posted January 23, 2009 02:52 AM              

LOL.

Never mind, no sweat.

thing is there is so much negativity out there and so much media spin , i like a lot of women ended up feeling severely anti-male, anti-society.

But then when i actually started working instead of judging and condemning - i found that both men and owmen in third world countries have it equally bad....especially children

The media in the West and in India makes sure any fundie craziness like Muslim girls in love getting punished by thie rfamilies gets ample newsspin.

what about the boy who falls in love .

They are killed and their families terrorised

The biggest social problem is poverty and lack of Education.

I and many other women who have had the privilege of education and financial support from our families choose not to represent women but the family unit as a whole when it comes to getting equal rights and opportunities.

We have had counselling sessions for men from impoverished backgrounds - educating them so they can be better fathers and sensitising them to the role of a husband and father for the betterment of his wife and kids.

that is the only way the vicious cycle of fatherless kids growing in poverty making wrong choices and perpetuating poverty and ineducation can be broken.

The other course of action we have taken is creating awareness on the role of educated women -

The reason Feminism makes sh1t sense to me is because ALL lower class women in India HAVE to work.

They do not have a choice to be housewives .

posted January 23, 2009 03:09 AM            

quote:

---

The reason Feminism makes sh1t sense to me is because ALL lower class women in India HAVE to work.

---

Sorry, I don't understand the relationship between Feminism and women having to work.

Feminism and Economic desparation have helped women out of the house where there was little recognition, no thanks, no income, no social connections, and relying on another person to buy them food and shelter.

Women in the workforce tend to enjoy the self-esteem working creates. Also modelling a work ethic can encourage children toward developing a healthy work ethic.

If all women in India HAVE to work, why do you direct anger at western feminists? The cost of living in a western country is hugely expensive and many women are forced into the workforce.

Feminists have helped take away the guilt associated with not being a stay-at-home mother, however it is mainly out of economic necessity that many mothers work.

Many western couples do not have the luxury of being able to afford only one adult working. Both need to work to afford living in a 'high cost of living' country. If it's not the high cost of a mortgage, then it's the high cost of rent that drives couples out to work.

posted January 23, 2009 03:24 AM            

quote:

---

what about the boy who falls in love ....They are killed and their families terrorised

---

While this is an abysmal crime against humanity, I can't understand the link between these culturally ingrained murders and being angry toward western feminists.

posted January 23, 2009 03:38 AM              

Delhi has the honor of being the rape capital of india - and now the officials have had to sheepishly admit that 25 % of the charges are false.,

Not that the women lied about being raped - some of them had been scraed by the rapists into accusing strangers, some hgad been raped by family members and emotionally blackmailed into accusing somneone else.

It is the same for dowry victims - i applaud the initiatives is taking but it is not fair for our govt to make it illegal . My dad plans to give me a large dowry out tof love, and our laws can jail him for it. Of course he is going to make it a legal gift but thats not the point.

As per hindu laws of succession the daughter is entitled to a dowry - depending on what her parents can afford - it is HER share of her fathers estse gievn to her so she and her husband can use it as they see fit for their new life.

But the lawless lower classes use it as an extortion and pressure the bride to get a higher sum than nher parents wish to give, instead of creating sensitivity and awareness on this issue - out govt goers and makes dowry illegal

posted January 23, 2009 03:46 AM              

quote:

---

If all women in India HAVE to work, why do you direct anger at western feminists?

---

i should have made it clear - most feminists in the U.S. are actually Marxist socialists - THAT is what i am angry at.

you should study the dynamics of socialism and how it has failed wherever applied to know why i am so criticising.

and NO not angry - but critical.

For all the propoganda - i having lived in a socalled Patriarchy can guarantee one thing.

There aint no Patriarchy.

Women always had to work and always were responsible for half theiur share of responsibilites.

There is so much brainwashing at work here - it will take reams of posts to make my points clear.But i will..i owe that if any woman thinks is am anti-woman.

I am pro-family - that includes both the genders.

Neither man nor woman deserve anything more than what they work for.

posted January 23, 2009 03:57 AM            

It's not acceptable that a woman needs to 'sell' herself with assets to gain a partner and start a new life.

There is no pressure to start a relationship in any particular fashion for the people I know. Some start by a sexual encounter; some start by internet chatting; some start by playing at the same sports club. Usually the attraction is romantic/sexual and not arranged by other people.

People I know are encouraged to be comfortable and safe in their relationships. If the relationship is not providing an area of growth in ones life and is causing a depression or fear, then we are encouraged to independently seek a solution that suits our level of ability to cope.

