Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Swedish Feminist Ministers Want Companies to be More Female or Suffer Consequences.

In the same spirit of the recent U.N. declaration that women need more privileges and special treatment than men, Sweden is on the verge of punishing firms that do not make their boards more female with at least 40% of women in the staff. They even threatened these firms with dissolution, which after he back pedaled from in Twitter. The Local reports:
"The warning comes off the back of a government plan to introduce a quota law to ensure companies have a greater representation of women on their boards.Gender Equality Minister, Asa Regnér, told Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet earlier this year that she believed a gender balance bill could be introduced by 2017. 
But she did not mention what the sanctions would be for failing to comply with any new quota. 
On Friday, Justice and Migration Minister Morgan Johansson told Swedish Radio that there could be a number of punitive measures to ensure companies take the legislation seriously. 
'The company could be dissolved or fined heavily,” Johansson said. He suggested that any penalty payment could be related to the company’s size.
“The company could be dissolved or fined heavily,” Johansson said. He suggested that any penalty payment could be related to the company’s size. 
Johansson went on to say: "I think that every party that wants to call itself feminist must also be involved to tear away this glass ceiling [on female advancement in the workplace] - otherwise it will be just empty words."
           But he later retracted his comments that companies might be wound up.
"Hold your horses,' he wrote in English on Twitter. 
'Before you run the campaign too far I want to clarify that I am not currently proposing the dissolution of companies,' he said."
 However he wrote that a "substantial penalty" could be imposed on firms that failed to demonstrate greater gender balance.

This is his post in Twitter where he back pedals from the claim of dissolution, but still affirms that companies could face penalties.

The U.N. Wants to Impose Feminist Draconian Policies to Promote "More Equality".

The U.N. now wants to implement world wide draconian policies because having equality for women, doesn't mean having equality for women, in their Orwellian style rhetoric. They now claim women need " different treatment" than men; which means give women preferential treatment to achieve more equality...This is where faith in humanity dies once again, and here's Time Magazine reporting on it:
"Equal opportunity is not enough to ensure gender equality, according to a groundbreaking new report from U.N. Women. Instead, governments must commit to social policies that treat women differently in order to help them achieve economic parity with men.'We must go beyond creating equal opportunities to ensure equal outcomes,” the report says. “‘Different treatment’ may be required to achieve real equality in practice.” This report, called Progress of the World’s Women 2015–2016, is one of the first major international reports to acknowledge that legal equality for women does not translate into actual equality, and that governments must make substantial social-policy changes that enable the redistribution of domestic duties in order for women to play a truly equal role in society.'
It’s the global version of what Sheryl Sandberg has been saying all along with Lean In — women will never be equal unless workplace policies adjust to fit their needs, and men need to step up to help at home...
...Removing legal barriers to female employment is not enough, the report says, noting that “we also need measures that free up women’s time.”

The U.N wants governments to basically dictate how home chores are divided, and eliminate more of our rights in the name of feminism, and women's time are more important than men's. This is social Marxism by the U.N. once again with its ideological wife Feminism walking hand in hand on this.

Monday, May 18, 2015

The Historical Revisionism by Feminist Academia on Female Achievement.

      One of the most repeated claims from feminist academics is that along with women being subjected to men, they had no rights, including property rights, and that the inventions or discoveries made by women are hijacked by the patriarchy. Yet when these claims are further investigated, not only do we find women were filing for most of the divorces, had inheritance and property rights, but also had thousands of patents given to them. For example, the University of Indiana claims that before 1936, only 20 women were given patents in the U.S.:
"Before a fire destroyed the U.S. Patent Office in 1936, only about 20 of the nearly 10,000 patents had been granted to women."
Yet when we look beyond the number of women in old magazines and newspapers of the times, such as "Scientific American: Supplement, Volume 47"we find that not only only more than 20, but thousands of women were awarded patents and credited with the most important inventions of day-to-day basis uses. And whatever invention that held a man's name that was based on a woman's idea, had so with the full consent of the woman.


So how can feminists claim this supposed lack of considerable female contribution due to systemic patriarchal oppression through restrictions? 
Women back then not only were inventing, but also being leaders of businesses and employers themselves, influencing by being pioneers in introducing new products and methods as we read in "Westering Women and the Frontier Experience, 1800-1915 By Sandra L. Myres".

