew that they did not want to promote women's sexual liberation. They resurrected criticism of the 1792 law, some of it dating back to 1796, in order to show that divorce would result in social disorder. On April 9, Charivari published several jokes of this kind, one about a couple who divorced and remarried eleven times, and another that showed a man who had remarried so many times that he called his wife by her number -- 14 -- because he could not remember her name. Critics also warned that divorce would disrupt more marriages than judicial separation; one cartoon showed a middle-class husband and his unattractive wife in their drawing room; the caption reads: "But what are you waiting for before you buy me a new hat?" to which her husband replies, "Heavens! I'm waiting for chamber's decision on divorce!"
Other critics of divorce concentrated on making supporters of a new law appear ridiculous. One article on the women's club claimed that divorce would interest widows and old maids the most, because it would bring a large number of men back into the marriage market. According to this article, the women's club would decree that a husband was a privilege. Since all privileges were theft, married women would be required to relinquish their husbands to the club, which would then hold a lottery, in which each man could be won for a one-year marriage. Such descriptio ns of promiscuity referred back to the sexual radicalism of Père Enfantin and the Saint Simonians of the 1830s, and they made many feminists cautious in their support of divorce. Pauline Roland, who had been an advocate of free love in the 1830s, recognized divorce's legitimacy, but she saw it as a failure on the part of the couple, and recommended that their children be taken away to be raised by "blameless" parents. According to Roland, marriage must be based on fidelity, and the emancipat ion of women would not include sexual freedom. In the end, the reestablishment of divorce was never even debated by the assembly. On September 27 this bill was formally withdrawn. In late October, Crémieux announced definitively that divorce would not be reestablished.
The issue of divorce disappeared until the last years of the Second Empire. With the political liberalization of the late 1860s came a few calls for the reestablishment of divorce, but only from self-proclaimed radi cals and feminists like Olympe Audouard, André Léo and Léon Richer. With the establishment of the Third Republic, interest in a new divorce law rose. Between 1875 and 1884, Alfred Naquet, a former radical socialist and now deputy from the Vaucluse and other supporters of a new law went on the lecture circuit. They organized conferences in towns throughout France, during which they explained the desirability of and even need for a new divorce law. In contrast to 1848, women p layed a relatively small part in number of pamphlets and books published in the 1870s on divorce. Significantly, Naquet himself was enforced to renounce his earlier support of free love and the abolition of marriage during the campaign.
In 1876, Naquet introduced a bill in the chamber, modeled on the original law of 1792. The deputies laughed at the idea that divorce's reestablishment was either needed or wanted in France, and they refused even to form a committee to discuss it. Naquet reintroduced the bill in 1878, and it was again defeated. He then gave up on passing a law similar to that of 1792. He turned to the Napoleonic law, title VI of the civil code, and modeled a new, more conservative bill on it. It was narrowly defeated in the chamber of deputies in 1881; however, it was reconsidered and passed by the chamber in 1882 and sent on to the senate. The senate modified the bill by eliminating divorce for their husbands' adultery, thus eliminating the sexual double standar d in the law. This version was agreed upon by both chambers, and, after 68 years, divorce was reestablished in France on July 27, 1884.
Michèle Plott"


Phillips, Roderick. Putting Asunder: A History of Divorce in Western Society, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Phillips, Roderick. Family Breakdown in Eighteenth-Century France: Rouen, 1780-1800, Oxford, 1980.
Desser time, Dominique. Divorcer à Lyon sous la Révolution et l'Empire, Lyon, 1981.
McGregor, O.M. Divorce in England, London, 1957.

Article: http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/divorce.htm

Thursday, March 12, 2015

The Alarming Rate of Negative Portrayals of Men and Boys by the Media, and Their Effects.