Relationships and Death are still closely related. Many women and children die at the hands of their male partner. Only a smaller number die from the mother's actions.

This is why people are encouraged to take responsibility of their lives and seek solutions that suit their individualistic situation.

posted January 23, 2009 04:07 AM              

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

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

To see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society - a somewhat idealised society - wherein the women are happy to spend their days being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace - wherever this might be.

And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are mostly quite content with their situation.

In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.

And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.

What’s in it for government?

How can government - and government workers - benefit from having to exist within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each other?

On what grounds can the government say to the people, “You need more government. Give us more tax money.”

Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to part with more of their own resources - acquired through their own labours - in order to fund ‘more government’.

However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or other - some force that induces ‘disharmony’ within the population - an increase in crime, say - then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger piece of the society’s pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce to look after the women and children who are now on their own.

And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.

Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by them being at war with each other in some way.

Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply call ‘disharmony’ - societal disharmony; such as crime.

And because governments have massive power in comparison to ordinary individuals, they will tend to use this power to create more and more societal disharmony - with much success. Of course they will do this. Why? Well, because governments, and millions of government workers, benefit from disharmony, and they are not going to use their huge collective force to undermine themselves - which reducing ‘disharmony’ would do.

At the very least, government workers do not want to lose their funding, their jobs, their security, their pensions etc etc etc. And so they need to be perceived to be needed.

Better still for them, are bigger empires with bigger salaries, and much more status and power.

After all, in this respect, they are no different from anyone else!

And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will, create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.

Indeed, it would be bordering on the preposterous to believe that such an enormous body of government workers would not exert a force in a direction from which they, themselves, would benefit.

After all, these people are not gods. They are human beings!

In a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively, they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120 years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)

Now, because the main aim of feminists is to create as much disharmony as possible between men and women in order to fund their own empires, governments just love them; because, remember; for governments, the more disharmony, the better.

So let us return to our rather over-simplified society, and see what happens when married couples with children within this reasonably-happy place start more often to divorce and to separate.

Well, typically, the men will go off and live on their own somewhere, but they will continue working. The women, however, will have to choose some combination of going out to work and staying at home with the children.

If the women decide to stay at home, then they must be given a source of income by the government. This means that the government must take away money from others in order to fund them. And, already, this means creating a whole system of laws involving lawyers, judges, administrators, social assessors, financial offices and various allied bureaucratic systems.

In other words, divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of benefits for governments and their workers.

Furthermore, of course, no-one in the population wants to see women and children left destitute, and so government now gets the benefit of some further popular support for its endeavours. Thus, the government also wins on this score.

And, of course, the women who are put into this position with their children are now at the mercy of the government.

In other words, they become dependent on the government; which is also great for government.

“If you women do not vote for us, then you will get a smaller income from the government!”

Now, of course, women who have divorced - whether or not they have children - might instead decide to go out to work; in which case the government wins yet again - because it now has more workers from whom it can take money through the tax system.

In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for government.

Indeed, it is win-win all the way.

And, most importantly, this remains true whether or not the women have children, and whether or not they go out to work. It is the growing division between men and women that is the key to the government’s winning strategy.

In summary, therefore, government has an enormous amount to gain by increasing the divide between men and women, because this enables government workers to justify the creation and the controlling of many large empires, they can more easily extract higher taxes, they can tax more people, they can make more people dependent upon them, and they can gain themselves some extra popular support.

But this is just the beginning.

Many, many further benefits accrue to the government when the close relationships between men and women are broken apart. For example, the negative social consequences of not having strong fathers around their children are positively huge. These tend to impact most directly on boys, but the repercussions reverberate across the whole of society - for decades. For example, youngsters - both girls and boys - without fathers in the home are far more likely to …

… live in poverty and deprivation, … be troublesome in school, … have more difficulty getting along with others, … have more health problems, … suffer from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, … run away from home, … get sexual diseases, … become teenage parents, … offend against the law, … smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, … play truant from school, … be excluded from school, … behave violently, … give up on education at an early age, … make poor adjustments to adulthood, … attain little in the way of qualifications, … experience unemployment, … have low incomes, … be on welfare, … experience homelessness, … go to jail, … suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems, … engage only in casual relationships, … have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.

Indeed, a whole cascade of social problems - i.e. a great deal of ‘disharmony’ - is generated by the effects of youngsters not having fathers around.