     According to the same survey " R.G Dun & Company", illustrates the financial and influential power women had since back then by buying out other businesses and making them flourish. This information can be found in the book, "Capital Intentions: Female Proprietors in San Francisco, 1850-1920 By Edith Sparks":

      It is clear by the astounding evidence that women were powerhouses in their own merit as business and invention pioneers without the help of feminism under the so-called patriarchy, yet we are told by mainstream feminists that women back then were nothing but chattel for their husbands and male family members; that they were helpless victims who according to Susan B. Anthony, were just as oppressed as black slaves lacking even basic rights.

Ask yourselves this question, who is profiteering from making women damsels in distress with paranoid/schizophrenic tendencies for their unsolicited fear of men?

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Women Most Unhappy for the Last 40 Years Despite Women's Liberation.

Women were told ad nauseam that they would find happiness and fulfillment outside the home and traditional marriages by the feminist movement during the 60's and 70's. The home and traditional marriage, as these feminists preached, were the centers of oppression for women and were to blame for women's physical and emotional detriment. Here we are in the 21st century, and women report less satisfaction as they did 40 years ago despite out competing men in education and work:

"Women are less happy nowadays despite 40 years of feminism, a new study claims.
Despite having more opportunities than ever before, they have a lower sense of well-being and life satisfaction, it found.

The study, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, said the same was true for women of different ages and whether or not they were married or had children.
It said the results appeared surprising given that modern women had been liberated from their traditional 1950s role of housewife.

Instead, their earning power has soared, women are doing better than men in education and they are in control of decisions over whether to start a family.
The findings were released as Sir Stuart Rose, chairman of Marks & Spencer, claimed that women 'have never had it so good'.

Insisting neither gender nor motherhood is now a barrier to career to success, he said: 'You've got real democracy and there really are no glass ceilings, despite the fact that some of you moan about it all the time.

High-flyer: Sir Stuart Rose, chief executive of Marks & Spencer, says many women are breaking through the glass ceiling
'Women can get to the top of any single job that they want to in the UK. 'You've got a woman fighter pilot who went on to join the Red Arrows.. Women astronauts. Women miners. Women dentists. Women doctors. Women managing directors. What is it you haven't got?'

Sir Stuart's comments in The Observer were contradicted by Dr Katherine Rake of The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality.
She said there was still 'no flexibility' for women at high levels of business.

'Women tend to have greater commitments at home and so need flexible working arrangements,' she said.
'While some organisations are prepared to enable this at less senior levels, many will not at the top.
'Second, there is no change at the top. Because the top of organisations are generally white and male, they stay white and male.'

The study by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found that while post-war era happiness surveys found women were noticeable happier than men, the difference had eroded to 'zero'.

Its authors, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania, found that in the U.S., women's happiness had fallen 'both absolutely and relatively to that of men'.
In Europe, they found people's sense of happiness has risen slightly, but less so for women than for men.
In 12 European countries, including Britain, the happiness of women has fallen relative to that of men."
Gotta love when a feminists' retort is nothing but ad hominem coupled with extreme self entitlement, as if women in positions of power should be awarded because vagina, but are also supposedly not in such positions because...vagina...
Notice how she expects businesses to hire based on charity and gender quotas, rather than achievement and experience.

A follow up article after such findings, holds feminists accountable for women's misery, and also places blame on women overall for allowing feminism to be the mouthpiece for their gender, and also calls out the fact that it were MEN who gave feminists the so-called rights they apparently lacked: 
"You've got what you want, girls, stop whining: Has feminism made women unhappy? (well THIS certainly will) "

"One of these days, women really ought to make up their minds about what it is exactly they want. Then they could do us all a big favour by stating, unequivocally, what they have decided it is they want. And then they could cover themselves with glory by sticking to what they say.

In other words, it's about time women - especially their self-appointed mouthpieces - started behaving like fully grown-up adults and citizens. Or is that asking too much? Apparently, it is.

A survey published this week tells us that women today are far from happy with their lot and wish they could live more like their mothers and grandmothers - not having to work so much and free to spend more time with their children.

The survey, The Paradox Of Declining Female Happiness, reports that women of all ages and income are less happy than women of 40 years ago and less happy than today's men.
Despite sexual and marital liberation, massively increased career opportunities and earning power, educational privileges and the wholesale demolition of the inhibiting conventions that restricted the lives of women in the past, today's women report themselves as feeling a low sense 'of life satisfaction and well-being'.

