Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Vagina Dentata

Skip to first unread message

Carsten Agger

Aug 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/21/98
What should a woman do to her rapist?
Check out

The Torch:
Biblioteca Circular:


Aug 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/21/98

Carsten Agger wrote in message <6rjmgf$456g$>...

>What should a woman do to her rapist?
> Check out
Yet Another bunch of "Amazon" wannabees that puts on its Tunnel Vision
Glasses whilst ignoring the shit on its own doorstep.!!


(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)

Carsten Agger

Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
>>What should a woman do to her rapist?
>> Check out
>Yet Another bunch of "Amazon" wannabees that puts on its Tunnel Vision
>Glasses whilst ignoring the shit on its own doorstep.!!
And what's that?
Would you like to elaborate?



Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98

Carsten Agger wrote in message <6rng0c$1d4k$>...

>>>What should a woman do to her rapist?
>>> Check out
>>Yet Another bunch of "Amazon" wannabees that puts on its Tunnel Vision
>>Glasses whilst ignoring the shit on its own doorstep.!!
>And what's that?
> Would you like to elaborate?
> regards,
> Carsten

I'll tell you why- because when you sit in judgement over a gender and revel
in your "rage" and "angst" - it would do you well to examine the "other side
of the coin" before encouraging women to act as vigilante's and break the
law. The attitudes and exhortations expressed on the website you recomended
are incredibly hypocritical in view of the serious crimes that are committed
by women and for which they often receive extremely lenient sentences. I
have included in this post some material which details "the other side of
the coin" if you have ANY genuine sincerity and are not just another
"Ranting Nut" - you would do well to read it - you never know it just might
save you from that "bitter black snake" of Hate that you are carrying around
with you - and don't forget such "snakes" also have a tendency to bite their

Source :