Dr. Macnamara, an Australian media researcher at the Western Sydney University, conducted an extensive study on how the mainstream media and culture portrays masculinity and the male gender in general. His findings are mainly found in his book where he reveals his data called, 'Media and Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men.' His findings are alarming and point out to the elephant in the room that the feminist movement either denies to talk about or rationalizes it all away as justifiable. He goes further along to report on an interview on how damaging the effects to men and boys in general it can have, and how any positive portrayal of men are seen, it's usually attributed to a "feminine side":

'Women have battled for years against stereotypical and sexist portrayals in the mass media. However research shows that men are increasingly the target for negative press.
The long-term effects of negative portrayals should particularly concern anyone who is raising boys, says the author of the study, Dr Jim Macnamara. 

Dr Macnamara, who works as a media researcher, conducted the research for his PhD at the University of Western Sydney. He has recently published his findings in a book, 'Media and Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men.'  

As part of the study, he undertook an extensive content analysis of mass media portrayals of men and male identity focusing on news, features, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media. Over six months, the study involved detailed analysis of over 2,000 media articles and program segments.\ 

Dr Macnamara found that, by volume, 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable, compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral or balanced. 

Some of the recurring themes in media content portrayed men as violent, sexually abusive, unable to be trusted with children, 'deadbeat dads', commitment phobic and in need of 're-construction'. 

"Men were predominantly reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identity showing men in on one of these four ways," Dr Macnamara says. 

Further, in somewhat of a back-handed compliment, when positive portrayals of men as sensitive, emotional or caring were presented, these were described as men's and boys' 'feminine side.' 
'The idealised image of the metrosexual - largely a creation of the media - only further adds to the confusion being felt particularly by boys trying to find their identity in the modern world,' Dr Macnamara says. 

Negative stereotyping of men and male identity can contribute to significant problems in society in three key ways, Dr Macnamara warns.
'Highly negative views of men and male identity provide little by way of positive role models for boys to find out what it means to be a man and gives boys little basis for self-esteem.'
'In the current environment where there is an identified lack of positive male role models in the physical world through absentee fathers in many families, and a shortage of male teachers, the lack of positive role models in the media and presence of overwhelmingly negative images should be of concern.'

This makes the research not only of relevance to men, but also for women, he says. 
'Women who are the mothers of sons have equal cause for concern with the trend towards demonising, marginalising and trivialising of men and male identity.' 
'Ultimately such portrayals could lead to negative social and even financial costs for society in areas such as male health, rising suicide rates and family disintegration,' he warns."
There we can see that this idea of the "feminine-metrosexual" man , is a media construct, which further creates a distorted view of natural masculine traits (having beards and body hair). It is a shame that here in the US, the Universities have shown no interest in making such studies to find out how men are portrayed in our media. Kind of ironic, when the feminist movement claims that we live in a patriarchal nation interested in looking out for men and boys first.
Sources for the study: 

"Men become the main target in the new gender wars" by Phys.org and University of Western Sydney

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Prominent Suffragists Received Funds From Pro-Slavery Democrats and Were Openly Racists.

  In the late 1800's, prominent suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony along with other suffragists and feminists, disassociated themselves from the Abolitionist movement. Susan B. Anthony openly brags about receiving funds from hardcore racist democrats:

As we can read, the Suffrage movement engaged in immoral political practices devoid of ethical principles. They also adopted blatant racist biases against the Negro, Native Americans, Jews, Irish Catholics and Asians. Other suffragists like Mary Stewart in 1880 gave her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and showed her malcontent that blacks had access to the ballot, before white women: " The negroes are a race inferior, you must admit to your daughters, and yet that race has the ballot". Other famous suffragists like Laura Clay and Carrie Chapman Catt, also openly displayed racism towards immigrants, blacks and natives calling their vote "the ignorant foreign vote" and called them biased towards voting for their own ethnicity :

Source: "Social Problems in a Free Society: Myths, Absurdities, and Realities" By Myles J. Kelleher- Pages 252-253

Betty Friedan's Ties to Radical Left-Wing Communism and Her Blatant Hatred Towards Housewives.