Well, men might be entitled to retort, welcome to the real world, sweethearts.
What you are complaining about is the very same life that you promoted and celebrated when you were swanking around chanting 'sisters are doing it for themselves'

One woman commentator perfectly expressed the problem illustrated by this report, explaining: 'It's almost as if, in some ways, we got it all and then found out it wasn't quite exactly what we wanted.'

This is exactly what I have been predicting - against a torrent of vilification and derision from feminists - for more than 20 years.

My book, No More Sex War: The Failures Of Feminism, was not only the first radical, egalitarian, progressive critique of the ideology of feminism (the last and most durable of the 20th century's false secular faiths, like the Marxism from which it drew its cardinal tenets).

The book also analysed in detail the intolerable consequences that were bound to result for women if they were expected both to contribute substantial earnings to family life and, at the same time, be solely or even chiefly responsible for child-care.

It has been obvious to me for some 25 years that social and political equality for women (which I wholeheartedly and unreservedly welcome) could not work unless men became equal as parents at home.

The selfish, conceited, man-despising yet predatory 'have-it-all' feminism of the Cosmopolitans was always a recipe for insupportable burdens for women, for intolerable stress, for a self-rebuking, guilt-laden failure to cope and, in the end, for being downright miserable about it all.

The fact is, lady, if you do succeed in having it all, the effort and the burden will probably break your back.

Before we sympathise with this sad plight, however, perhaps we should remind ourselves of the multitude of unprecedented benefits, blessings and advantages that have been showered upon the modern women who are now whingeing about the poverty of their 'life satisfaction'.

They have become the most privileged, the most cosseted and indulged women in the history of humanity. They are the first to live their whole lives without threat of war or plague. They are the first women ever born who could control and regulate their fertility with complete reliability, and they are the first to have the means and the right to choose an abortion if they slipped up or changed their minds about being pregnant.

The selfish, conceited, man-despising yet predatory 'have-it-all' feminism of the Cosmopolitans was always a recipe for insupportable burdens for women.

They are the first to be free of any constraints in dress or manners, and the first for whom no limit exists to the heights to which they can aspire in any pursuit - be it politics, public service, commerce, the professions, the arts and sport.

You would never think it if you listened to feminists, but the truth is that every one of those benefits has been advanced and secured for women by men.
Motivated by conscience and a desire for justice and equality, it was primarily men who revolutionised the position of women.

I can see your jaw dropping at this peculiar idea, but if you don't believe it, ask yourself these questions: how many women MPs were sitting on the benches of the House Of Commons when, by a majority of two-to-one, Parliament passed the Bill in 1918 which extended the franchise to women? Answer: not one.

Who was responsible for the Abortion Act of 1967 and the Divorce Reform Act of 1969? Men. Who brought into law the Equal Opportunities Act and the Sex Discrimination Act? Men.

Yet women of our time have lived all their lives with an unquestioning belief that they are members of an oppressed class of victims who have had to struggle heroically for liberation against a society cruelly organised by men for the benefit of men ('Women are the n*****s of the world,' as that irredeemable twit Yoko One once declared).

This is the unpardonable fault of feminism. Of all the disservices to our age fostered by that pernicious and poisonous ideology, none has been more ruinous than this preposterous lie - that men keep women down in order to preserve their own powers.
The manifest truth of the past 200 years is that men wanted change for women as much as they wanted it for themselves.

It is because we all go along with that feminist fiction that we cannot even begin to recognise the inequalities and the disadvantages of men in family life. It simply doesn't register on our barometer of injustice that unmarried men still have no automatic rights in law as parents.

Similarly, because we suppose that all gender injustice and inequality is to be found in the position of women, we don't take any notice of the inequalities of men in divorce.
In survey after survey, men report that they resent the demands of work and that they wish they could have more time with their growing children.

Yet the law continues to discriminate against fathers in the provision of time away from work to care for children.
We don't even count it as an intolerable injustice and inequality that men are still required to work five years longer than women before they become eligible for a state pension (it is entirely typical of feminists' capacity to pervert the truth that Germaine Greer once described that inequality as an advantage for men)."