calls the American male "the most exploited, the most
suppressed, the most manipulated man on the face of the
earth." Dual discrimination ." Dual discrimination - pro-
female (a perversion of chivalry) and anti-male
("misandry," meaning hatred of men, manhood and fatherhood)
- is everywhere. This double standard exists in many fields
- domestic relations, employment, crime punishment, and inour very image.3
This bias is so institutionalized, it is taken for
granted. The commonly accepted notion, the basic premise of
women's lib, has long been that discrimination against women
is greater than that against men. This is more than
fashionable nonsense; it is a bizarre hoax. As many people
cannot distinguish ladies from women, many also cannot
distinguish truth from falsehood or right from wrong.
This is explained by a founder of modern psychology, William
James, who noted that, "There is nothing so absurd that, if
it is repeated often enough, it will not become accepted."
In modern times there are few expectations of women and
many expectations of men. Indeed, a good case can be made
that western women are the most pampered creatures on earth,like sacred
Political correctness is the big trend among social
levelers today. Children's rights, as we know, are widely
revered. Everyone knows the support women receive, but men?
Nothing. The very term, "men's rights," reeks of political
incorrectness. It turns off conventional liberals and
conservatives alike. This enormous reservoir of sentiment
makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult.A. Gender in general
1. Integration and sex melding
A large segment of the population seems to be at war with
normal life. Some have mounted an ill-conceived move to rid
us of all distinctions between men and women, to move toward
an androgynous society. They denounce masculinity as
"macho," and likewise denigrate true femininity. Rambo and
John Wayne are bogeymen, except it's OK for women to imitate
them; witness the many actresses clumsily playing tough cops
and other male roles. This phenomenon is too widespread to
be attributed to a mix-up in hormones. Its adherents seem
to consider sexual characteristics restrictive and to resent
traditionally distinct members of either gender. It tends
to erode the biological polarity between the sexes, which is
so essential to life itself. Indeed past civilizations that
lost these distinctions have ceased to exist.
When it suits their purposes, "feminists"4 consider the
sexes both identical, e.g., in employment, and different,
e.g., in child custody - a classic "have their cake and eat
it too" situation. They would mandate social integration
and the "right" for women to elbow their way into men's
schools and clubs (but not vice versa, of course). Thus, to
promote less important rights, freedom of association istrampled on.
2. The male image
Males have achieved the greatest accomplishments of
civilization, yet are widely perceived to be brutal,
villainous or incompetent. Ads denigrating men are common in
the media. Meanwhile, women are practically canonized by
simple virtue of being female. One Pennsylvania legislator
declared on the floor of the state senate that "A woman is
born clean and decent. If she is bad it is because a man
made her that way." Female glorification is further
demonstrated by the, seriously taken, demand for a statue of
a "combat woman" to be erected at the Vietnam War Memorial
to specially and separately memorialize the eight women who
died in Vietnam, contrasted with 58,000 men who died there.
Sexual assault propaganda discussed later herein
demonstrates regnant anti-male hysteria.
Consider the "women and children first" slogan. Consider
the horror with which killing or maiming women and children
is looked upon, as opposed to killing or maiming men.
Actually, chivalry is not bothersome, if restricted to
ladies, and if gentlemen likewise receive their due.
The attack on males and manhood may be a rebellion against
authority, with which men are often identified, or were.
Ironically these sentiments adversely affect women also,
because attacks on manhood are attacks on all humanity.
In some instances, that barbarous practice of circumcision
may be directed at manhood per se. 3. Health concerns
Medical research expenditures demonstrate the preference
for women. Breast and prostate cancer kill almost equal
numbers of men and women respectively. Yet, as Warren
Farrell's The Myth of Male Power documents, 660% more money
is spent on breast cancer research - the one cancer thatkills women.
Aaron Kipnis, psychologist and author of Knights Without
Armor, says that males account for: 70% of all assault victims
80% of all homicide victims 85% of the homeless
90% of persons with AIDS 93% of persons killed on the job
Men die on average eight years earlier than women. The
popular attitude is, So what? If it were the other way
around, the outcry would be deafening, countless studies
would be undertaken, $ millions would be thrown at thedisaster.
4. The ERA The ERA sounds like a good idea. It is, but bad law. It
applies, ratchet-like, in one direction only- to favor
women; never in the direction of equality. Its effect in
state implementations has been to eliminate all reasonable
distinction between the sexes unless they favor women.
Banning father-son banquets as sexist borders on the insane.
Requiring universities to provide athletic budgets for women
equivalent to those for men is like requiring hospitals to
provide paternity wards for men. Women's groups have not
been involuntarily integrated. Women's tennis, golf and
chess tournaments still exclude men. Female reporters and
guards may watch male athletes and prisoners at toilet, but
male reporters and guards may not watch female athletes and
prisoners at toilet. The ERA means just what most people
think it means - equal rights for women. B. Employment
1. Affirmative action
This idea has done more harm than good. The criteria of
gender and quotas are far too significant in hiring and
promoting employees. If a well-qualified man applies for
work or promotion in government or big business, and a woman
applicant is even remotely qualified, it is likely she will
get it. In some areas (for example, teachers of law,
medicine and economics), women are earning considerably more
than equally qualified male counterparts.5
Mandates of the Affirmative Action craze have created
dangerous, inefficient and bizarre results.
Female police officers have often failed in violent
situations. It's only a matter of time before female
"firepersons" cause tragedies. Responsible military
officials have demonstrated that our combat forces are too
watered down with women to be effective6.
For years the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hired
women and minorities who did not know the front end of an
airplane from the back and tried, largely unsuccessfully, to
train them as air traffic controllers, while qualified
pilots were denied this employment.7
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have ceased recruiting
male officers until the number of female officers attain a
politically correct percentage.8
The functions of government and business9 have been
hindered and the mail slowed down. Women reporters have
invaded male athlete's locker rooms during showering and
dressing. Try getting into a women's locker room.
Affirmative action is based on three false premises: that
the success of males is due to discrimination, sociological
conditioning and conspiracy, that normal women can do
anything normal men can - and do it as well, and that
overall women's pay should equal men's. Some call it
"reverse" discrimination, but incorrectly so, because
original discrimination does not exist. "Quotas" is a far
more accurate term. The underlying intent is to implement
redistribution of income.
The allegation that females are discriminated against
relies on the fact that average fully employed women earn
about 72 cents for every dollar earned by average fully
employed men. Does this evidence discrimination? Of course
not! The market of supply and demand sets wages. All
commodities, including labor, reach a price level consistent
with their worth, unless interfered with by outside forces
such as union or government dictates. Higher paying jobs
are usually more arduous, or require more training and
dedication. Men's natural characteristics (especially
greater motivation and aggression), as well as social
expectations, cause them to seek and excel in these typejobs.
Men work harder, longer, at more dangerous jobs and
prepare themselves better educationally. By their own
preference, most women have not pursued full time careers or
obtained the training men have. Men are practically
required to work (ask those in alimony jail), while women
have greater choices in the matter. Wage comparisons
deceptively equate women who polish fingernails in plush
offices, who drop out for long periods to raise children
(they quit jobs eleven times oftener than men) with men who
labor deep beneath the earth's surface in coal mines year
after year. According to a Rand Corporation study, "The
typical male worker has more job skills than the typical
female worker, so it's not surprising there's a wage gap."