But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes and power.

After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social consequences of fatherlessness - and, of course, the victims themselves could clearly do with a bit of extra help.

And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers, more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses, social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners! - and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in all of these areas.

And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.

And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers, judges and bureaucrats who are part of the divorce system itself; together with all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with alimony, child custody and child support. Indeed, even if we forget about all the numerous social and personal problems mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the divorce industry itself is, nowadays, a multi-billion dollar industry.

Furthermore, of course, as far as life in the later years is concerned, breaking down the relationships between men and women ensures that old people and sick people are less likely to receive help from those who are close to them, because, quite simply, fewer people end up being close to them. And this often means that these vulnerable people are either abandoned to waste away on their own, or they are put into care homes and hospitals - often run by government - where the staff tend to treat them with, at best, clinical disinterest. (Indeed, a recent report in the UK stated that the most common problems for old people stem from loneliness and from living alone.)

Thus, one can summarise the situation as follows. Breaking apart the relationships between men and women creates an absolute gold mine for government. From childhood to old age, relationship breakdowns cause numerous problems for the whole of society, but they give rise to numerous benefits for government.

Now, all this is not to say that everything that the government does is bad - particularly at the micro level.

Not at all.

For example, it is clearly the case that some men and women do need to be kept away from each other. We do need our governments to help women and children who are on their own. We do need care homes and hospitals for old and sick people. We do need police officers and prisons. And so on.

But none of this alters the fact that the more do the relationships between men and women break down, the more does the government benefit. And it benefits hugely - as per above.

And you really would have to stretch your credulity to ridiculous levels to believe that the millions of workers who are employed by government are beavering away to destroy the huge ’social/personal/legal/financial industries’ from which they, themselves, have so much to gain.

Furthermore, we have clearly seen western governments - particularly left-wing governments - using their enormous power over the years to encourage people’s relationships to break down.

Indeed, these governments have left almost no stone unturned in their quest to damage people’s relationships.

They have spent billions of dollars flooding the population with false statistics concerning ‘relationship abuse’ of various kinds, with the legal language being purposely distorted to make out that women are perpetually being violated by men in some way. For example, they have fudged the definitions of various types of ‘abuse’ to such a ludicrous extent that, for example, criticising a woman’s mother can nowadays be seen as an act of violence - ‘domestic violence’ - calling someone ‘dear’ as an act of sexual harassment, and engaging in consensual sex which is later regretted as an act of rape. (The idea behind all these things is to stir up both hatred towards men and a fear of men, and it is also designed to encourage as many women as possible to make false allegations of ‘abuse’.) They have spent billions of dollars funding numerous victim groups that seem to spend more time dispensing anti-male propaganda than helping any alleged victims. They have engaged in and/or funded numerous media campaigns designed to portray all men as being likely to be abusive towards women and children in some way. And governments continue to offer to women numerous incentives - financial and otherwise - to make false allegations.

posted January 23, 2009 04:08 AM              

And, in our schools, children even as young as eight are being indoctrinated with the feminist-inspired nonsense that men have oppressed women for thousands of years.

Indeed, it is also now being argued - with much success - that intimates should treat each other as if they were complete strangers. For example, Stranger Rape is now said to be just as bad as Relationship Rape. Photographing your own child being breastfed is said to be producing child pornography. On and on it goes.

And it seems quite clear to me that the ultimate aim is to force people to treat each other as if they were complete strangers by putting them at some kind of significant legal risk if they do not do so.

Indeed, I cannot think of any law enacted over the past three decades that impacts upon people’s close relationships - either directly or indirectly - that has not been designed to encourage those relationships to break down.

And, essentially, governments have been breaking down the relationships between people so that they can elbow their way deeper and deeper into the connections - social, personal and financial - that once bonded people together.

Furthermore, if one stands back to look at the overall picture that has been emerging over the past few decades, two things become very clear.

Firstly, the motives of government workers in this area have precious little to do with increasing the welfare of the people. On the contrary, these motives are often malicious, and they are mostly to do with government workers seeking to serve themselves in some way by causing ‘disharmony’; with the phrase “divide and rule” encapsulating much of what has been going on. (Indeed, one only has to look at how western governments have been at the forefront of encouraging fatherlessness - and, hence, the numerous consequent social problems mentioned above - over the past four decades to see just how malicious they have been.)

Secondly, western governments are now so large (employing directly or indirectly some 20% of the entire population) that government workers, themselves, now represent the most enormous political force for ‘big government’; which, essentially, means left-wing government. As such, we really no longer live in ‘democracies’.