If that wasn't enough to clearly demonstrate how feminists have a large share of responsibility for women's plight, here's a statistical study done in the U.K, showing how working mothers found more fulfillment in life, after abandoning their careers in order to take care of their families and homes. A lawyer who represents a women's group, also exposes how feminist white knight like Prime Minister David Cameron, are creating more feminist approved policies to the further detriment of women. Here's what The Telegraph reports on these findings:

"Mothers who have put their career aside to care for their children have a stronger sense that their lives are “worthwhile” than the rest of society, official figures suggest.

New findings from the UK’s national “well-being” index show that those classed as economically inactive because they are caring for a family or home are also among the happiest people in Britain. The figures, published by the Office for National Statistics, also show that people across the UK have got progressively happier, less anxious and more satisfied with their lives in the past year.

The average rating for life satisfaction across the UK was 7.5 out of 10 – up 0.06 points on last year while the typical rating for feeling worthwhile also edged upwards to 7.7.Average scores for how happy people felt the previous day also rose steadily to 7.4 while anxiety ratings fell to 2.9 on average.

The ONS also analysed the findings on the basis of personal characteristics such as people’s marital status, health, or employment situation.When the results are broken down by work status pensioners emerged as the happiest overall, with a rating of 7.73 out of 10, but students and stay-at-home mothers or carers also scored noticeably higher than average.

But when responses to the question on how “worthwhile” people consider what they do in life to be were analysed, those looking after home or family emerged well ahead of other groups, scoring 8.03 out of 10 on average.

Overall 83 per cent of full-time parents and carers rated their sense of worth as high or very high. Laura Perrin, a barrister turned full-time mother who campaigns from the group Mothers At Home Matter said the figures showed that government policies designed to encourage more parents to work full time could be doing more harm than good."
Now, here's an addendum for women, If most women were anti-feminists as facts show back in the days of women's lib, how come those generations of women allowed feminists to destroy countless lives of families, which includes a more healthier lifestyle that women had? That is the paradox men have to live with everyday once we wake up to the truth about feminism and gender relationships. Not only men and children had their lives destroyed and livelihoods decreased, women also suffer massive disadvantages in our current feminist society. When will women truthfully stand against organized feminism, to the point of marching and protesting their hold on weak-kneed politicians, or just those who are hell-bent on assisting feminism to destroy society?

Fathers Are Discriminated Against by Society and Medicine.

One would think that men, who supposedly had all the power back in the 1800's and early 1900's, would have no opposition to their rights as fathers to be present in the birth room with their wives, but as one takes interest to find out how things really were back then, he would eventually find that expecting fathers were easily dismissed by hospitals and their policies. Here's a young husband who chained himself to his wife in a hospital to prevent from being removed from watching his child's birth and supporting his wife in her hour of need. In here, in this 1960 article from the Lewiston Morning Tribune September 26. It clearly states that only a few hospitals allowed fathers to have access to their wives and children in maternity wards. Also stated on the paper that psychologists suggested a father who wanted to be present, were better fathers, but the biased hospitals suggested that only psychopaths would want to see women in labor pain. Seems like projection considering doctors tied women down in hospitals and left them for days even.

Some doctors were advocating for father's rights to be in the rooms because it was beneficial according to doctors. We can read how mothers also wanted their husbands in the birthing rooms with them, and Dr. Carl Goetch from Berkeley, also stated that wives can derive strength from the support from their husbands, to the point of requiring medication, makes couples bond more and doctors have a better condition practicing their skills.
Despite couples receiving support from society and practitioners, some other states still discriminating against fathers in the maternity wards, causing some couples to travel in order for fathers to experience their children's births; As it is the with the case of Ken Conner and his wife Iva Conner, who after losing a court battle in Florida to have Ken permitted in the birth room, had to travel 3.000 miles to California, where the previous paper Reading Eagle showed us how fathers were winning their rights in previous years. We can see how the judge didn't even allow the couple to testify.

In the book called Make Room for Daddy: The Journey from the Waiting Room to Birthing Room, it tells us how fathers were only allowed in "Husbands' waiting rooms", where men who were impatiently waiting on news on their wives and children co-miserated together and were treated as buffoons by hospitals for doing so. 

This view of fathers being ostracized from participating in their wives' deliveries, depends on the society. Ancient societies, husbands would assist their wives in child birth; they would press on her contracting womb to assist the women on pushing out the child, tying the umbilical cord and biting it off.

