U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies.

The latest scandal of misandry in the media lately, is reported by the The New York Times, as the U.S military was told to turn a blind eye to the sexual abuse of boys by Afghan allies, and military personnel are facing career termination for even interfering with the blatant violation of these boys' human rights:                           

'Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan,particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children. 

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.'

And a quick google search shows us how interested the feminist media is on covering this story. Keep in mind, their claim about caring for both male and female issues equally.

And the White House and our feminist president have also not made an official statement that can be found on the White House website:

                                          

Male U.S. Workers Earned Less in 2014 Than in 1973.

The U.S Census Bureau’s annual report on income reports that average men with a full-time job in 1973 earned $53,294, measured in 2014 dollars to adjust for inflation. The earnings for men in 2014 were calculated to be 62.455$ compared to 39.581$ in 1973. Men who were employed year-round and full time earned less in 2014 than men in 1973:

While the average male earning seem to be decreasing, the female earning is rising in comparison.

The Drugging of American Boys.

This has been a long overdue post on the issue of how boyish behavior is being heavily demonized and eliminated in our public school system.  This manufactured crisis to get our boys drugged up is showing long lasting results which can include drug addiction, sudden death in children with heart problems, mental illnesses, mood swings, suicidal thoughts.

The following report comes from The Esquire:

"By the time they reach high school, nearly 20 percent of all American boys will be diagnosed with ADHD. Millions of those boys will be prescribed a powerful stimulant to "normalize" them. A great many of those boys will suffer serious side effects from those drugs. The shocking truth is that many of those diagnoses are wrong, and that most of those boys are being drugged for no good reason—simply for being boys. It's time we recognize this as a crisis.

The Drug Enforcement Administration classifies stimulants as Schedule II drugs, defined as having a "high potential for abuse" and "with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence." (According to a University of Michigan study, Adderall is the most abused brand-name drug among high school seniors.) In addition to stimulants like Ritalin, Adderall, Vyvanse, and Concerta, Schedule II drugs include cocaine, methamphetamine, Demerol, and OxyContin.

According to manufacturers of ADHD stimulants, they are associated with sudden death in children who have heart problems, whether those heart problems have been previously detected or not. They can bring on a bipolar condition in a child who didn't exhibit any symptoms of such a disorder before taking stimulants. They are associated with "new or worse aggressive behavior or hostility." They can cause "new psychotic symptoms (such as hearing voices and believing things that are not true) or new manic symptoms." They commonly cause noticeable weight loss and trouble sleeping. In some children, some stimulants can cause the paranoid feeling that bugs are crawling on them. Facial tics. They can cause children's eyes to glaze over, their spirits to dampen. One study reported fears of being harmed by other children and thoughts of suicide."

And here we read how boys are more likely to be diagnosed than girls by the psychiatric industry, and a lot of them

"Boys are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed as girls—15.1 percent to 6.7 percent. By high school, even more boys are diagnosed—nearly one in five.

And overall, of the children in this country who are told they suffer from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, two thirds are on prescription drugs. 

And on this, too, everyone agrees: That among those millions of diagnoses, there are false ones. That there are high-energy kids—normal boys, most likely—who had the misfortune of seeing a doctor who had scant (if any) training in psychiatric disorders during his long-ago residency but had heard about all these new cases and determined that a hyper kid whose teacher said he has trouble sitting still in class must have ADHD. That among the 6.4 million are a significant percentage of boys who are swallowing pills every day for a disorder they don't have."

Discrimination Against Short Men Discredits the Claim That Women Seldom Objectify Men

Charlotte Gill recently wrote an excellent article in The Independent where she exposed women's hypocrisy regarding how many women treat short men and how women hypocritically then expect men to not fat shame them. This is the sort of honest, self-reflecting article that deserves to be commended due to how rarely the subject-matter is covered as well as how she approached the topic.



Her article will serve as a worthy basis for us to go a little deeper into this subject of male "objectification" in female mate preference. Let's look at some of the note-able quotes from the article.

"[S]omething strange and unacceptable in our culture has happened where women think it's ok to publicly slate their petite counterparts, and dismiss them romantically, based on their height.If you don’t believe me, you need only look at the statistics. Data compiled by OK Cupid shows that being a shorter man is considerably less advantageous in the dating world, with taller guys consistently receiving more messages and getting more sex from women than the vertically challenged."

Even though it is their right to choose men based on any criteria they want, we have to admit that women choosing men based on their height and then turning around and telling us they merely want a good man is extremely dishonest and it's every bit as shallow as men choosing women based on their breast measurements. And yes men should have that right as well. The Ok Cupid data is always extremely interesting to look up and the fact that Charlotte utilized that data demonstrates how keen her eyes are for cutting through the bullshit women(and men) often tell us concerning their mate preferences.


"This sentiment is now reflected on dating apps such as Tinder, where women's profiles often include height requirements."

As shallow as men can be sometimes, I have never heard of men having a breast size requirement listed in his dating profile. So if men are shallow for at least having the decency to keep their breast size preferences to themselves then what does it say about women when they list height requirements in their dating profiles?

"But what especially vexes me is this double standard of women criticising and making fun of short men, then expecting them to tolerate all different types of weight (which isn't even a fixed state). For a man to openly reject a woman because he found her fat would be social suicide."