    In a book called" Social Problems in a Free Society: Myths, Absurdities, and Realities" By Myles J. Kelleher, it is revealed that Betty Friedan, mother of second wave feminism, started her career right after college in 1942 for a radical left wing news press called Federated Press:

Friedan lived around UN employees in a previously inhabited neighborhood by her and her family in Manhattan, NY. She hardly did any "housewifery" for more than a quarter of a century before she wrote the famed "Feminine Mystique". Her book was so far-fetched to academics that Alan Wolfe, a sociologist concluded that " the made-up life of Betty Friedan leaves contemporary readers uneasy about whether anything at all in her book can be trusted",
In 1952, she worked for the" largest communist-led institution of any kind in the US" called United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America.

In the same page of the same book, we can find the author directly quoting from Friedan's book, "Feminine Mystique", how she viewed housewives as parasites, schizophrenics and brainwashed; comparing their lifestyles as "comfortable concentration camps" despite her own claim of of being one herself, which was already proven to be a lie by the previous information and her own husband said they hired maids to serve her. You can read for yourself the contempt Friedan held traditional women:

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Feminists Caught In A Lie During A Controversial In Group Argument.

The ever self defeating feminists are caught in a bold faced lie they told men inside a recent ideological controversy.Prominent feminist Jessica Valenti has recently disagreed with fellow feminist Sheryl Sandberg on the topic that men who do more house chores, get more sex and fulfilling relationships:

"It turns out that men can also benefit — in the bedroom — from doing actual housework."Sandberg and Grant reported in the fourth installment of their New York Times series, Women at Work:

'Sandberg and Grant reported in the fourth installment of their New York Times series, Women at Work:Research shows that when men do their share of chores, their partners are happier and less depressed, conflicts are fewer, and divorce rates are lower. They live longer, too; studies demonstrate that there’s a longevity boost for men (and women) who provide care and emotional support to their partners later in life. 
If that isn’t exciting enough, try this: Couples who share chores equally have more sex. As the researchers Constance T. Gager and Scott T. Yabiku put it, men and women who work hard play hard.'"
The research provided by Sandberg is very shoddy, lacking in details and usage of methodology as we can read in the hyperlinks. They are very vague and ambiguous, and don't cite any  scientific method. Here are actual detailed studies that actually show that if you keep your traditional male chores, you'll get more sex than men who do traditionally female chores

"Does the sight of men doing traditional female chores turn women off? A new study suggests that the more time men spend on household tasks, the less sex they have.

 "Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks -- such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance -- report higher sexual frequency."

The study, which was published in the February edition of the American Sociological Review, surveyed 4,500 heterosexual married U.S. couples from 1992 to 1994. The average age for men was 46, and women were around 44.

On average, couples spent 34 hours on traditional female household chores, like cooking, cleaning, shopping and sewing. They spent another 17 hours doing men's tasks, which include household repairs and working outdoors in the garden. Men spent did about one-fifth of the female tasks, and only a little more than half of the male tasks. This suggested that women did more housework overall.

Men and women reported on average having sex five times the month before the survey was taken. In households where the women did all the female chores, they had sex 1.6 times more a month than the households where the men did all the traditionally female tasks. Households where men did 40 percent of the housework had one less sexual event on average."

And what was Jessica Valenti's issue with Sandberg's idea? You shouldn't expect sex from the woman who accepted to marry you, and be sexually exclusive to you; and if you do, you're being sexist to your sexually exclusive wife... as if she was a stranger you didn't build a romantic relationship with and were already demanding sex from. Get your drinks ready, here comes Valenti down with the sickness:

"But the incentive for men to be 50/50 domestic partners with their wives leaves me cold: 
'When men share household responsibilities, their wives are happier and their marriages are stronger. Not only does marital satisfaction go up, but couples have more sex – “choreplay” is real!'