Here's how dismissive advice columns such as Dear Abby to expecting fathers and their lack of rights of participation in the process of childbirth.

A lot of this bigotry and and belittling of fathers is really unwarranted considering men did have participation in the birth of their children in ancient civilizations before midwifery by female family members and friends took over that role, which helped bar men from participating. Even though studies have shown that men can be nurturing and supportive towards their wives -to the point of being considered the most important type of support- health professionals still display indifference or give less attention towards expecting fathers. When fathers suffered from anxiety, wives were also seen to suffer from such; and men also found themselves as less supportive. Better professional help is required in order to help couples in the experience of bringing their child into the world, but sadly, most health professionals only see the father as necessary after birth.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Child Behavior Becomes Worse When Fathers Suffer Alienation From Mothers.

A study released by the British Psychological Society, suggests that child behavior becomes worse when fathers' authority is diminished through maternal gate-keeping, and fathers have no support from partners. They just found that out? Here's the report from Science Daily:
"Children are more likely to display troublesome behaviour in families in which the father feels unsupported by his partner."
"Mothers and fathers from 106 families completed questionnaires about parenting practices and telephone interviews relating to their relationship quality and co-parenting techniques. All families consisted of both biological parents who were married or living together.Rachel Latham's analyses showed that for fathers, perceptions of poor support from their partner were negatively associated with their children's behaviour. This related to more reported incidents of a child acting defiantly or deliberately breaking toys.
For mothers, feeling unsupported by their partners did not relate to their child's behaviour.
The findings of this study highlight the importance of involving fathers as well as mothers in the study of family and children's wellbeing.
Although the study has only established a link rather than a cause, Rachel suggests that a number of reasons may account for the findings, such as maternal gatekeeping by which the mother limits the father's child rearing input."

So, a study backs up the claim that many fathers have been making about maternal gatekeeping, as causes for parental alienation and lack of influence by the mothers, yet National Organization for Women, the largest feminist organization, says there's no such a thing. The same organization that has single-handedly blocked shared parenting bills, under the false claims that it would lead to more abuse by fathers, fathers should have their rights denied if not handling their responsibilities and that mothers should have custody more of the time. 


Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Women Comprise More Than 70% of Aggressors in Non Reciprocal Domestic Violence.

A longitudinal study conducted by Harvard researchers, has revealed that women are responsible for committing 70% of non reciprocal assaults in domestic violence cases:

"Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5)." 

The peer reviewed publication can be found here in the American Public Health Association:

Screenshot from PUBMED:

Harvard Article:

Monday, May 11, 2015

The Untold History of Women's Suffrage: Part 3

We constantly read and heard from mainstream academia, that women back in late 19th and early 20th centuries, had to battle a system of oppression where men sadistically held more rights and did not want to provide women with the same. But what we do not hear is the factual evidence pointing out that the so-called all powerful, male hegemonic evil patriarchy not only assisted women in their activism to obtain the vote, but also were members and famous families funded them. 
Such example is Victoria Woodhull, a con artist, an early feminist and the first woman to run for President in the United States was financed and empowered by the evil male patriarchy via the Vanderbilt family. She, with her sister, were ardent proponents of Marxism and were the first to translate " The Communist Manifesto" in English. My source for this information is "The Myth of Seneca Falls". Kindle Version location 1250 of 8065

The evil male patriarchy paid women's suffrage activists handsomely to lecture in support of the cause, they were in fact paid so well that it was one of the main reasons why so many activists popped up and were able to make a career out of it. The lecture circuit even had a name and was called "the lyceum". Quote:

"At the same time, the postwar lecture circuit— or the lyceum, as it was called— became thoroughly commercialized, meaning speakers were routinely paid, often handsomely, and this helped encourage women’s influx into this new type of activism. The skyrocketing popularity of the lyceum as public entertainment meant there were ample job opportunities for lecturing women in the postwar years."
"The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898" 

(Kindle Locations 1125-1127).

The Women's Suffrage, had a subdivision of male allies and co-suffragists called, "Young Men's Woman Suffrage League", which met frequently in conventions in the state level with no controversies or disagreements. And here I thought men would be whipping those women back to the kitchen according from what I heard from feminists:

The Myth of Seneca Falls.