Admittedly, in the past, some men obtained better jobs and
higher wages simply because of their sex. Even that had a
rational purpose - to assure enough income for every family,
by having only one breadwinner per family.
Besides being illogical, affirmative action is costly and
unfair to the many well-qualified males who go unhired andunpromoted.
What if affirmative action were applied in the other
direction? What if it were decreed that henceforth all
children of divorce be placed with fathers until their
numbers equal those placed with mothers, or that
professional basketball teams must be composed of 70%
Caucasians, or that four % (or whatever it is) of the U.S.
Congress must be mentally retarded because that is the
percentage of retarded persons in the country?
Quotas negate equal opportunity. Anyone ought to be able
to develop his or her capabilities; and ought to be
employed wherever qualified, but not in preference to better
qualified persons in pursuit of some egalitarian pipe dream.
2. Pay equity, and comparable worth
These are schemes to pay women who opt into plush or
comfortable jobs the same as men who do hard or dangerous
work. All that is needed to implement this is a feminist
oriented bureaucracy willing to declare hard work easy and
easy work hard. Like "no fault divorce," which sent the
divorce rate skyrocketing, this silliness has unintended
consequences. Popular in liberal state governments, it can
financially break them.C. Crime and punishment
1. A blatent double standard
In what is perhaps the most egregious area of
implementation of perverted chivalry, men are punished more
rigorously than women. Decision to arrest, amount of bail
required, guilt or innocence in judgment, severity of
sentence, physical conditions of imprisonment, release on
parole all favor women. The MDA has files full of examples
of grossly disparate treatment between men and women. Men
are arrested and imprisoned for crimes which women commit
with impunity. If a man is caught looking into a home in
which a woman is undressing, he will be arrested for
voyeurism. If a woman is doing the looking, again the man
will be arrested; this time for indecent exposure. It
happened; the Mississippi Supreme Court rationalized theverdict.
In Texas a man and woman violated a local ordinance by
swimming in the nude. Police arrested only the man. In
Minnesota, procedures requiring the summary jailing of drunk
drivers are seldom applied to drunk women drivers.
Prostitution is a good example of this double standard. It
is the only transgression in which the buyers of an illegal
commodity are more culpable than the sellers. This is
because most sellers are women and buyers men.
If a woman accuses a man of rape ("spousal" or otherwise),
brutality or "sexual harassment," the man is routinely
denied due process, not permitted to properly defend himself
because it might insult the female complainant, regardless
of truth. Where it is a man's word against a woman's, the
woman's is usually believed. Gary Dotson was wrongly
convicted of rape and imprisoned 6 years! After the
"victim" recanted and admitted lying (without punishment, of
course), the judge kept him in jail months after her
recantation just for the hell of it. Practically every time
a man and woman get into a physical fight, regardless of who
is the aggressor, the man is blamed. If married, police
usually throw him out of his house. Although there are as
many physically battered men as battered women10 (arguably,
there are more psychologically battered men), government and
society throw tons of money and sympathy only at "batteredwomen."
Judges are reluctant to jail women. While men are
arrested 4 times as often as women, they are imprisoned 24times as
Women premeditate over half of the domestic murders they
commit, and yet half of them claim self-defense, quite
successfully. They are convicted of l5 percent of the
homicides in this country, but suffer less than l percent of
the executions. Since 1930, 3,313 males have been executedand only 30
A woman can murder a man and receive less punishment than
a man who cannot pay his alimony or who urinates in the
street. They murmur "brutality" and hearts begin bleeding.
No rebuttal is possible; the victim is dead. Jilted actress
Claudine Longet, who killed her live-in lover Spider
Sabitch, was convicted and sentenced to 30 days, the same
time a young Wisconsin lad served in l984 for playing hooky
and a Cheyenne, Wyo. man for violating a local ordinance by
fishing with a worm instead of a fly. She served the time
at her convenience in a specially redecorated cell.
Acquittal or token punishment of women who murder and maim
men, such as Longet and Lorena Bobbit, signals open seasonon men.
If a man kills a fetus against the mother's will he has
murdered a human being. If her abortionist does it, it's
her "right" and the fetus loses human status.
The courts jail male repeat offenders for life for
stealing a few hundred dollars, or for rape with no physical
harm and far less mental harm than that suffered by manymen in divorce.
We lock up male prisoners behind steel and concrete, in
overcrowded conditions. We provide women prisoners with
furnished cottages and grounds for strolling. The Attica
men's prison in New York compares most unfavorably to anywomen's
Ninety-four percent of prison inmates are male12. If 94
percent of prison inmates were female, the problem and the
injustice would receive far more attention. 2. Inter gender
Society and the media are profoundly indignant regarding
violence against females - only. The facts, however,
demonstrate that this is another example of perverted
chivalry. Here they are:
* Men are the victims of two to three times as much
violence as are women.13 Much more if you consider warfare,
where men sacrifice life and limb in defense of women and
children. (Yet Marylin French, in her recent The War
Against Women, says most casualties in wars are women and
children. No kidding.)
* Wives and female companions are as likely to initiate
family violence or murder a husband as are husbands and malecompanions.14
* Women are far more likely than men to abuse children,
especially boys, and the elderly, throughout history - not
merely since receiving the preponderance of custody.15
* Women are more violent than men.16
* Women are more dangerous because they use weapons moreoften.17
* Violence by women is increasing and by men isdecreasing.18
* Statistics on gender violence are skewed by men's
reluctance to report abuse,19 and by the fact that many
reports are generated by "battered women's" shelters,
spawning grounds for all sorts of feminist agitprop.
* According to the "National Crime Survey,"20 less than
one percent of men or women are victimized by spouses.21
3. Rape, the big lie!
The earliest false rape charge was reported in Biblical
times. It seems Egyptian potentate Potiphar's wife
attempted to seduce Joseph. When it failed, she accused him
of rape and had him thrown into prison.22
Between 27% and 60% of rape allegations are false.23
The 1990 "National Women's Study," in a survey of 4,008
women, reported the incidence of rape is 683,000 per year.
Here are the unadulterated facts:
* Prof. Neil Gilbert of the Univ. of Calif. Berkeley has
shown that exaggeration is rampant and definitions of the
term, "rape," are highly dubious.24
* The U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
(NCS), in a 1990 survey of 50,000 women, reported 130,000
rapes per year, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1990claimed 102,560.
* Despite claims that as high as 37 percent of women have
been "raped," only 1/10 of one percent of women havereported rape.25
The National Center for men in New York and Dr. Roy Schenk
have devised "consensual sex contracts" to protect men from
women who after having consensual sex decide to charge their
partners with rape.26 4. Child abuse
As with false rape and battering charges, false claims of
child abuse against men have increased dramatically. Yet,
the truth is that 62% of child abusers are mothers.27
Further, only one percent of alleged child abuse involves
serious assaultive behavior the public regards as truly
abusive.28 Douglas Besharov Ph.D., of the American
Enterprise Institute, reports that 67% of all child abuse
claims are unfounded. Other experts claim this percentage is
much higher in divorce situations. 5. Harassment
Allegedly-discriminated-against women are filing
preposterous claims and winning outlandish court awards or
settlements for minor insults or leers. The widespread
credit given the charges Anita Hill brought against Judge
Clarence Thomas is a good example. The 10 year old charges
were a blatantly political and spiteful attempt to deprive a
patently decent conservative of his Supreme Courtnomination.
D. Domestic relations 1. The situation
Married men are no more than guests in their own homes,
evictable at the whim of wives and judges. Unwarranted
eviction of males is routine procedure upon initiation of
divorce without much recourse, not some rare aberration of
justice. Then, they are characterized as "runaway fathers"
(after being kicked out). Prof. Amneus says this is like
stabbing a man in the back and then accusing him of carryinga concealed
Law does not govern divorce; judicial anti-male prejudice
