A Father's Suicide Note

The love that my daughter and I shared was truly special.  She is a such a sweet, kind and gentle spirit. I am so sorry that I will not be there to see her grow into a beautiful woman.  It absolutely crushed me to not be in her life over the last three years. I worked very hard as a father to build her confidence and self-esteem.  She is smart, funny and considerate, but she didn't know it yet.  I pray that she realizes her strengths and her confidence in herself will continue to grow.  I love you dearly, Lily.

My son Jack was just entering Kindergarten, when I lost access to him. He is gregarious, outgoing and a great athlete.  He is smart and fearless.  He could have just as much fun by himself as he could with other kids.  Even the older boys in our A Father's Suicide Note

"The love that my daughter and I shared was truly special.  She is a such a sweet, kind and gentle spirit. I am so sorry that I will not be there to see her grow into a beautiful woman.  It absolutely crushed me to not be in her life over the last three years. I worked very hard as a father to build her confidence and self-esteem.  She is smart, funny and considerate, but she didn't know it yet.  I pray that she realizes her strengths and her confidence in herself will continue to grow.  I love you dearly, Lily.

My son Jack was just entering Kindergarten, when I lost access to him. He is gregarious, outgoing and a great athlete.  He is smart and fearless.  He could have just as much fun by himself as he could with other kids.  Even the older boys in our neighbourhood wanted to play with Jack.  It absolutely breaks my heart that I will not be able to help him grow into a man. I love you to, Jack. I miss you both so much.

My identity was taken from me, as result of this process.  When it began, I was a commercial real estate broker with CB Richard Ellis.  I lived by the Golden rule and made a living by bringing parties together and finding the common ground.  My reputation as a broker was built on my honesty and integrity. When it ended, I was broke, homeless, unemployed and had no visitation with my own children.  

I had no confidence and was paralyzed with fear that I would be going to jail whenever my ex-wife wanted.  Nothing I could say or do would stop it. This is what being to death or 'targeted' by a psychopath looks like.  This is the outcome.  I didn't somehow change into a 'high-conflict' person or lose my ability to steer clear of the law. 

I've had never been arrested, depressed, homeless or suicidal before this process. The stress and pressure applied to me was deliberate and nothing I could do or say would get me any relief.  Nothing I or my attorneys said to my ex-wife's attorney or to the Court made any difference.  Truth, facts, evidence or even the best interest of my children had no affect on the outcome.

The family court system is broken, but from my experience, it is not the laws, its the lawyers.  They feed off of the conflict.  They are not hired to reduce conflict or protect the best interest of children, which is why third parties need to be involved.  It should be mandatory for children to have a guardian ad litem, with extensive training in abuse and aggression. 

It is absolutely shameful that the Fairfax County Court did nothing to intervene or understand the ongoing conflict.  Judge Randy Bellows also used the Children as punishment, by withholding access for failing to fax a receipt.  The entire conflict centered around the denial of access to the children, it was inconceivable to me that he would use children like this.  This is exactly what my ex-wife was doing and now Judge Bellows was doing it for her.

To all my family, friends and the people that supported me through this process, I am so sorry.  I know my reactions and behavior throughout this process did not always make sense.  None of this made sense to me either.  I had no help and the only suggestion I got from my attorneys was to remain silent.  

At first, I did what I was told, remained silent and listened to my attorneys.  Then after I had given my ex-wife full custody to try and appease her, I learned about Psychopathy and emailed Dr. Samenow about my concerns and asked him for help.  Of course, I was ignored.  As the conflict continued, I was forced to defend myself. When that didn't work, I thought I could get the help I needed by speaking out. There is no right or wrong way to defend yourself from abuse.  Naively, I thought that abuse was abuse and it would be recognized and something would be done.  I thought speaking out would end the abuse or at least get them to back off.  It didn't. When no one did anything they were emboldened.

I took my own life because I had come to the conclusion that there was nothing I could do or say to end the abuse.  Every time I got up off my knees, I would get knocked back down.  They were not going to let me be the father I wanted to be to my children. People may think I am a coward for giving up on my children, but I didn't see how I was going to heal from this. I have no money for an attorney, therapy or medication. I have lost four jobs because of this process. I was going to be at their mercy for the rest of my life and they had shown me none.  

Being alienated, legally abused, emotionally abused, isolated and financially ruined are all a recipe for suicide.  I wish I were stronger to keep going, but the emotional pain and fear of going to court and jail [because of exorbitant child support] became overwhelming. I became paralyzed with fear.  I couldn't flee and I could not fight. I was never going to be allowed to heal or recover. I wish I were better at articulating the psychological and emotional trauma I experienced.