The title of the book is "The Myth of Seneca Falls" because it details the way Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony created a myth about how the Seneca Falls convention was the start of the women's suffrage movement and they did so to cement themselves as leaders and to marginalize women like Lucy Stone who were actually present at the true beginning of the movement. This foundation myth of Seneca Falls has now become the accepted truth and is taught to school children and in Universities as the undisputed beginning of the women's suffrage movement. Quote:

"[N]either of them had attended the first national women’s rights meeting at Worcester in 1850. That alternative point of origin, which they had previously embraced, drew the wrong lessons about which side of the divided movement, which side of history, suffragists should choose in 1873.

That story pointed to Stone and her allies who had been moving influences at Worcester in 1850. By contrast, a Seneca Falls origin excluded them. It was exclusive , rather than inclusive. And Stanton and Anthony preferred it for just this reason. It limited the movement’s legitimate leaders to a very small contingent.

Stone and all those activists who had taken a robust part in the antebellum movement over the 1850s, who toiled to build and sustain it, were erased—...In this way, the 1873 commemoration was less about preserving history than it was about creating a collective memory that drew a clear line of succession."

Kindle location 1552 of 8065

Disclaimer: All Credit for the research goes to Diligent Purpose for providing screenshots and links for "The Myth of Seneca Falls" And " The History of Woman's Suffrage Vol 2". 

The Untold History of Women' Suffrage: Part 2.

More revealing information from "The Myth of Seneca Falls" Kindle Locations 1931 of 8065, records the participation of, and connection of the women's suffrage movement and the prohibition/temperence movement was. The idea among many of the suffragists was that alcohol had infected the male brain and that the sober, civilizing female brain was needed electorally to institute prohibition and set the nation on the right path pretty much. Quote: 

"In any case, during the last decades of the nineteenth century, it is undeniable that the cause of temperance— not suffrage— awoke massive numbers of women to a desire for political participation....Within a few years, the two causes were so intermingled that Livermore declared in September 1876 that “the prohibition and woman suffrage movement[ s] were joined together, like Chang and Eng, the Siamese twins, so that you cannot tell which is Chang and which is Eng.”

More on regards to the blatant racism of prominent suffragists found on page 89 of "History of Woman Suffrage, Volume 2"" we see pioneer feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony diminishing the sacrifices black men had to make during the Civil War in order to earn the right to vote. In the passage they insultingly claim that white women sacrificed just as much despite not fighting in the nation's wars. They even go so far as to invent a story about how white women fought heroically on battle fields on a consistent basis in one part of the quote. 

The Untold History of Women's Suffrage: Part 1.

We have previously posted on the untold history of racism and bigotry found in the Women's Suffrage movement towards black men and immigrants, and here's more hidden information your gender studies professors never told you about.

"The Myth of Seneca Falls" in Kindle Locations 2896 of 8065 it talks about how Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in their History of Woman Suffrage anthology set out to bash the perceived urgency of giving black men the right to vote because they as white women felt they deserved it before black men. The reference to "volume 1 in the quote is to Volume 1 of "History of Woman Suffrage". Quote:

"Referring to the need for educated suffrage and praising their own stance against the Fifteenth Amendment, the pair, almost alone, rightfully understood “that with the incoming tide of ignorant voters from Southern plantations and from the nations of the Old World, government needed the intelligent votes and moral influence of woman to outweigh the ignorance and vice fast crowding round our polling booths.”...

Although abolitionist men imagined themselves in the radical vanguard of human rights, they had grossly violated human rights, Stanton and Anthony charged, by compromising and granting suffrage to “ignorant” black men but not “educated” white women....

Volume 1’ s insistence that Seneca Falls had inaugurated “the most momentous reform that has yet been launched on the world” 88 and put forward “the most important demand of the century ” 89 implicitly and explicitly (not to mention, intentionally) undercut the claim that African American suffrage was urgent."

And on "The Myth of Seneca Falls" in Kindle locations 2943 of 8065 talks about how Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony lied about black pioneers like Sojourner Truth in an effort to try to pit black women against black men in an endorsement of (white) women deserving the right to vote before black men. The reference to them distorting the way Truth talked is concerning the supposed quote of hers where she asked "aren't I a woman?". In reality Truth's first language was Dutch and she never used Southern slang. Quote:

"Revealing the ways in which white women often exoticized Truth, Stanton and Anthony introduce the speech by informing readers that Truth “is still living . . . though now 110 years old.”...Truth’s words are reported in dialect (which in all likelihood was not the way they were actually delivered), further exoticizing her and demeaning her intelligence....