does. There is sufficient legal precedent on either side of
most any issue to justify any decisions judges choose to
make, even contradictory ones - anything to favor the woman.
The family is like a three-legged table, held up by the
rights of men, women and children. Remove one leg, and the
table falls down. This is what has happened to the modern
family - the men's rights leg has been removed, largely bygovernment
Divorce has aptly been termed "the rape of the male." To
any reasonable person, being raped in the back seat of a
car, as happens to very few women, is far preferable to
being raped in divorce court, as happens to many men. 2. The
The U.S. has an appalling 50 percent divorce rate.
Between one and three million children are semi-orphaned in
the U.S. every year.29 According to the Census Bureau,
three out of five children born today will spend part of
their childhood in a single parent home. The destruction of
children's homes and families by routine divorce court
removal of fathers is one of the worst forms of child abuse.
The process has pauperized both men and women. Half of
America's seven million poor families are so because of
divorce, separation or out-of-wedlock births. In contrast,
of America's 50.4 million intact families, only 7% are poor.
Family breakdown is the greatest cause of poverty.
The results of divorce burden taxpayers with unacceptable
welfare costs, generated when dispossessed men refuse - or
haven't the money - to subsidize the destruction of their
families and the placement of their children in fatherless
homes, where they are far more likely to be mistreated,
neglected, demoralized and sexually confused.
In view of the whole catastrophe, it is little wonder
divorced men are 6 times more likely to commit suicide thandivorced women.
Consequently, the institution of marriage is in jeopardy.
3. Child custody
Over 90 percent of child custody awards are to mothers.
True, few men fight for custody; not because they don't want
it, but because of the overwhelming odds against winning and
because of the prohibitive costs. His children are a man's
raison d' łtre. Loss and probable estrangement of them are
among the greatest injustices that can be visited upon ahuman being.
Divorce has eliminated paternal authority in divorced
families and the threat of it greatly inhibits that
authority in intact families. Violent crime continues to
skyrocket. Its cause has experts puzzled, but should not.
The roots develop in childhood. The rate of delinquency and
other problems among children of divorce, including grown
ones, is frightening, especially those in maternal
custody.30 Three quarters of prisoners in our jails come
from female-headed families.31 The same pattern is foundamong drug
4. Money and property
Redistribution of wealth - from male to female - is
likewise an important consideration. With the children go
house and financial packages designed to maintain mothers
and children at or near their former level of affluence.
Unrealistic standards are often used in establishing these
figures.32 Divorce transfers more funds in America thanwill and
Draconian seizure methods are employed against men unable
to meet alimony, palimony, and support orders. They lose
assets, including unemployment compensation, pensions, and
even disability annuities. Thousands of victims are in
illegal debtors' prisons for inability or refusal (God bless
'em) to pay. And we criticize the Soviet Gulag!
There is seldom enough money left after divorce
obligations for the father to live comfortably. An income
just sufficient to support one household before divorce
cannot be stretched to support two afterwards. The myth
promulgated by feminist Lenore Weitzman, based on her
contrived "studies," that an ex-husband's standard of living
skyrockets by 42% has been disproved by the scholarly
attorney, Jed Abraham, JD.33
The term, "feminization of poverty," is a popular cliché
designed to justify the transfer of male-earned funds to
women, which is illogical because women already own
approximately 70% of the nation's wealth.34 Female poverty
results chiefly from the feminization of custody. 5. Mom's atomic
To doubly ensure maternal custody or to deny visitation to
fathers, it is becoming common to accuse fathers of child
molestation. As in all accusations by women against men,
the burden is on the man to prove innocence, which is
exceedingly difficult. There are over 700,000 false reports
of child abuse in America each year, mostly divorce
related.35 Estimates are that between 90% 36 and 77% 37 areuntrue.
6. Rights and responsibilities
It is patently evident that government enforces men's
responsibilities, but not their rights. Conversely, it
likewise enforces women's rights, but not their
responsibilities. For example, divorce orders allow
visitation to non-custodial fathers and sometimes token
amounts of support from the rare non-custodial mother; but
these provisions are usually only as good as the inclination
of mothers to comply. 7. Logic
We can easily overlook false planted axioms in considering
issues. For example, modern ideas of chivalry postulate the
false premise that all women are ladies. Clucking about
runaway slaves and Irish freedom fighters (both "unlawful")
postulate planted axioms that slavery is acceptable and that
Britain legitimately occupies part of Ireland (both
"lawful"). So too, the uproar over "deadbeat dads"
postulates the false premise that child support orders are
reasonable and that the whole process is fair to men.
Women who fail to prepare for careers, promise to live
with a man for life, have their children, throw them out,
expecting support from them or from taxpayers - and then
plead poverty - deserve no sympathy.E. Delinquency
Juvenile delinquency, adult crime (because the child is
father to the man), and other aberrations are increasing at
an astronomical pace. There is a direct, causative and
irrefutable correlation between mother-custody and these
problems. It is massively documented in the book, Garbage
Generation,38 especially in the Annex to Chapter One.
F. Government and the economy
Over the past 25 years federal, state and local
governments have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in a
futile attempt to eradicate poverty - from the outside.39
Sensible persons like Dr. Thomas Sowell and Charles Murray40
believe poverty is a state of mind, and can be eradicated
from the inside only. A government that cannot deliver the
mail on time may be hard-pressed to deliver us from poverty.
In January 1992, 13.5 million Americans were on AFDC. One
in 7 American children is now on welfare and 2,000 more are
joining the rolls every day.41 During the last l0 years,
welfare programs have eaten up over $300 billion, with more
people dependent on the dole now than when these programs
began. These programs are imposing an obscene debt -
$151,000 per taxpayer - on our grandchildren. If it has to
be spent, the money could be put to better use. Back in mid-
1992 total welfare spending in "the war on poverty" since
its inception in 1961 has been $3,5 trillion (in constant
dollars), an amount that exceeds the entire cost of World
War II after adjusting for inflation.42 While AFDC
regulations encourage mothers to collect, they are biased
against fathers. Regs. permit the former, but not the
latter, to receive both welfare payments and wages fromwork.43
Government administration of domestic relations is fascism
at its worst. Like entitlement and affirmative action
programs, it subordinates individual sovereignty to
political factions and arbitrarily redistributes property,
sabotaging free enterprise and violating basic human rights.
Former President Reagan's Task Force on the Family said
welfare is largely responsible for breakdown of the family.
Fifty percent of the increased divorce rate between l964 and
l970 can be traced to the incentives provided by welfaregrowth.44
Anti-male prejudice is a square dance of officials and
assorted other fools. What motivates them? Reasons include
a massive perversion of chivalry, fad, self-aggrandizement,
and Freud's discovery - penis envy.A. Politics and morality
Neither liberals nor conservatives have been friends of
the male sex, but there is a difference. Many liberals are
seminally opposed to that essence of manhood, rugged
individualism, as well as to such other things as property
rights. Adolescent egalitarians listing to port hold the
notion that all persons are equally deserving of earthly
goods, that justice and peace on earth demands equal
distribution of wealth regardless of effort ("to each
according to his needs"). They favor big government, with
all the mischief that entails. Conservatives generally
uphold commonsense principles, but are too naőve to grasp
that misandry is antithetical to these principles.
In his A History of Marriage and Family, Australian
Professor Willystine Goodsell posits that the causes of
modern Western social decline are identical to those which
caused the fall of the Roman Empire. Women took on non-
traditional roles when men left to fight the Punic Wars, and
remained in those roles after the wars. This led to
promiscuity, divorce and widespread demoralization. One
need not be a college professor to see the parallels.B. Judges, legislators