For example, when left-wing US politicians like Joe Biden pump billions of dollars into groups associated with VAWA, he is not just handing enormous amounts of our money over to services that provide aid to victims of domestic violence. He is, in fact, handing out this money to numerous groups of government workers across America who rely on this money for their jobs and their pensions, and who will, unsurprisingly, give their political support to Joe Biden.

And, of course, there are millions of other government workers (school teachers, social workers, academics etc etc) who are also going to support left-wing government for precisely the same self-serving reasons.

(As just one example of this, academics who rely on government funding are going to drum up evidence to support the government’s point of view, or their funding is going to disappear.)

And, just as importantly, these millions of workers will also provide and promote political propaganda that is designed to serve themselves; with these government workers now so entrenched in almost every area of life that their propaganda nowadays pours into the minds of the population from almost every information source imaginable - even at school.

(Furthermore, of course, many billions of these dollars go directly into providing social welfare of some kind; thus ensuring that the millions of people who benefit from this will vote for left-wing government.)

The upshot is that the population is mostly nowadays very heavily infected with the view that policies that promote bigger and more powerful government are the best policies for the people; and so, of course, the people tend to vote for them.

But the people are being hoodwinked, because they are not being told the truth. They are being deluged with self-serving propaganda from many self-serving sources, and the evidence that these sources are deceiving them on numerous fronts, and in very many ways, is just irrefutable.

Indeed, I am writing this during a time in which the entire world is facing an enormous economic crisis, and the world’s leaders have just decided to bail out various banking and financial systems with two trillion dollars of taxpayer’s money. Now, apart from the huge burden that this will place on the taxpayers, and on future taxpayers, the economic downturn is going to result in the loss of thousands of jobs, the pensions of those who work in the private sector are going to be slashed - for many years to come - and many businesses are going to flounder and fail.

But if you look at what most of the politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are doing in order to help alleviate this situation, there is one feature that stands out rather starkly. And it can be encapsulated in a phrase that has been used recently by politicians time and time again across the western world: “We must not cut public services in these most difficult times.”

Well, this is just another way of saying that, no matter how bad are the economic circumstances for everyone else, government services (i.e. government, and government workers) must not be allowed to be affected by them. In other words, government and government workers must be insulated from all the economic problems. It is those who work outside of government who must bear most of the costs.

In other words, government workers now clearly form a new protected and privileged aristocracy - an aristocracy that is to be protected even from the most devastating of economic circumstances.

No matter how big the crisis - and the current one is huge - their jobs and their salaries must not be cut, and their pensions must be guaranteed through thick and thin - regardless of the cost to everyone else, and regardless of how much everyone else is struggling to make ends meet for themselves, for their families, and for their futures.

But who can oppose this enormous beast of government? - this self-serving organism?

After all, the government has hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal - every year - vast bureaucratic empires that invade every corner of our lives, and millions of organised people working for it. Furthermore, it is the government that makes the laws.

So, who can compete with it?

And who can compete with the vast resources of government when it comes to ‘debating the issues’ and putting across a particular point of view?

Well, there is no other organism that comes even close to being able to compete with this governmental beast.

A hundred years ago, western governments were very small indeed when compared to today. And, loosely speaking, the right represented the wealthy and the ever-growing number of powerful industrialists and businessmen, and the left represented the ordinary working people and the impoverished.

Those on the right reckoned that the people would be better served by allowing them to get on with the job of creating wealth and power, while those on the left reckoned that government should intervene more directly, and more often, to help those who were the most in need.

posted January 23, 2009 04:09 AM              

Government itself

And this new kid is now far more powerful than ‘the businesses’ or ‘the people’ - by a very long way.

Indeed, not only does this new kid have the muscle power, the organisational power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.

And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power to serve himself.

Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years - or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.

These governments just grow and grow and grow - not only in terms of size, but also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into every aspect of people’s lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing, stipulating, coercing - always to an ever-greater extent.

But who can stop them?

For example, who can compete with the billions of dollars that the left-wing Joe Bidens of this world pour into left-wing causes, left-wing jobs, left-wing benefits and, hence, into left-wing propaganda and left-wing votes for even bigger government?

Who has the money to compete with this?

No-one, and no organisation, has a hope of competing with such a force.

Indeed, and for example, despite the fact that Americans are renowned the world over for their almost manic belief in small government and individual liberty, this has not stopped their federal government from growing and growing and, indeed, from walking all over them.