It also paints a fairly inaccurate - and transactional - picture of female desire. Despite terrible gift books to the contrary, most women don’t get off on men vacuuming or picking up socks (not that there’s anything wrong with those that do). What turns women on is what turns men on: good sex.Perhaps it’s true that couples have sex more often when men take on an equitable amount of domestic work. "
So husbands who are solely responsible for being 24/7 bodyguards, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, disciplinarians budgetary accountants, mostly responsible for the well-being of the family ; are lazy sexists for not really helping your wives with their end of the bargain. And here's the kicker; men who are in modern relationships sharing house chores equally, have 50% higher chances of suffering divorces than men in more traditional marriages:

"'Divorce rates are far higher among “modern” couples who share the housework than in those where the woman does the lion’s share of the chores', a Norwegian study has found. 
In what appears to be a slap in the face for gender equality, the report found the divorce rate among couples who shared housework equally was around 50 per cent higher than among those where the woman did most of the work."

So, not are only men less likely to divorce in a more traditional marriage, wives report more happiness in them.So much for the movement that claims to fight for both genders' equality and happiness.

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Opposing Shared Parenting: The Feminist Track Record


                                 Opposing Shared Parenting: The Feminist Track Record 
                                                              by Prentice Reid

When questions of why we oppose the feminist movement and why we are men's rights activists comes up one of the issues frequently overlooked is the fact that the largest feminist organization in America has consistently opposed shared parenting bills. These bills are designed to ensure that fathers by default have an equal amount of time with their children and remain a permanent fixture in their lives.

Father's rights groups have had to fight feminist organizations like The National Organization for Women since at least 1986 for the right to shared custody.

In 1986 newspapers reported that Noreen Connell, President of the New York State chapter of the NOW as opposing shared parenting. [1]

In 2001 feminist groups in Canada refused to even sit at the same table as men during a consultation on changes to divorce laws due to shared parenting proposals being made by father's rights groups. They also demanded a woman-only discussion on the issue. The National Post reported on this incident:

"Women's groups who boycotted nationwide government consultations on changes to divorce law because they refused to sit at the same table as men could get the female-only hearing they have demanded.
Although the consultations ended last month, the Justice Department and its provincial partners are considering a special session for "women's equality-seeking organizations" that are fighting proposed changes to the federal Divorce Act. Those changes would give separated and divorced parents an equal say in raising their children under a new concept called shared parenting.
The women's groups are urging governments "not to cave into a father's rights groups agenda." [2]

In 2005 The National Organization for Women stated their reasons for opposing shared  parenting so let's take a look at the reasoning behind their opposition:

"Shared Parenting" is defined as "the award of custody to both parties so that both parties share equally the legal responsibility and control of such child and share equally the living experience in time and physical care of assure frequent and continuing contact with both parties, as the court deems to be in the best interests of the child, taking into consideration the location and circumstances of each party." The assertion that "shared parenting is in the best interests of minor children" is on its face

The following facts continue to be true with respect to mandatory joint custody of the children:
* To arbitrarily reassign a child's primary caregiver, or disrupt a child's attachment to a primary
caregiver creates an unstable, even traumatic situation for the children.
* Increased father involvement does not necessarily result in positive outcomes for children." [3]

Their claim that increased father involvement does not result in positive outcomes for child is a bold faced lie. The Baltimore Sun informs us of the detrimental effects on children raised by one parent:

"The negative impact on our children is dramatic. For instance, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Census Bureau, children raised by single parents account for:
•63 percent of teen suicides,
•70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions,
•71 percent of high school dropouts,
•75 percent of children in chemical abuse centers,
•85 percent of those in prison,
•85 percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders
•And 90 percent of homeless and runaway children." [4]

The effect of fatherlessness on girls is detrimental just as it is with boys and if The National Organization for Women really cared about the female gender it would be interested in ensuring that fathers remained in the lives of their daughters to prevent effects such as the well-known increase in teen pregnancy associated with girls experiencing fatherlessness

NOW in their opposition statement also claimed that the bill imposed mandatory shared custody regardless of whether it was best for the child or not but the actual bill they were opposing never actually stated this as their purpose in the text of the bill. The actual bill laid out it's goals:

"Establishes the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared
parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared
parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child...