The former appoint themselves protectors of frail
womanhood (The Galahad Complex). Unless they have led a
very sheltered life, many of their actions and
pontifications about gender issues are naőve and stupid,
sometimes downright criminally so. As Dickens said, "The
law is an ass, an idiot."
The latter will enact any abomination a fad-conscious
public desires - for votes. Fear of the powerful women's
lib juggernaught influences their thinking. P. J. O'Rourke
aptly calls them A Parliament of Whores.C. Bureaucrats
Big Brother is increasingly intruding into our lives. The
primary concerns of any bureaucracy are to justify its
existence and expand its operation. Bureaucrats aspire to
replace "the man in the family," control the lives of the
thusly-created dependents and assume responsibility for
their needs. Witness:
* Judges, police, and social "workers" are taking overthe role of
* Social "workers" encourage wives to kick husbands out
and eagerly provide courts with supporting rationale for
awarding maternal custody, to build case loads and
ultimately their empire. They lobby for ever harsher anti-
male legislation, which only creates more need for
themselves. They oppose realistic reforms (such as
tightening eligibility and father custody), because their
careers depend on existence of the support problem.
* Another entire bureaucracy has grown up around the
collection of alimony, palimony, and support. Local
governments have turned into giant collection agencies for
divorcees; it is one of their largest functions.
George Orwell call your office.
Why do bureaucrats fear and sabotage a society of morally
and financially healthy families? Because they have so
much to lose from it.D. Lawyers
Lawyers share with wives the legalized plunder of divorce;
it's one of their biggest sources of income. Voluntary
reform will not spring from this quarter.E. Feminists
"Feminists" wallow in rhetoric about female victimization.
Besides preaching misandry, the basic premise of women's lib
is that women are more discriminated against than men. That
is the biggest hoax in the Western world.
Feminism has become a veritable religion. Government and
philanthropists throw vast sums of money at its crockpot of
programs, philosophies and jamborees. Every state has
generously funded a network of commissions on the status of
women, despite the fact women, in general, are financially
as well off as men.45 Battered women's shelters are also
funded, despite the absence of justification. These
establishments serve as headquarters for covens of feminoids
primarily to pursue their own agendas and only secondarily
to help these alleged victims.
Feminism is irrational and socially destructive.
Consider: Spokeswomen profess to seek equality but demand
special privilege. They demand the advantages men have
earned without the disadvantages, like having to earn them.
They demand equal representation in the boardrooms of
industry, but not in the grubby jobs or among the burned out
inhabitants of skid row. That's like wanting a one sidedcoin.
Equal rights imply equal responsibility. The more
responsibilities women reject, the more unequal they makethemselves.
This outfit begrudges veterans benefits, conveniently
ignoring the sacrifices of veterans, including the thousands
of acres of graves of men killed defending the very
existence of this country. Their wild demands would not be
possible without these sacrifices. That is called biting
the hand.... They consider women too fragile to be pinched
in an office, but tough enough to engage in combat! Dr.
Thomas Sowell (fn 40), put it best when he said, "In
reality, the crusade for civil rights ended years ago. The
scramble for special privilege, for turf, and for image is
what continues today under that banner and with thatrhetoric..."
Women's lib is a "ladies" auxiliary of the radical left.
The hard core embraces Marxism, although Gloria Steinem will
admit only to being socialist. Prime purposes of feminism
are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to
dismantle the family unit.46
Women's lib is no joke. Neither should these hydrophobic
harridans be taken too seriously. Even including their camp
followers, these modern sophists are only a vociferous
minority presumptuously claiming to represent the views and
interests of all women. Sane women invariably eschew them.
The struggle for men's rights is positive, not a reaction
to women's lib. It is inevitable that the two philosophies
clash - and they do - head on.
Riddle: Is feminism a cure for which there is no disease,
or a disease for which there is no cure?F. The media
An important reason the public is little aware of men's
issues is that the media, electronic and printed, serves the
lowest common intellectual denominator, tending toward the
sensational and the nonsensical. Together with libraries
and bookstores, the media is awash with feminism which it
promotes and parrots as if prophetic, functioning
practically as its bulletin board. Media worshippers
enumerate, analyze, deplore and sulk about their complaints.
Entire forests have given their lives for this purpose.
Men's more legitimate gripes and philosophies are censored
as if heresy, although balance is feigned by publication of
writings from anti-male male authors, under the guise of
"masculinist" material.
Several big name entertainers, long on talent, but short
on intellect, have clambered aboard the feminist bandwagon;
Actors Ed Asner and Alan Alda come to mind.G. DivorcÉes and welfare
Greed is a primary cause of divorce. The assurance of
winning all motivates women to initiate at least eighty
percent of divorces, confident that somewhere out there
(many know precisely with whom) lies a better life. Most
women would not divorce without these incentives.
Divorced and unmarried mothers are the largest group of
welfare recipients, some because they have no pride or enjoy
ripping off the public, others because they need a safety
net when dismissed ex-husbands cannot or will not pay their
freight. Whatever the motivation, most are parasitic.
As Liberator writer, Muldoon X says, AFDC seems to be a
heaven for bums and brood sows.H. Ourselves
Can victims be blamed for their plight? Damn right they
can! Men themselves let it happen. We meekly accepted
false accusations. We rolled over like submissive dogs
before anti-male hysteria. Like helpless animals caught in
car headlights, we stood by while our rights and
responsibilities were taken away. We abdicated ourtrousers.
In the last decade, a "men's movement" has come into
existence, made up of disillusioned feminists, masochists,
homosexuals and other lost souls seeking salvation in male
bonding, drumming, mythopoetry, etc. They meet at "warrior
weekends," where they beat drums, denounce masculinity, cry
a lot, and grope at each other in "consciousness raising"
sessions, presided over by charlatans selling paraphernalia,
conducting seminars, giving "massages," or reading poetry.
Many are sex melders convinced there is something wrong
(macho) with the traditional male image. Presumptuously
claiming to represent men's liberation, this outfit would
like to liberate us all right, from our manhood!
Female misandrists are overt and honest about it. We, at
the MDA, grudgingly respect that. It is easily defended
against. We are more concerned with covert misandry,
attacks from the rear by nominal males masquerading as part
of the men's movement, or even as the men's movement.
Male characteristics are also liabilities; the qualities
that cause us to excel - ego, rugged individualism - prevent
us from cooperating in our defense.
A. Gender realities 1. There is a difference
Males and females of every species are vastly different
physically and anatomically, emotionally and
psychologically. For example, male testosterone provides
extra aggression and drive.47 Androgyny is abnormal.
These distinctive, natural characteristics, predominant in
each sex, are the result of eons of evolution. To deny this
is to deny science, behavioral and biological, as well as
the evidence of one's own powers of observation. Even Betty
Friedan has come to admit, "Women aren't male clones."
This is not to imply that men are better than women, but
different, and just as good. Men should be proud of their
masculine characteristics and resultant abilities, as women
should be of theirs. Society must recognize that the
differences between the sexes is what makes the world go
around. Men and women are equal - but different. Vőve ladifference!
2. The accomplishment curve
(Passages from The Male View, by Kevin Russell, England)
Why are Men the Thinkers, the Inventors, and the Saints?
If we represent all the men in the world on a horizontal
line starting with the geniuses and the saints on the left
and moving to the villains and the drop-outs on the right we
would get a shape something like this:
Saints MENSinners
If we do the same thing with all the women in the world we
would get a shape like this:
Saints WOMENSinners
At both the saints' end and the sinners' end, men appear
in reasonable numbers; women, on the other hand, hardly at
all. Professor Camille Paglia put it rather well when she
said, 'There is no female Mozart because there is no
This being the case, I often wonder why it is that the