I could fill a book with all the lies and mysterious rulings of the Court.  Never have I experienced this kind of pain.  I asked for help, but good men did nothing and evil prevailed.  All I wanted was a Guardian Ad Litem for my children. Any third party would have been easily been able to confirm or refute all of my allegations, which is why none was ever appointed to protect the children or reduce the conflict.

Abuse is about power and control. Stand up for the abused and speak out.  If someone speaks out about abuse, believe them.

Please teach my children empathy and about emotional invalidation and 'gas-lighting' or they may end up like me.

God have mercy on my soul.

Chris Mackney"

Source

Read More

Feminists fume about euphoric properties of semen

Source

I was originally intrigued by this story as just another confirmation of God’s good, all natural plan for human sexuality and procreation. That liberal feminists were angry about the study’s findings came as no surprise.

 

But then I stepped back. Really? Can nothing good come from a man, literally?

This debacle, which involves attempting to destroy a brilliant surgeon’s career without blinking, further exposes the incestuous and harmful relationship between the homosexual and population control ideologies.

The other side is all green, natural, organic, and environmentally friendly until it comes to sex. Then, they censor information if it elevates natural heterosexual sexual relations over homosexual and unnatural (contracepted) sexual relations.

The story goes that renowned surgeon Dr. Lazar Greenfield, inventor of the Greenfield Filter (which traps blood clots), wrote a piece in the February issue of Surgery News touting the positive properties of semen. According to the Huffington Post on April 25:

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: “So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

The attempt at Jackie Mason-humor apparently didn’t sit well in certain quarters. Dr. Greenfield resigned as editor of the Surgery News and gave up his stewardship of ACS after learning that his article had spurred threats of protests from outside women’s groups….
Dr. Greenfield explained

The editorial was a review of what I thought was some fascinating new findings related to semen, and the way in which nature is trying to promote a stronger bond between men and women. It impressed me. It seemed as though it was a gift from nature. And so that was the reason for my lighthearted comments.

Greenfield’s column has been retracted and scrubbed but can still be read here. I’m guessing his comparison of menstrual synchronization between lesbian and heterero cohabitators, in which he found the former wanting, also hurt him.

The study Greenfield cited found, according to Scientific American:

In fact, semen has a very complicated chemical profile, containing over 50 different compounds (including hormones, neurotransmitters, endorphins and immunosupressants) each with a special function and occurring in different concentrations within the seminal plasma.

Perhaps the most striking of these compounds is the bundle of mood-enhancing chemicals in semen. There is good in this goo. Such anxiolytic chemicals include, but are by no means limited to, cortisol (known to increase affection), estrone (which elevates mood), prolactin (a natural antidepressant), oxytocin (also elevates mood), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (another antidepressant), melatonin (a sleep-inducing agent) and even serotonin (perhaps the most well-known antidepressant neurotransmitter)….

The most significant findings from this 2002 study… were these: even after adjusting for frequency of sexual intercourse, women who engaged in sex and “never” used condoms showed significantly fewer depressive symptoms than did those who “usually” or “always” used condoms.

Add to that, according to the same article:

Now, medical professionals have known for a very long time that the vagina is an ideal route for drug delivery. The reason for this is that the vagina is surrounded by an impressive vascular network. Arteries, blood vessels, and lymphatic vessels abound, and – unlike some other routes of drug administration – chemicals that are absorbed through the vaginal walls have an almost direct line to the body’s peripheral circulation system.

There’s much more information on semen than I have no time for here. But sticking to the topic of its properties, which include female hormones that may stimulate ovulation, here is fascinating information from the study’s authors:

The primary putative mind-altering ingredients in semen:
Luteinizing hormone: astounding concentration in semen; linked to high sperm count and motility. Absorption into female bloodstream may facilitate or even induce ovulation.

Prolactin: influences maternal behavior, oxytocin secretion; mediates bonding

Estrone and estradiol: assists in recipient’s absorption of other compounds such as progesterone; may boost woman’s sexual motivation and mood

Testosterone: may increase sex drive and motivation; the more intercourse, the higher the testosterone levels in women, and the stronger the sexual desire. More than half the amount of testosterone in sperm has been found to be absorbed by the vagina.