And the reason for this is because western governments have grown far too powerful.

But who can be surprised by this given that millions of government workers with huge resources and millions of benefit recipients will tend to promote their own interests rather than those of ‘business’ or ‘the people’?

A hundred years ago it was all different.

The government tax take was miniscule, the rules and regulations were few, and the numbers of government workers and benefit recipients were both small, and so, for example, when the government handed out money to its own workers in order to pursue some agenda or other, the efforts of these workers, their ability to influence people, and the number of votes that the government workers, themselves, were able to cast in elections were all relatively small in comparison to what ‘the people’ could do in such areas.

But now, these government workers have around 20% of the vote, and they also have resources that are absolutely unassailable.

Indeed, in order to drum this point home, just imagine if you had one billion dollars annually to distribute to whomsoever you wished. And, further, imagine that, every year, you distributed this one billion dollars to people whose work supported the men’s movement. You can surely imagine just how large would be the impact that the men’s movement would then be able to make, right across the country.

Just one billion dollars will do!

But the Joe Bidens of this world nowadays distribute hundreds of billions of dollars every year to government workers and to benefit recipients who are bound to support ‘the government’ in order to benefit themselves.

(And, of course, there is no other group that can possibly compete with a left-wing government’s power to, quite frankly, ‘bribe’ a few million voters with benefits.)

And the upshot has been that western governments have been able, very successfully, to bamboozle the public into believing in - and ‘voting’ for - those ideas and notions that, in fact, are mostly of benefit to government, rather than of benefit to the people; the purposeful breaking down of relationships being just one example of this.

Indeed, when it comes to men’s issues, we have seen western governments of all persuasions lying, fudging, deceiving, ignoring, blocking and cheating in so many areas - always in a direction of causing more problems for men, women and children when it comes to their relationships - that it is simply impossible to escape the conclusion that damaging people’s relationships is a major aim of western governments.

And the reason for this is very clear.

As I mentioned earlier in connection with our fictional idyllic society, damaging the relationships between people creates an absolute goldmine for western governments. It is a perpetual lottery jackpot win.

And, of course, there are many other ways through which governments can encourage relationships to break down - ways that go beyond those to do with close personal relationships. For example, encouraging excessive immigration causes relationships within communities to become far more tenuous and uncertain. And, of course, the government will benefit from this as a result of the increasing disharmony and uncertainty that this brings about. Furthermore, the government will benefit whether the immigrants are productive or disruptive. If they are productive, the government gets more tax dollars. If they are disruptive, then the government can justify more taxes and more power to deal with the ensuing problems.

Thus, excessive immigration is also win-win all the way for government.

And then there are the various laws to do with hate speech and with ‘offending’ people. These tend to distance people from each other because these laws encourage certain types of people to use the law in even the most trivial of circumstances.

The whole idea is, clearly, to break apart as much as possible any strong sense of cohesion and/or security that people might have with each other.

Indeed, the ways in which this perpetual lottery jackpot win can be collected is becoming increasingly recognised and appreciated by governments all over the world - which is why feminism, and feminist policies, are now being taken up so avidly by them - and so quickly.

Time and time again, you can hear one politician promoting some new feminist-inspired notion in the USA on Monday, and by Wednesday the same notion is being proposed by another politician somewhere in Europe or Asia.

And this is because seasoned politicians and activists know very well indeed from where their power comes. And millions of them now know that every notion - every rule, regulation, policy or law - that encourages people’s relationships to break down always brings them extra benefits; whereas anything that will encourage people to stay close to each other is likely to push government - and, hence, government jobs - out of the window.

A good example of this can be seen in my piece entitled Feminists Destroy the Planet wherein it is noted that the UK’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, has introduced a whole raft of policies to help reduce carbon emissions in order to combat global warming - allegedly, “the most important issue of our times” - but not even once does he address the fact that the increasing tendency for people to live alone is having a large negative impact on the environment - in many ways, not just through the resulting higher carbon emissions.

And the reason that Gordon Brown will not do anything to encourage people to live together - either through his rhetoric or through his policies - is because he knows full well that the more do people live securely together, the less will they want government.

And this is the real reason why western governments love feminists and feminist ideology.

In summary:

1. Relationship breakdowns are a goldmine for government and for government workers. Feminism is, therefore, an ideology that serves the interests of western governments and their workers very well indeed.

2. Governments are now hugely powerful, with politicians able to give billions of dollars every year to millions of government workers who will be very keen to promote their own services - which they will be able to do with much success - particularly if they adopt the feminists’ main aim of breaking apart people’s relationships.