media, and particularly female writers and women's
magazines, consider only the right hand end of the men's
line but concentrate almost exclusively on the left hand endof the women's
Almost every top chef is a man.
The best orchestra in the world, the Vienna Symphony
Orchestra is composed entirely of men.
No woman has ever won the world chess championship,
despite equal encouragement of the sexes in many countries.
82% of all the saints are men
On the rare occasion when a woman does become a high
achiever she almost reaches masculinity, and, of course,
loses her femininity. It is because of her loss of
femininity that men do not feel attracted to such a woman.
It has nothing to do with the fact that she is successful.
So why is it that maleness and high achievement go so
closely hand in hand? Dr. Charles Goodheart at Gonville and
Caius College, who has studied the difference in the results
between the sexes for 16 years, states quite frankly that it
is all a question of testosterone, the male hormone that
gives men 'forcefulness, aggression, ambition, originality
and general push.' Women underachieve because they lack
this hormone. The same hormone that produces the yobbo alsoproduces the
3. Sex roles
The foregoing gender differences dictate that normal males
are superior at certain functions and normal females are
superior at others. Men achieve greater heights of success,
intellectually and physically, and greater depths of failure
than do women. These separate characteristics
realistically determine occupational roles. It is
appropriate that there be male and female roles in life.
Men are naturally the beef-luggers and women theseamstresses.
Similarities exist in the animal kingdom. Modern notions
have us so confused we would do well to look there to see
what is normal. Only one filly ever won the Kentucky Derby,
even with the mandatory five pound handicap colts carry when
racing against them. Nowhere in responsible biological
literature can we find a single instance of the identical
behavior of the males and females of any species. In the
lion species, females doing the hunting has been cited as
disproving this contention, but actually it proves our
point. Lionesses hunting are like housewives marketing.
Lions are the undisputed authoritarians.
Much of normal women's success in traditionally male
occupations is due to males bending over backward to assist
them and to overlook failings.
Reform does not require yanking every woman back into the
home, but does require elimination of the practice of
pushing them ahead of men into non-traditional roles.
We believe the sexes should be symbiotic, not melded.
Traditional gender roles and responsibilities are very
practical and enjoyable. Specialization is efficient, and
the contrast is one of life's joys. Although we seldom see
it outside the movies now, there was a time when men were
men and women were glad of it. 4. Manhood
Manliness (Hombria) is something to be proud of, not
ridiculed. It means for men what feminism should mean for
women. The work ethic and rugged individualism are
preferable to dependence on government.
Manhood is the age at which males come to accept adult
responsibilities, demand legitimate rights and are proud oftheir gender..
The terms, true men and manhood, are highly subjective.
While they do not necessarily imply the deer slayer type,
they definitely exclude homosexuals (Troublingly, this
definition excludes Frederick The Great and arguably
Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar as well as Napoleon).
Surrender of manhood is too high a price to pay for equality
5. Homosexuality
Homosexuality is unnatural, and the increasingly popular
fad of homosexual parenting operates to the clear detriment
of society. It is disingenuous to compare "civil" rights
for homosexuals to those for minorities. Voluntarily
deviant behavior does not deserve the same considerations
involuntary skin color does. To dignify such behavior as
an "alternate life style" is like equating bestiality withkindness to
Incredibly enough, to criticize such activities is
politically incorrect, often termed "homophobia." A
misnomer because that means fear of homosexuals. No one
fears homosexuals; decent people are simply revolted by
their disgusting sexual practices. 6. The trade-offs for chivalry
Chivalry is the tradition of according certain privileges
to ladies, as distinguished from all women. Although its
perversion causes most of men's gender problems, it is a
reasonable tradition and the tradeoffs were once mutually
beneficial. What trade-offs?:
From men - serious sacrifice and higher work output,
surrender of our seats in lifeboats to women and children, a
duty to fight and die in wars defending country and family.
To men - head of household status, custodial preference of
children in divorce, veteran's preference and dual sexualstandards.
The last item requires a higher moral standard for women,
especially wives. Is that unfair? No, just as the physical
and mental sex distinctions are not unfair. There are
practical reasons for it, chief among which is that husbands
cannot surreptitiously introduce extra-familial children
into their families, but women can.48
Reasonable and fair inter-gender relationships require
recognition of distinctions between ordinary women and
ladies, and between ordinary men and gentlemen. With
restoration of balance, chivalry could be mutually
beneficial to ladies and gentlemen.
Is it reasonable to expect ordinary men and women to agree
to these trade-offs? Probably not. Ladies and gentlemen -yes.
7. Patriarchy and the sociological argument
One of the most astute and learned observers of social
behavior in America today is Professor Emeritus Daniel
Amneus, of the Calif. State University, Los Angeles. He
makes a compelling case for patriarchy, as does the Bible.
Some of the following observations are based on thesesources.
Unlike some other species, humans are naturally
promiscuous. The early eons of human existence were savage,
with "families" composed of females and children fathered by
predatory, comparatively better provisioned males. Each sex
desperately needed what the other had by nature (that is,
families vis-ů-vis food). Perceiving the advantages of
mutual support and cooperation, probably around the stone
age, the sexes gradually initiated monogamous relationships
(much later formalized as marriages). Under this gender
contract, each sex made necessary sacrifices to benefit the
other; women gave fidelity, men gave hard work, often
resulting in death, injury and shortened lives. Women
received security and men received legitimate, inalienablechildren.
These relationships were patriarchal; whether naturally
(as some believe49) or artificially, to prop up the weaker
male role (as Amneus believes), is immaterial. Thus,
patriarchy, relative prosperity and the dawn of civilization
emerged simultaneously, and are quite obviously mutually
dependent. The very fabric of society depends on viabilityof that
The contract has been the primary object of feminist rage.
An unholy alliance of feminists, the Welfare State and the
divorce system has been instrumental in relieving women of
contract obligations, while assuring them of its advantages
and denying them to men. Consequently, the course of
history has reversed itself - back toward matriarchal,
savage societies. For proof, see any ghetto.
From this perspective, reform is quite simple - a
prosperous society with stable families requires that males
be positively motivated to work. This requires restoration
of the conditions of the contract.
Some say patriarchy is an outmoded value system. Although
technologies change, values are eternal. The Bible is
replete with references to husbands' authority over wives.50
Maybe an idealized society would not be patriarchal, just
as an idealized society might not be market-oriented. But
this is the real world. These forms have pragmatically
proved themselves best.
Patriarchal societies are civilized; matriarchal societies
are not. Sometimes this is difficult to see in changing
societies, because of the generations-long time lag. That,
for example, is why Sweden remained relatively civilized
long after rejecting patriarchy.
Perhaps patriarchy cannot be restored; but the attempt
will help return the pendulum away from matriarchy toward
the center. If patriarchy's enemies are kept up in arms
about the prospect, they may be diverted from elsewhere
further eroding what is left of fathers' rights.B. Domestic relations reform
1. On marriage and money
Marriage requires licensing, but having children does not.
The reverse would seem to be more sensible, with only mature
and financially secure parents licensable, but is
impracticable. So, until justice is restored, it would be
wise for men to avoid both marriage and parenthood.
Money greases the wheels of divorce; women require it for
themselves and "their" children after divorce, and attorneys
become involved for the fees. The Men's Defense Assoc.
feels that to finance an evil system by paying unfair
alimony, support and attorney fees is more immoral than is
refusal to pay. Removal of the money incentive is a key to
reform. Atlas must shrug himself free. Widely implemented
money strikes could be a powerful means for restoration of