Cytokines: these are the “warriors,” they suppress immune reaction to semen invading the vagina and cervix and therefore increase likelihood of pregnancy

Enkephalins: these opioids may contribute to orgasmic experience. They may decrease anxiety and cause drowsiness after sex. There’s also speculation that they assist in immune function and “reinforcing effects” — making a woman come back for more, i.e. addiction (although the absorption rate in female bloodstream is unknown)

Oxytocin: assists in stimulation of ovulation, increases production of other hormones, initiates bonding, facilitates orgasmic contractions; may strengthen bonding and make sexual activity more rewarding

Placental proteins, including human chorionic gonadotrophin (hcg) and human placental lactogen: associated with sperm motility; may increase chances of pregnancy

Relaxin: made in the prostate, this hormone may facilitate fertilization, implantation, and uterine growth. The role of relaxin suggests that women should keep having a lot of sex during pregnancy because sperm has pregnancy-maintaining properties. Relaxin also facilitates implantation and prevents preterm labor.

Thyrotropin-releasing hormones: potential anti-depressive; works by stimulating the release of thyroid-stimulating hormone, which in turn triggers hormone production in the mood-mediating thyroid gland. In pill form, it’s used to treat PMS and depression.

Serotonin: increases sperm motility. It also mediates mood, although not much known yet about vaginal absorption. Even if it doesn’t make it to the brain, it may indirectly alter behavior and emotions by contributing the building blocks of serotonin

Melatonin: increases effects of steroid hormones; induces sleepiness and fatigue, which may help the woman relax after sex; may stimulate reproductive function, also mood mediator; low melatonin levels are associated with depression and “reality disturbance”

Tyrosine: a precursor of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, the hormone of reward and addiction, and norepinephrine, involved in attention and arousal
Oh, and there’s also sperm in there, the DNA-bearing courier. Sperm is less than 3% the total volume of semen. But as it turns out, the bath water is nearly as important as the baby.

This is all such interesting, helpful information, right? No. Greenfield’s playful Valentine’s Day column spotlighting the study’s findings was greeted by such outrage from feminist groups that, along with his other punishments, Greenfield was forced to resign as president of the American College of Surgeons on the day he was to assume the position, which they threatened to protest.

You see, lesbians hate the thought of better sex between heteros. Gays hate the thought of natural unnatural sex (condomless anal sex) spreading HIV. Obviously, population control pushers stand to lose ground if couples switch to natural family planning, as does the contraceptive industry.

In fact, the only industry standing to gain ground from this information is the abortion industry.

Read More

Has equality destroyed your sex life?

By Linda Kelsey

A controversial book claims feminism and the rise of ‘new men’ have killed off women's libidos...

Corporate lawyer Amy, 38, goes to work in killer heels and a pencil skirt, commands a mega-salary and has a team of assistants at her beck and call.

‘At work, I’m always the one in control and I admit that I like it that way. It’s exciting and it’s sexy being an Alpha woman,’ she says.

But when it comes to her partner Max, who is also a lawyer, albeit with a less high-profile job, she often finds herself feeling confused about who calls the shots — especially when it comes to sex. ‘When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and 

seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says. 

‘Sometimes he fulfils the role, but sometimes he doesn’t and I feel disappointed. It does make me wonder why I’m reluctant to take the initiative in bed when I’m confident and in charge at work.’

Amy’s desire to be dominated in the bedroom certainly appears to be at odds with her behaviour at work, but does it follow that if you’re adept at giving orders in the office, you’ll want to bark orders between the sheets as well?

According to the authors of an explosive new book, A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What The World’s Largest Experiment Reveals About Human Desire, the answer is a resounding ‘No’.Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.

And that gender equality, far from liberating women sexually, actually inhibits desire.

‘If you feel compelled to approach sex with the same gender attitudes as the working world, it’s going to be difficult to be aroused,’ says Ogas.

Feminism, to put it as bluntly as these two do, is bad for sex, and is the prime reason why increasing numbers of women are seeking help for problems associated with low libido.

Nearly half a century on from the start of the Swinging Sixties and the birth of modern feminism, these pronouncements come close to heresy. But do these well-qualified scientists have a point worth paying attention to?

According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.

They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.

But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.

What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.

When I put this proposition to my friend Katie, 42, who runs a successful event planning business and is married to Geoff (who gave up a job with the police force that he hated and is doing a stint as house-husband, looking after their sons, aged three and six), she blushed with embarrassment.

‘It seems so disloyal to admit this because Geoff is so lovely in every way. He’s brilliant with the children, he does all the shopping and cooking, but the truth is I’m just not turned on any more,’ she says.

‘He knows how tired I am at the end of the day, and though he’s just being considerate, instead of asking me if I’m in the mood for sex, I long for him to be a bit masterful and say: “I want you. And I want you now.”