3. It is inconceivable that these government workers will not use their enormous influence to serve themselves.

4. It is absolutely undeniable that western governments and government workers have, over the years, poured an enormous amount of their energy, and expended billions of dollars worth of our resources, on creating and promoting laws, policies and propaganda that are specifically designed to make close personal relationships difficult to create and difficult to maintain.

Indeed, the UK’s current deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has openly stated that marriage is ‘irrelevant’ to public policy, and she has actually described high rates of relationship breakdowns as a ‘positive development’. (Like most feminists, she believes that stable inter-gender relationships oppress women.)

And the only realistic conclusion that one can make is that, when it comes to people’s relationships, western governments and government workers are purposely seeking to damage these relationships as much as possible.

END NOTES:

1. MRAs often suggest that there are other factors that cause feminism to be so prevalent nowadays; e.g. corporations, chivalry, a desire (no matter how misguided) for ‘equality’; and so on.

Most of these suggested factors do, indeed, have something to do with the promotion of feminism.

But the point of my piece is to demonstrate that unless one understands just how monumental is the power of the state these days, and just how positively enormous are the benefits that accrue to those in charge of this monumental power if they do promote feminism, then, in my view, one is probably missing the most important factor of all.

2. MRAs often find it difficult to believe that government workers could be so malicious toward their own people by supporting policies and notions that will harm them.

And there are two things to be said about this.

Firstly, there is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top of government and at the top of government departments are malicious - coldly, callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.

A good example of this is the way in which so many politicians and government workers - who should know better - have avoided discussing the issue of fatherlessness for so long despite the heavy toll that it has clearly been taking on so many people and on society as a whole.

This heavy toll clearly does not matter to these people.

And why should it? After all, it gives them jobs, money, pensions etc etc etc

Another example would be the way in which educationalists have chosen over the years to teach children to read using one of the most inefficient methods imaginable - a method that was known to disadvantage both our boys and our girls when it came to reading, but which was also known to disadvantage the boys much more. It is inconceivable to me that educationalists in the higher echelons were unaware of the degradation in reading skills that was taking place over the years as a result of using inefficient teaching methods (i.e. the ongoing degradation was being covered up) and it is also inconceivable to me that they were unaware that their teaching methods were, in fact, inefficient; particularly for the boys.

In my view, the method of teaching reading - together with a host of other educational initiatives that have taken place over the years to the detriment of boys - was actually designed to undermine the educational progress of the boys relative to the girls.

And if this is hard to believe, then please bear in mind that these same educationalists, who were for decades so concerned about the lack of female role models in the workplace, are now saying that role models for boys in the educational setting (e.g. having more male teachers in schools) are of no importance at all.

Furthermore, here in the UK, we have had both left-wing politicians and left-wing teachers recently saying that nothing should be done to help our boys catch up with the girls. Even the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission is saying this.

And the question that I keep asking myself is how much more evidence will it take before MRAs wake up to the fact that western governments - particularly left-wing governments - are doing all that they can to undermine their own societies - particularly their own men - and that they are doing this to benefit themselves.

Now, I could give you many more examples which - to my mind at least - provide incontrovertible evidence that many of those people who work for government are malicious and self-serving, but I think I will stop here, and just point out that the lack of concern of western governments over fatherlessness and over the poor education of boys cannot be described as anything other than ‘malicious’ when it comes to assessing their true attitudes toward ‘the people’.

Furthermore, the cost to us all of failing to do anything to solve these two particular problems amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars every year across the western world, and it amounts to a huge amount of unhappiness for millions of people.

Governments, however, benefit hugely from these things. And those at the top know very well that this is the case.

(For further evidence that government workers are very often deceitful and malicious, see my piece entitled Do Not Respect Them .)

Secondly, it is also almost certainly true that the vast majority of ‘government workers’ will have no idea what harm they might be causing to people by supporting and promoting ‘government’ - particularly corrupt government; which is what we mostly seem to have nowadays Their views tend to be very restricted, and they tend only to know what they need to know in order to do their own particular jobs.

However, there will also exist hundreds of thousands of workers in the higher ranks who will just push a little bit here and a little bit there in order to gain some advantage for themselves.

For example, senior police officers will wish to impress their political overlords by gaining as many rape convictions as possible. They will want to earn more brownie points by proclaiming hither and thither that more must be done to catch more rapists. And they will forever argue for more and more resources.