justice. Because it is unlikely the system will reform
itself, the men's movement may be forced to comprehend this
reality and effectuate it.
Children need a complete home, including both father and
mother, sustenance and guidance. Likewise, parents, unless
proven unfit, have a right to live with and guide their
children. It is parents' responsibility to provide
children's needs, so long as parents' rights are honored.
But if society, through its judicial system, denies these
rights to men and aspires to control their families; then
society, through its welfare system, must assume the
financial responsibilities. The specter of chaotic
consequences may jolt the system into reform.
Only the aged and the infirm have reasonable claim on
public welfare funds. A 90% reduction in the AFDC program
seems entirely reasonable. It is only common sense that no
one, man or woman, has a right to bring children into this
world unless they have the means to support them. 2. Simple
Simplistic suggestions for reform usually advocate
changing "the law," but most law is fair on its face.
Biased application of the law is what needs changing, not
just in domestic relations but across the board.
Nearly all needed reform measures fall into a common
category - fairness to men. Here's how that would work.
Merit, not sex, would become the criterion for awarding
custody, property and money. Because marriage is a lifetime
contract, spouses aspiring to terminate it unilaterally
without very good cause would thus be prevented from
absconding with the fruits of marriage. More men, who
seldom need outside financial support, would gain custody.
Present assurances to aspiring divorcees would disappear,
vastly decreasing incentives to divorce and decreasing the
rate dramatically51. Non-custodial fathers would be
required to pay their fair share only; and, having been
treated fairly throughout the process, would be much more
inclined to do so, greatly increasing collections.
The foregoing idea relies heavily on interpretations of
"fairness.". If judges continue misinterpreting that term,
as they probably will, Prof. Amneus' suggestion - outright
prohibition of alimony and maternal custody - may become
necessary, and a majority of the men's movement must supportit.
Regarding support payments, positive motivations work
better than negative ones. So far, only the latter
(extortion and jailing) have been employed. Why not try a
scientifically valid principle?
The MDA publication, DIVORCE, What Everyone Should Know
recommends specific law changes. If those and the above
generalities were implemented, the divorce rate would become
almost insignificant within a few years, greatly curtailing
the destruction of children. 3. Custody
It is our fundamental belief that government has no right
to deprive a man of his children or his property.
The argument that men work and women do not, used in favor
of exclusive maternal custody and exclusive paternal
support, is stereotypical nonsense. A Roper poll shows 70%
of women work outside the home, or plan to, and those
holding full time jobs have doubled since l970. Another
argument is that raising children burdens mothers enough, so
they should not be obliged to share in the costs. Nonsense;
most fathers would love to be so burdened, and most of those
with custody forgo receiving support.
Although the idea may be shocking to some, routine
paternal custody in divorce would practically wipe out
delinquency and eventually crime. There is no better
police force than millions of unemasculated fathers. While
maternal qualities are important to very young children,
paternal qualities are more important to older ones.
Discipline is not normally a maternal quality.
4. Abortion, illegitimacy
For many years the MDA took no official position pro or
con on the morality or legality of abortion, other than to
insist that fathers, married or otherwise should have an
equal right in determining the fate of their offspring, born
or unborn (If you think about it, this is a strong argument
against abortion). More recently, we have adopted the
following position, a compromise among several approaches:
Abortions should be illegal beyond the first three months of
pregnancy, except in cases of extreme physical danger to the
mother or extreme deficiency of the unborn child, both
conditions medically certified. In the first three months,
consent must be obtained from parents or legal guardians of
minors and from husbands of married women.
Women become pregnant through voluntary acts and
omissions, and should not ask taxpayers to finance the
consequences. Therefore, abortions should be funded by
taxpayers only in cases of danger or deficiency, or in cases
of rape or incest that are reported to police within oneweek of
The term "choice" as it relates to abortion is as
misleading as the terms "gay" and "feminist." Why should
women have any more choice in this matter than, for example,
pedophiles demanding to determine how to relate to children?
There are myriads of other examples of such nonsense
"choices." Should women have a greater right to choose thando the children?
Because only females get pregnant, the responsibility for
contraception and sexual non-participation lies more heavily
with them. In view of the widespread availability of
contraceptive devices and except in the rare cases of actual
rape, pregnancy results from voluntary choices by females;
and therefore involuntary financial responsibility for these
children should not devolve upon fathers. True, male
partners may also be irresponsible, however they do not getpregnant.
Sure, this is a double standard, one of the gender trade-
offs discussed earlier. It may not seem fair; however the
dictates of nature (i.e., female pregnancy) are not subject
to chivalrous notions of fairness. Persons wishing to argue
the issue of fairness should take the matter up with God.
The Men's Defense Association deals with more temporalrealities.
Where fathers, likewise, made conscious choices in
initiating pregnancies (as opposed to just copulating),
their responsibilities - and rights - become equal to those
of mothers, no more, no less.
Illegitimate children? There is no such thing, only
illegitimate parents.C. Philosophy 1. An apparent dilemma
Perceptive persons have asked if there is not an
inconsistency in our arguments. They ask how we can defend
traditional sex roles in some instances, as in employment
and chivalry; and attack them in others, as in custodial
preference. The dichotomy between those acknowledging the
distinctions and those minimizing them also brings forth a
seeming problem for men in our quest for equality withwomen:
There are differences between the sexes, "as any fool kin
plainly see." If the claim of big differences is true, the
argument for maternal preference in child custody, male
preference in jobs, including combat "jobs," and harsher
treatment for males in the criminal system seems plausible.
If differences do not abound, existing preferences are
obviously unjustified prejudices.
Either way, men come out short; the conservative
separatist approach costs them custody, while the liberal
unisex approach costs job preference and the traditionalmasculine image.
Let us consider the possibility that both contradictions
are merely paradoxical and the problems can be reconciled.
Making merit and normalcy the criteria for role
assumptions, removes the problem. Normal men and normal
women, under normal circumstances, have normal (i.e.,
traditionally sex differentiated) roles to play in life. On
the other hand, abnormal circumstances - such as divorce,
immorality, hormonal imbalances, strange personal
preferences, etc. - require individual considerations based
on these unique circumstances.
As a general rule, as children grow older they need their
mother's maternal qualities less, their father's socializing
qualities more. However, due to individual circumstances,
certain fathers should have custody of very young children
and certain mothers should not. Likewise, certain mothers
should have custody of older children and certain fathersshould not.
While men are generally stronger and predisposed to the
more arduous tasks, certain women - with interesting
concoctions of hormones no doubt - could be beef luggers or
used in combat and certain men could not. While men are
generally more dangerously aggressive, certain male
prisoners should be incarcerated in sorority house-like
facilities and certain women prisoners in concrete dungeons.
So, under the normalcy test, more men than women would
serve "hard time," more mothers than fathers will obtain
custody of infants, and more men than women will be top
executives and foxhole "grunts." But the decisions will
have been made after reasonable scrutiny.
To establish norms based upon exceptions and to refuse to
consider exceptions both defy common sense.
If merit and normalcy criteria are used, reasonable
tradition will be preserved, pleasing conservatives, while
the absence of unreasonable tradition should pleaseliberals.
But if society, especially judges, continues to prove
incapable of reasonable scrutiny, our only salvation may lie
in resort to the Amneus prescription of invariable paternal
custody, no alimony or child support, men in all arduous
jobs, women in the kitchen. 2. Politics