Stanton and Anthony used her to argue that black women endorsed and deferred to a white women’s rights agenda as representing the concerns of all women , including those of black women. As the story continues , Truth returns to her seat, sits quietly, and takes her direction from white women, who then run the meeting."

In Locations 2352 of 8065 the following passage talks about how feminist hero Susan B. Anthony even though she smiled in former slave, Frederick Douglass's, face she privately told the other white women's suffrage leaders to never forget how insulting it was that black men(and Irish and Chinese Americans) were given the right to vote before white women. This is your history. Do not allow those who opposed the amendment that gave black men the vote to pose as your saviors today. Quote:

"Douglass’s support for woman suffrage had remained steadfast throughout his long career. 180 And he took the stage with Stanton and Anthony at this and other events, despite the harsh words the three had exchanged in the 1860s. In many ways, their primary fights were not with each other but with the larger power structures that denied women and African Americans rights. The three remained friends, if not close friends, throughout their long careers. Still, Anthony privately encouraged suffragists to remember the insult of the “negro’s hour.”

Add caption

The Social Apathy and Shaming Towards Male Victims of Rape.

Despite our gynocentric media bombarding us with countless articles about "Victim Blaming", " We Should Believe Rape Victims" on the headlines when it comes to female victims, the latest study on social behaviors towards rape victims shows quite the contrary; men are less likely to receive assistance or help by lone bystanders and group bystanders (difference being group bystanders are more likely to help). And when the study investigate what are the barriers found when it comes to help male victims, lack of personal responsibility and risk assessment by the victims. Men were also perceived to be homosexual thus less likely to receive help:

My only criticism to this study, is using only a man, not also a woman as a rapist in this study. This goes to show you, how far gynocentrism permeates academia, even though they tried to convey impartiality towards gender issues. 

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Women Are Less Likely to Feel Confident for Leadership Careers.

Feminists would have us believe that we're all the same, and the only thing holding women back from taking leadership roles and jobs is the all powerful patriarchy conspiracy that supposedly discriminates against women from becoming leading forces in the work place. But when looking for evidence for that claim, studies actually point out that women don't feel as confident as men when asked if they would go for leading careers, ask for raises and becoming managers or other leading jobs. To give credence to that claim, here's what the "Institute of Leadership and Management" report on a study titled; " Ambition and Gender at Work":
Source: Institute of Leadership & Management, Ambition and gender at work
  • So, women report that they have lower career ambitions and expectations compared to men, because they lack the confidence and self-belief in themselves, thus making them leery of applying for higher positions and promotions.  Men's confidence is a result for their careers being propelled to higher positions on 3 years average before women.
  • Women tend to lack the clarity of career direction more than men; women on a greater percentage did not expect to progress at work, and twice as many women as men did not want to become managers. 
  • Women in managerial positions have lower confidence compared to men, with 70% of all age groups males having high self confidence, compared to 50% of women. Half of female managers, admit having self-doubt, but only 31% percent of male mangers report the same. Also, women in those classifications, are less likely to achieve their career ambitions.
  • Women tend to be more cautious than men wen applying for jobs or promotions: 20% of men will apply for a role, despite partially meeting the job description, compared to 14% of women. 
  • Women are also more likely than men to voluntarily step off the career ladder, impeding their progress: 42% had taken statutory maternity leave, and 21% had left work to care for children; only 9% of men had taken paternity leave, and just 2% had left work to care for children.

Clearly, we can verify that it's actually women themselves being self-discriminatory and not men, impeding women from getting the leadership roles in the workplace. That is evident when in previous blogs, the reader can verify Not only are women overall favored by employersbut female employers tend to favor divorced women over married men, and male employers prefer women who were more dedicated mothers:
"Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers."
 So we can clearly see that despite there being equal levels of applicants, employers are heavily biased against men.

Also, women are over half the holders of management jobs in the US:

Women comprised 52% of management, professional and related positions.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

The Orwellian Newspeak Behind " War on Women".