This part of the article almost elicited a standing ovation from me as she keenly shined light onto the extreme double standard exhibited by women on how they expect men to accept them despite being heavier than average while shunning men who are shorter than average. Psychology Today did an article on female mate preference where it also mentioned height requirements but it let us in on more insight into WHY women lust for taller men and don't see short men as capable partners.


"According to a University of British Columbia study (2011), it's not only height to which women are drawn. The study found that the social and emotional image a man presents was crucial to sexual attraction. Specifically, the study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. This finding supports all those tabloid-esque articles in women’s magazines which suggest that women love the bad boys, and that may be part of the problem: Women just don’t believe short men can be bad boys"


According to this, the bad boy preference is probably one of the underlying reasons why women often shun short men. So just how extreme is this height requirement women expect in prospective dates? Do they really shun a high enough percentage of men for this to really be a concern. Well just take a look at how fanatical one sample of women were about height requirements according to the New York Post.


"It’s a tall order dating women in the Big Apple.The likelihood that a man under 5-foot-9 is contacted by a Manhattan or Bronx woman online is a scant 1.2 percent, with Brooklyn coming in with a paltry 2.4 percent response rate"

As you can see, less than 6% of women in the sample would date a man who was shorter than average. I have never in my life heard of anything showing me that less than 6% of men would exclude women with small breasts as potential dates or women who were heavier than average. Sexual and physical objectification is a hot topic these days and particularly the way men are accused of always objectifying women, so the next time the subject of comes up in your day to day life, just keep this information in mind.

Despite Mothers Committing Most Infant Murders, Psychiatrists Still Call Them "Selfless".

In an international study called "Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention", it was revealed that mothers commit most of the child murders.

Interestingly, women who had aggressive thoughts towards their children during colicky episodes comprised 70% of the cases.

In India, 43% of women suffering from postpartum depression had infanticidal thoughts towards their children, and 36% engaged in infanticidal behaviors.

Now, keep in mind that these numbers are probably higher due to the fact that the psychiatrists were underestimating the prevalence of infanticide by mothers.

Even though they admit this very telling information above, the infanticide laws rationalize their engagement in these child-murders by stating that mothers might kill their children for  "altruistic" i.e, selfless reasons.

And here in this latest screenshot, we read that the rest of the nations surveyed in this study, based their infanticide laws on the British one, and show the same levels of leniency towards mothers who commit infanticide, and a considerable number of them don't even meet the criteria for mental illness. 

Despite all that, the prevention section, still calls the primary reason for women killing their children "altruistic". 

We can see that equally mentally ill fathers are not given the same privileged treatment that mothers who commit infanticide are given. The study claims that "some feminists" are against this supposed gynocentric views of mothers who kill their children, yet groups like The National Organization for Women, the most powerful feminist organization in the U.S,  has openly defended Andrea Yates, who killed her children and did receive treatment for postpartum depression. Here's the Washington Post reporting it:

HOUSTON –– The National Organization for Women and other groups said Monday they are helping to raise money to defend Andrea Yates – the mother accused of drowning her five children in the bathtub – in part to help other women suffering from postpartum depression. 

"It gives us a platform for something that obviously needs education," said Deborah Bell, president of Texas NOW. "One of our feminist beliefs is to be there for other women. Some good may come out of this tragedy." 

The groups also oppose the death penalty for Yates, saying her depression should be taken into account in any punishment.
Yates, 37, called police on June 20 and admitted drowning her children in the tub. Her husband, Russell Yates, told police his wife was depressed and had been treated for postpartum depression. She is under suicide watch in a jail psychiatric unit. 

Alimony Extorts Not Only Husbands But Also Tax Payers.

According to the U.S Treasury Department's report titled, TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION "Significant Discrepancies Exist Between Alimony Deductions Claimed by Payers and Income Reported by Recipients” , in the year 2010 alone there were $10 billion dollars in alimony tax write offs filed. $2.3 billion of this is untraceable.

Even if you exclude the $2.3 billion unaccounted for, that still leaves $7.7 billion dollars if Alimony payments being claimed on taxes.

As we read further in the highlighted areas, we can see that the IRS doesn't even have accurate methods and provisions to make sure individuals are providing valid Tax Identification Numbers (TIN), thus making them unable to rule in punishments.

The latest data based on the U.S Census, 97% of alimony recipients are women. So we can totally see how alimony is basically scamming men and tax payers out of their money by the billions! Here's the quote:

"Americans gave $9.4 billion to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau..."

95% of Genetic Counselors Would Not Tell a Man The Truth About Whether His Partner's Offspring Were His or Not

A recent article in the London Telegraph revealed the startling truth about how some professionals in the scientific community are purposely concealing information in situations where men whose DNA they test are not the father of their partner's offspring.





Quote:

"Genetic counsellors are the professionals who advise on the results of tests for hereditary conditions, often after samples have been taken from foetuses in the womb as well as from the parents. Consequently they are often the first to know that the father isn’t the father. A study in America found that more than 95 per cent of them would not tell a man that the child wasn’t his. (Around 95 per cent of genetic counsellors are female, and you have to wonder if more men would be informed if more counsellors were male.)"

So if genetic counselors have admitted that they are concealing paternity information from fathers, we have to wonder how many other institutions in the scientific community are concealing similar information. The public deserves to know. these children deserve to know and of course these men deserve to know, but of course the feminist controlled scientific establishment isn't interested in studying the responses of other scientists who look at paternity.