Neither traditional liberals nor traditional conservatives
have been friends to men (Such an affinity is too
politically incorrect).
However, conservatives more closely conform to the basic
evolutionary principle that has brought the human race to
the pinnacle of the animal kingdom - survival of the fittest
(the dreaded "social Darwinism").
Liberalism, or survival of the weakest at the expense of
the fittest, correlates with throwing husbands out and
making them support alienated families.
Of the formal political parties, the one most
philosophically aligned with the idea of men's rights is the
Libertarian. It wants government the hell out of our lives.
While there is clearly a place for liberals in the men's
movement, it would seem that we should be libertarian or
guardedly conservative. Having more common sense, these two
parties may be more educable.
Conservatives traditionally argue for merit as a judgment
criterion, as opposed to the liberal tradition of preference
for chosen groups (quotas, affirmative action, etc.). That
way, men would have equal opportunity for custody, jobs,
promotion, etc. - and no doubt superior outcome regardingjobs.
Liberals usually advocate guilt-free lifestyles, which has
been shown to be inimical to marriage and family. Their
denial of sex distinctions seems unrealistic. The male
qualities liberals abhor are what make males male, what make
them succeed as well as fail. 3. Restoration of morality and
Civilization requires certain norms of behavior. Ours has
fallen short in many respects. Hedonism especially has
wreaked havoc. Reformation is necessary for the
preservation of civilization as we know it. The walls some
think are there to restrict are actually there to protect.
Like reversing magnetic poles, individuals of opposite
gender seem to attract, then repel. Long term marriage,
like monogamy, may be unnatural, but necessary tocivilization.
As a matter of self-protection, no man should ever let
himself care enough about a woman to let her unfaithfulness
drive him to violence. No marriage or woman is worth therepercussions.
Men and women must reestablish mutual harmony and respect.
The battle of the sexes is one that need not be fought.
D. Whither the men's/fathers' movement? 1. The Men's/Fathers'
This potentially large and powerful entity is at present
fractious, at odds with itself as well as with much of
society, and little understood.
Its extensive background, history, philosophic breakdown,
and operating procedures are subjects of a seperate booklet
published by the MDA, entitled The Men's/Fathers' Movement
and Divorce Assistance Manual. 2. Must we have militancy?
Martin Luther King took the bows for overthrowing racial
discrimination, but it was probably Malcolm X who scared
Whites into it. The MDA hopes the culprits responsible for
the present unacceptable situation will clean up their own
houses, so that this burden does not devolve upon victims.
But if it does, so be it. We will no longer counsel self-
restraint. Officials beware, there are many justifiably
angry divorced men out here, enough to make Shay's Rebellion
look like a picnic. You would be well advised to restore
justice. As JFK said, "Those who prevent peaceful
revolution necessitate violent revolution." These words are
harsh, but how else can one adequately address harshrealities?
3. Is there a peaceful way?
The ideal solution is for legitimate, heterosexual male
victims to band together and non-violently overcome
discrimination! Cooperation has often been attempted, but
the efforts have always self-destructed. Money is one of
many problems. With a fraction of the resources available
to women's lib or of the cost of incarcerating adult
criminals sprung from fatherless delinquents, we could mount
a strong counter force for gender justice and for acivilized world.
Beneath the corruption, our political institutions are
creations of wise and prudent men, and repositories of much
that is good. It is these very institutions that make our
society function, however imperfectly. Contrary to Marx, we
should build a superior social order upon the basic
structure, rather than the ruins, of the old. The Men's
Defense Association willing to try. Footnotes
1 The "movement" term may be a misnomer; it doesn't seem to
be going anywhere. "Legitimate" is explained on page ?? (at History)
2 See MDA publication DIVORCE: What Everyone Should Know.
3 Although earlier organizations complained of mistreatment
in divorce, the Men's Defense Association was first to
recognize it as part of a broader pattern.
4 "feminists" is in quotation marks because its adherents
aren't really promoting femininity, they're trying to
destroy all traces of that characteristic.
5 1984 Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
6 See Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military,
Brian Mitchell, Regnery Gateway 1989
7 From the author's extensive personal knowledge and experience.
8 Winnepeg Free Press 5/4/92.
9 Michael Levin estimates a loss in productivity of American
business as high as 36%.
10 "The Truth About Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed
Issue," p 485. Social Work, Nov/Dec 1987, R.L. McNeely,
Ph.D. & G. Robinson-Simpson, Ed. D. (The definitive
study. Heavily annotated); Dr. Coramae Richey Mann,
Fl. State Univ., Justice Quarterly Mar '88; Dr. Amneus,
Garbage Generation, ps. 85,86.
11 "Gender and Injustice" an NCFM article (POB 1993
Baltimore, MD 21203). Originally from U.S. Government
figures and Gender Bias Reporter (NCFM) 9/30/90. The
huge disparity between punishment of men and of women is
further documented on page 180 of The Hazards of Being Male.
12 From Law Enforcement Administration study of l58,000
prisoners in 3,500 local jails, released May l5, l980.
13 Criminal Victimization in the U.S. 1989.14 R.L. McNeeley, ps. 485-490
15 Ibid. p 485; Marriage and Divorce Today, Dec. 15, 1986.
16 R.L. McNeeley, p 486.17 Ibid. p 487.18 Ibid. p 486.
19 Prof. Clifton Flynn, Family Relations, April 1990 p 194.
20 Bureau of Justice Statistics and Uniform Crime Reporting
Program of the FBI.21 R.L. McNeeley, p 487.
22 Adam and Ms. Eve, by Dr. Charles Phillips. (Temporarily unavailable.)
23 Charles P. McDowell, et al "False Allegations," appearing
as a chapter in Practical Rape Investigation: A
Multidisciplinary Approach edited by Behavioral Science
Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, 1985.
24 The Public Interest, Spring 1991 issue, "The Phantom
Epidemic of Sexual Assault"
25 From the "National Crime Survey;" August 1991 Liberator.
26 NCM PO box 317, Brooklyn, NY 11240.
27 Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J. & Steinmetz, Suzanne I.
Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families.
Doubleday NY 1980.28 R.L. McNeeley, p 488.
29 The lower figure appears in Policy Review, Summer '95,
page 50. The higher figure is from various sources.
30 Professors Hathaway and Monachesi, Adolescent Personality
and Behavior: M.M.P.I. Patterns of Normal, Delinquent and
Other Out-comes, Univ. of Minn. Press. The Garbage
Generation, Prof. Daniel Amneus (See Bibliography) Many
other studies support this.
31 Ramsay Clark, Crime in America, pp. 39, 123. Also from
The Garbage Generation.
32 (This subject is covered more thoroughly in the MDA
publication, DIVORCE: What Everyone Should Know.
33 Jed Abraham, Esq. "The Divorce Revolution Revisited..."
Northern Illinois Univ. Law Review, Vol. 9, #2, 1989.
34 according to Myron Brenton witing in The American Male pp 70-71.
35 According to Dr. Douglas Besharov, former director
National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect.
36 Rick Teague, Court Psychologist for five-county area of S.W. VA.
37 University of Minnesota Psychologist Margretta Dwyer.38 See Bibliography.
39 Reason Magazine, June '92.
40 Sociological commentators, widely known in conservative
circles. Sowell is a Black economist, author and civil
rights expert. Murray a widely published author.
41 U.S. News & World Report April 20, 1992, p 38.42 See The Liberator Sept.
43 Policy Review, Winter 1988, p. 62.
44 According to researchers Lowell Gallaway and Richard
Vedder of the Univ. of Ohio.
45According to the Treasury Dept. there are more women
millionaires than men millionaires and total assets held
by women are within seven percent of those held by men.
46 The Declaration of Feminism or The Document (an alleged
secret feminist agenda).
47 The large mental difference between men and women is
scientifically explained in the book Brain Sex, published
by Michael Joseph in London, England. The information
therein was verified in the Sept. '92 issue of Scientific
American Special Issue-Mind and Brain...Sex... Source -
Dr. Charles Phillips, Adam and Ms. Eve. Corraboration is
provided by Arthur Jensen, Professor of Education
Psychology at the University of Calif., Berkeley in
American Renaissance, Aug. '92.
48 As evidenced in the famous California case of
Hirschensohn vs. Carol D.
49 Notably Professor Stephen Goldberg, New York City
University, author of Eve, Dr. Charles Phillips, p 399.
51 Phyllis Chesler, Mothers on Trial, p 569: [In
Mauritania] "divorce is especially rare among those
tribes where custody is retained by fathers."

(Politically Incorect And Proud Of It)

0 new messages