The slogan "war on women" are being used to control free speech and to shame into silence anyone criticizing the global feminist agenda. There is some amount of societal intimidation which both sexes are targets of, but the extent and effects are different. There is no motive for conducting a "war on women" while leaving men alone -- globalism requires far more severe intimidation of men, who are more rebellious, than of women, actually, because women are more obedient and more likely to cave as the following study demonstrates:
"The experiment examines status and gender role explanations of the tendency for women to conform more than men in group pressure settings. Subjects believed they were assigned to groups containing two males and two females in addition to themselves and received these other group members’ opinions, which were represented as deviating from the opinions that subjects had given earlier. 
Subjects then gave their opinions with the other group members either having or not having surveillance over these opinions. In addition, subjects were required to form impressions of each other's likability or expertise. 
The findings indicate that subjects’ sex and age affected the extent of their conformity. Among older (19 years and older) subjects, females conformed more with surveillance than without it, whereas surveillance did not affect males’ conformity. Among younger (under 19 years) subjects, surveillance had no effects. 
Analysis of sex differences revealed that older females were significantly more conforming than older males when under surveillance as well as when subjects formed impressions of one another's likability. Among younger subjects, there were no sex differences. These findings are discussed in terms of the theories that (a) both sex and age function as status characteristics and (b) gender roles determine conformity"


 Not only are women more prone to conformity than men, but they tend to engage more in conformity policing of other women than men engage in. So why would the feminist movement tell us that women are specifically targeted or demonized in order to be conformists when their very nature is already more accepting of a collective or populist narrative?

And coincidentally enough ever since women have constituted the majority of voters (specifically presidential voters) since 1964, they were a majority of the voters in support of big government.

 Still don't don't believe it? Here's a study illustrating on how men and women deal with social rejection versus achievements:


Women are more prone to stress due to social rejection than men, while men base more their well being on their individual accomplishments. That should tell you that women will hop on the collective bandwagon more than men, in order to protect their self esteem, and also simply for that fact that men are not as trusting as women, since men are the ones who had to fight for survival and die in wars for thousands of years. Here's what The Telegraph reported on an interesting scientific research showing how women can be more trusting than men, and when given male hormones, they can become less naive and skeptical:
  "Scientists have discovered that the hormone testosterone, which makes men physically strong and aggressive, seems also to be connected to cynicism and a lack of trust in others.

They found that when it was given to women it appeared to 'harden them up' and made them less open and more vigilant.Historically for women it was important to be co-operative and sociable in order to survive whereas for men it was more important to be able to fight.Men therefore evolved with more testosterone than women in order to make them bigger, stronger and more aggressive. It also seems to have made them more wary and to constantly 'watch their back' for danger.

For the study, Dr Jack van Honk, a psychologist at Cape Town University, said that testosterone increases social vigilance in order to prepare them for competition and fights for resources.They said: 'In the same way that we have evolved capacities to help others, we have also evolved capacities to deceive and cheat.'

'Thus, those who are willing to believe what others say, or fail to probe the motivations underlying their actions, may fall prey to considerable economic and social costs.;Consequently, testosterone increased social vigilance in trusting humans, presumably to better prepare them for the hard-edged competition over status and valued resources.'

In order to test the theory researchers gave testosterone pills and dummy pills to 24 women aged about 20 and then asked them to rate the trustworthiness of strangers' faces. The scale went from -100 for very untrustworthy to +100 for very trustworthy. The half of volunteers who rated faces as most honest after the placebo scored the photographs an average 10 points – or five per cent – lower after ingesting testosterone.The researchers, whose findings are published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said the research showed that testosterone 'down regulates interpersonal trust'.

'Naive, trusting humans run a much greater risk of being misguided and deceived by others,' they said."The attribution of trust toward unfamiliar others was especially decreased in subjects who run the greatest risk of being misled by others, that is, those who grant trust easily.'These findings provide insight into the hormonal regulation of human sociality by showing the hormone testosterone down-regulates interpersonal trust in an adaptive manner.' "

     So how can we buy the political rhetoric that there is a " war on women" from feminists, when the reader of this blog can examine countless sourced articles archived in this page where politics, entertainment, academia, medicine and society as a hole have been spending a lot of time and resources to make sure men are disadvantaged and demonized by having our very nature and needs condemned? Feminists in bed with big government know men don't trust the powers that be as much as women do, nor do we tie our self worth to them, Which gender makes more sense to target for condemnation given the fact that men are not so quick to drink the collective kool aid hook, line and sinker but women are? Next time someone tells you there's a war on women, you can agree with them as long as they remove the w and o from the latter.