PURPOSE: To create a statutory presumption of joint custody for all
minor children whose parents are no longer married, so that both parents
can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children`s upbringing...

The burden of proof that shared parenting would be detrimental is placed
upon the parent requesting sole custody....

The first preference is for joint
custody to be awarded by the court. If the court opts not to award joint
custody it must state its reasons for denial. The order of joint custody
may be amended by the court if it is shown that it would be in the best
interests of the child." [5]

In 2009 NOW opposed shared parenting bill A00330 and lied about the bill making default shared custody mandatory AGAIN. The bill actually said that it's goal was to created a presumption of default shared custody IF there was no valid evidence that doing so would be against the child's best interest. NOW admited that they are biased in favor of the mother having primary custody after divorce in their opposition statement. The following is NOW's statement:

"As court-ordered arrangements imposed upon…embattled and embittered parents … [joint custody] can only enhance family chaos....

The National Organization for Women-New York State has always favored a primary caregiver (usually the mother) presumption to ensure stability and continuity of care for children....

Father’s rights groups are in the forefront of the push for legislation establishing a presumption in favor of joint custody....

Joint custody over the wishes of one parent facilitates using the children to maintain access and control over the other parent’s life." [6]

Let's take a look at the actual stated goal of the bill they were opposing:

"AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to establishing
a presumption of shared parenting of minor children in matrimonial

The provisions of this act establish a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that shared
parenting is in the best interests of minor children....

the court, on due consideration, [may] SHALL award the natural guardianship,
charge and custody of such child to [either parent] BOTH PARENTS, IN THE

So as you can see from the text of the actual bill, NOW was lying through their teeth about the bill not considering all other factors before awarding shared custody. But this is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the feminist movement and NOW's anti-family activity.

They also opposed bills that would give families the option of mediation in the event of a divorce so that they would not have to deal with a nasty courtroom dispute that could result in grudges that could emotionally hurt the children in the family. Here is NOW's statement on their opposition to the mediation bill and notice that they expressly state that one of the reasons they oppose it is because it often results in shared parenting:

"Mediation is a closed-door, non-appealable, non-enforceable system with no power to order disclosure of assets or hire experts, but instead relies on “trust.” Women’s access to the courts and enforcement of their rights should be expanded rather than denying them due process by mandating mediation in child custody and child support cases in the name of reforming the legal system....Almost all mediated agreements provide for joint custody or “shared parenting” without consideration of the best interest of the children." [8]

The National Organization for Women is the largest, most powerful, feminist organization in the United States, the pressure they place on politicians makes a huge impact on what bills are passed and which bills are not passed.

When debating about the evils the feminist movement have wrought they need to be held accountable for depriving countless numbers of children from having fathers in their lives and by extension they need to be held, at least partly accountable, for the psychological mayhem that results from children not having adequente time with their dads.

Friday, March 6, 2015

An International Study Suggests: Women More Prone to Work Related Jealousy

     A combined research effort in studying gender relations in the workplace by three different universities in Spain, Netherlands and Argentina, has discovered that women tend to feel envy and jealousy towards other women's success but men remained indifferent about it. Here's the Science Daily's report on it:

"A group of researchers from the universities of Valencia, Groningen (the Netherlands) and Palermo (Argentina) have analysed the differences between men and women in their way of feeling envious and jealous at work.

'Women with a high level of intrasexual competition are more jealous if the rival is more attractive and more envious if the rival is more powerful and dominating. They did not get any results in men, as no rival characteristics that provoke jealousy or envy predicted intrasexual competition' Rosario Zurriaga, researcher at the University of Valencia and one of the authors of the study which has been published in the journal Revista de Psicología Social, told SINC.