And these police officers are not going to admit openly to the public the fact that, in practice, the vast majority of rape allegations made to them are actually false; because to do so would undermine their own positions.

And so across the western world, with thousands of senior police officers wanting to impress their masters, and with thousands wanting more resources for their departments, the effect of them pushing a little bit here and a little bit there (e.g. exaggerating, misrepresenting the facts etc etc) always in the direction of wanting a little bit more for themselves, amounts to a very large force indeed.

And this large force can be so detrimental to society as a whole, or to a particular group within it, that its nature can be very ‘malicious’ even though the individuals who are creating this force (in this case, senior police officers) are not necessarily intending to be malicious. They might simply be serving themselves by, let us say, putting a certain spin on various issues.

In summary; there will be those at the very top who are well aware of the harm that they are causing to people by, for example, knowingly encouraging fatherlessness (i.e. they are malicious) but there will also be hundreds of thousands of people, slightly lower down the chain, who will be pushing a little bit here and there in the same direction (encouraging fatherlessness) simply in order to maintain their empires - the empires that the malicious people above are promoting and funding.

The result is a huge force that is very decidedly malicious.

3. My own view is that if we take a look at the power currently being wielded by government, by business and by ‘the people’ at this moment in time, we will see that ‘the people’ have a very small voice indeed - with ‘men’ having almost no voice at all. And the following graphic probably represents much better than does the graphic above how the forces from these three groups are currently matched.

posted January 23, 2009 04:09 AM              

Now, given that government mostly serves itself, and given that government has virtually unassailable resources with which to do so, and given that there is, quite clearly, so very much that government can gain (and hold on to) by continually breaking down people’s relationships, and given that we now have so much irrefutable evidence demonstrating quite clearly that western governments are, indeed, doing their very best on many fronts to break down people’s relationships (a ‘positive development’, according to Harriet Harman) it seems to me that MRAs must do their very best to undermine the power of government.

And the simplest way to do this is to support only those politicians who promise unreservedly to reduce the tax take, and to oppose most vehemently those politicians who are likely to increase it.

This typically means supporting the right rather than the left, but, unfortunately, matters are not so simple, because times have really changed. And there are nowadays very few politicians indeed who have much concern for ‘the people’. Those on the left are, in my view, mostly corrupt through and through - always seeking to empower themselves and their cronies through the further expansion and empowerment of government regardless of the cost to the people - and those on the right are very often pandering to the wishes of big corporations and powerful businesses. And so there is no longer any strong voice within government circles that represents real, ordinary people.

And perhaps the most worrying part about all of this is that any politician - left or right - who dares to stand up for ‘the people’ in any meaningful way will be pushed quite quickly into relative obscurity by the other politicians who will be receiving massive support from very powerful brokers whose only concern is to promote the interests of big business or big government.

(For example, if my memory is correct, trades unions representing government workers in America poured some 100 million dollars into supporting Obama’s campaign for the presidency; i.e. into supporting big government.)

And so, all in all, it seems to me that there is no real representation of ‘the people’ within government (and there is certainly no representation of ‘men’ within it) and, further, that any representation of ‘the people’ that occurs outside of government is nowadays mostly swamped by the huge amount of self-serving propaganda (particularly from government workers) that pours out in favour of ‘big government’. And, unfortunately for us, this deluge of self-serving propaganda is coming from people who benefit very handsomely indeed from breaking apart and undermining people’s relationships.

Their overall strategy is, quite clearly, to ‘divide and rule’

… which is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tricks to be found in the handbook of those who wish to empower themselves at the expense of others.

4. Given all the above, how can ‘the people’ possibly counteract the huge forces that pour into the political arena in favour of business and in favour of government? And, in particular, how can ‘men’ ever develop any kind of voice at all? - let alone summon up the resources to counter the hundreds of billions of dollars that seem to be set against them every year.

Well, there is only one solution that I can envisage.

And this involves taking over the consciousness not only of those who rule but also of the general population.

And, basically, this means attracting the attention of millions of people and changing their minds.

And this is exactly what sites like MND and Angry Harry are attempting to do.

So, MRAs, please, please, please, give all our men’s websites all the support that you can.

Without such websites, you have not got a hope of ever taking on those huge self-serving groups that seek to profit from all the problems that they, themselves, are causing you.

posted January 23, 2009 04:15 AM              

quote:

---

I cannot imagine living in a society with dowries.
It's not acceptable that a woman needs to 'sell' herself with assets to gain a partner and start a new life.