Intrasexual rivalry is competition with other people of the same sex caused by the desire to obtain and keep access to the opposite sex. Zurriaga, together with researchers at the universities of Groningen (the Netherlands) and Palermo (Argentina) analysed this type of rivalry using questionnaires distributed directly to 200 subjects in their workstations. 
The same study only suggested that men and women are equally jealous or envious towards skills. But the fact remains; men don't feel threatened by female bosses or higher ups.

Here are the results in the PDF format:

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Fact: Men are more honest and tolerant about sexual history. Part 2

    Feminism has also stated that male entitlement oppresses women. That male promiscuity is seen as socially acceptable and even admired but female promiscuity is seen as low. They have claimed that society is equally oppressive towards women and their bodies. Here's Everyday Feminism, a very famous feminist page's claims about how men and society treat sexuality by genders:

"It’s embedded in the way promiscuous men are idolized in Bond movies while promiscuous women get called sluts. Every action in our society that overvalues the sexual gratification of men reinforces male sexual entitlement. 

Sexual harassment, street harassment, sexually motivated stalking and slut-shaming are all effects of male sexual entitlement that directly affect women."

Not only is feminism propagading the idea that men are the judges and beneficiaries of female sexual oppression. But sex therapists have come out and advised women to lie by omission to their potential partners about their sexual past, or be dishonest about their numbers of sexual encounters, All under the premise that men will judge your past but not apply the same rules for themselves:

"If you're over 30 and asked how many sex partners to confess to, the correct answer is ten.The reason I know the answer to that question is because every female I know (barring those who married their childhood sweethearts) answers 'ten' whenever they're asked by a partner how many people they've slept with.

People will judge you no matter what answer you give when asked about past lovers and the assumption they make is usually wrong.
Which is why I don't care who's doing the asking – whether it's your partner, mother, best friend or beauty therapist - your answer to how many lovers you've had is no answer.
(The only exceptions: your psychotherapist, gynaecologist or the nice people at the GU clinic who are testing you for STIs).

Keep your mouth zipped even if nothing else has been: by putting a number on your sexual history you're removing the emotion and the circumstances.
And don't kid yourself: if you do blurt out a figure to your boyfriend, you will be judged – and not necessarily by the same rules he judges himself on.
Even if he's slept with 300, your three will be two too many."

She offers advice on traceycox.com.

But let's see if evidence if men are actually idolized for promiscuity or if we are the ones passing harsh judgement. 

study reported by the Toronto Sun, cites evidence suggesting that not are only men equally judged for a promiscuous past, but are also the one ones doing less judging when compared to their female peers:

"The sexual revolution has come a long way: now men are judged just as harshly as women for having "too much" casual sex.

It is increasingly a "level playing field," said researcher Rachel Allison of the University of Illinois, who looked at the survey responses of more than 19,000 college students from 22 different U.S. schools.

Based on their responses to questions, including "If (wo)men hook up or have sex with lots of people, I respect them less," the study found nearly half (48%) of students were "egalitarian conservatives" - meaning, equal opportunity disapprovers.

Women were more likely than men to lose respect for promiscuous peers of either gender: 54% of female respondents, as compared to 35% of males.

But only a quarter of the men hold the traditional double standard of losing respect for sexually liberal women but not men.

About 27% of respondents were "egalitarian libertarians" - they don't care how much a man or a woman hooks up."

So we can clearly see that evidence actually suggests, men tend to be more forgiving and tolerant of promiscuity towards both genders (65%) compared to women who only make up of 46% of the same group. 

Original Source for the study: Study: College Students Lose Respect for Peers Who Hook Up Too Much

In summary: 

Despite being told we benefit from promiscuity and sexuality, men were found to be more conservative; have a less promiscuous past when fake lie detector tests showed that women scored almost twice as much as men did, and we were found to be more honest and less judgmental about it. Women on the other hand, tend to lie about their sexual past and are actually encouraged to be dishonest by their fellow women, who are actually are the more judgmental when it comes to sexuality towards their fellow women,. All this evidence flies in the face of feminists' claims that men are evil, sexually entitled, promiscuous authoritarians.