---

evidently , you are misunderstood...

quote:

---

As per hindu laws of succession the daughter is entitled to a dowry - depending on what her parents can afford - it is HER share of her fathers estse gievn to her so she and her husband can use it as they see fit for their new life.

---

Why should only a man be responsible for all the resources needed for their new life.

Isnt that against Equality ?

It has always been a mtter of practice for women to marry above them.

show me women , who wants to marry below her, unless she is in her later thirties .

Marriage has always been more about econmics - a partnership that aims at creating a life together - rather than love.

If you believe in equality , do you believe that a you should pay half the fine-dining expenses that arise in the course of dating. ?

Why shouldnt women make their contributions..if they think they are equally capable...

sounds like a hell lot of hypocrisy...

posted January 23, 2009 04:16 AM            

Living in a western country does mean an element of access to Education. Learning about what people of all walks have had to endure and being taught we have rights and choices have opened doors of opportunity.

These doors haven't swung open easily, with resistance from 'comfortable' people who have not wanted to accept others as their human equal. This is where the 'nudge' of Feminism has pushed the door open. First, women pour through creating a queue for others to follow - children, elderly, ethnic, indigenous, etc.

Feminism was strong in the 70's and has slowly changed as women became educated, confident and brought up with greater opportunities. The 70's was a revolutionary time for people to break-free and express ideals and opinions.

Feminists are not the only group of people who have exposed where needs lie in society. Hippies and tree-huggers are evolutionary Greenies that hold the banner up for the safety of the environment.

Now the foothold of opportunity is given to all people from all walks of life. But people are still working hard to survive 21st Century challenges and invisible discriminations.

Societal evolution always brings challenges. The Industrial Revolution introduced lots of inventions that people thought would make life easier, but challenges have followed as well. Eg, the pollution of factories and cars.

posted January 23, 2009 04:17 AM              

quote:

---

Many women and children die at the hands of their male partner.

---

Do give me a systematic, comparative statistical proof of your statement.

If any.

quote:

---

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/public...ncands97/s7.htm. Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female. Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female. The mother/father ratio is actually greater than this, because many of the male abusers counted are not the biological fathers but instead step‑fathers, boyfriends, etc.

Source on murders of children by single parents: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Third National Incidence Study Of Child Abuse and Neglect: Final Report Appendices (Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1997, pp. A‑63‑A‑64. The estimated total is 264 parental murders of children committed by single custodial mothers and 11 by single custodial fathers. There are roughly five times as many single custodial mothers as single custodial fathers.

---

posted January 23, 2009 04:23 AM            

If you want to play it that way, so be it. I was being fair and reasonble trying to understand your point of view.

Basically, I think you are tragically misinformed. Please remove the blindfold. You refuse to believe women are abused and need to seek action to protect themselves.

posted January 23, 2009 04:25 AM              

quote:

---

Could it be the Feminists you talk about, be the 'strong' women that have had to hold a banner up for oppressed women?

---

Just one question so i know i am not wasting my time,

Are you a card-carrying,official feminist or just someone who likes the ideology. ?

Cuz there are so many factual inaccuracies in your posts it is an embarassing waste of my time to point them out.

posted January 23, 2009 04:27 AM              

quote:

---

Now I will call your bluff venusdeindia - there is no way a person can possibly type that much while I was typing my paragraph. I think you have set this up without an opportunity for discussion

---

ooooppsss, did i not put a link at the bottom indicating the source ?

Ofcourse i didnt type that article - as i made sure to indicate.

How melodramatic

seriously Koiflower, you need to READ a post before you comment on it.

posted January 23, 2009 04:27 AM            

quote:

---

seriously, Koiflower, there is such a thing as throwing sh1t on the wall, hoping it will stick.

---

Are these words of a healer?

I having trouble believing you're a woman, to be honest.

posted January 23, 2009 04:30 AM            

Militant Marxist feminists being the least of my daily problems, I won't be around until Monday.

posted January 23, 2009 04:30 AM              

quote:

---

I think you have set this up without an opportunity for discussion

---

You mean i MADE Slion make this thread because i wanted to set you up...

there is no way in hell that i could just happen to know what i am talking about ?

posted January 23, 2009 04:31 AM            

Sunshine's post was nicely put, she was trying to tell you something. You can either chose to listen or ignore.

posted January 23, 2009 04:34 AM              

quote:

---

Sunshine's post was nicely put, she was trying to tell you something. You can either chose to listen or ignore

---