‘On the few occasions when we do make love, the only way I can get excited is by having a lurid fantasy about being taken by force by a man in uniform.’

Psychotherapist and author Phillip Hodson thinks Katie’s response is not as strange as it appears.

‘In her rational, conscious mind, a woman might tell herself she has worked hard and fought for independence, and no man is going to tell her what to do in or out of bed,’ he says.

‘But she may have been raised with different expectations of the male role, and find it difficult to express herself sexually and emotionally with a man who earns far less than her or who is sexually less confident.’

As further evidence for their theory, Ogas and Gaddam cite the continuing popularity of erotic fiction. Certainly, if you were to judge by the still booming sales of Mills & Boon novels you would find it difficult to disagree.

Three million books a year are sold in Britain alone by these purveyors of not-too-naughty erotica. For best-selling novelist Jilly Cooper, this is no surprise.

‘Men are so beaten into submission these days. They’re so weak and worried and confused that one simply has to reach into romance novels to find a proper hero,’ she says.

Ogas and Gaddam’s findings have hit a nerve, but they don’t take account of all the reasons a woman might suffer loss of libido — from tiredness to financial worries or constant rows.

As for female sexual fantasies, the counsellor and psychologist Linda Young offers a word of caution.

‘The kind of guy that stars in a woman’s sexual fantasy is not necessarily the same one who shares her values or shares parenting,’ she says. ‘And, yes, women - including feminists — are often aroused by “bad boys”. But to say feminism is causing loss of desire is misleading.

'Feminism is about social, economic and political equity, and is independent of what turns someone on in a bedroom or a fantasy.’

There is plenty of evidence to counter the claims made by Ogas and Gaddam. One major study, involving 27,500 people conducted in 29 countries by the University of Chicago, showed that men and women aged 40-plus reported less satisfaction with the quality of their sex lives in countries where men have a dominant status over women, such as the Middle East.

In relationships based on equality, couples reported sexual lives more in keeping with both partners’ wishes.

This certainly holds true for Bill and Dana, in their 50s and married for the second time. ‘In my first marriage I was the little wife, bringing up the children, doing the housework and looking after my husband’s every need,’ says Dana.

‘He expected sex on demand, but took no interest in pleasing me.

‘When I went back to college as a mature student, I met Bill. We shared interests and eventually began an affair. For the first time I felt free to express myself sexually. Sometimes he’s in charge; sometimes I am. Sometimes it’s wild, sometimes it’s gentle. But always there’s a sense of mutuality. ’

This is a view echoed by Phillip Hodson: ‘There is no reason why each of you can’t be sometimes dominant, sometimes neutral, sometimes submissive. What makes for successful long-term sexual relationships is that you can surprise and delight one another.’

Women are still coming to terms with the incredible pace of change in their lives over the past half-century. To admit to sometimes having fantasies of submission is nothing to be ashamed of. Even if you’re a feminist. It’s all part of desire’s rich tapestry. And there’s nothing remotely wicked about that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1394595/Has-equality-destroyed-sex-life-A-controversial-book-claims-feminism-rise-new-men-killed-womens-libidos-.html

Read More

Do Not Donate to Illuminati Charities

Over 350 years ago, the apparition of Our Lady of Good Success in Quito, Ecuador predicted that at the end of the 20th century, Satan would almost totally rule the world by means of Freemasonry. Does the Illuminati rule organizations like the Fabian Society and its offspring, the charity Oxfam, too?

Like Freemasonry, the socialist Fabian Society can be understood by its symbology. The Fabian Society's original emblem was a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

The Fabian Society originated in England in 1884, with the purpose of forming a single, global socialist state. They get their name from the Roman general Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemies over a long period of time to obtain victory.

"Fabian Socialism" uses incremental change over a long period of time to slowly transform a state as opposed to using violent revolution for change. It is essentially socialism by stealth.

Working hand in hand with the Fabian Society is the charity  Oxfam International, founded in 1944 by British Fabians like Gilbert Murray, Quakers,  and Oxford academics. Oxfam was originally known as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, and has always worked closely with the Fabian Society.

Initially, Oxfam helped relieve famine in war-torn Greece. By 1960, Oxfam had become a non-governmental organization. In Canada, they have released a recent curriculum on gender justice, climate change, HIV/AIDS, self-sufficiency, and entrepreneurship for women. This just happens to be  a snapshot of the the Illuminati agenda.

Gender Justice for Global Development is a recent curriculum designed by Oxfam Canada for use in Canadian high schools. The curriculum has seven modules that discuss "gender justice," women, power, poverty, humanitarian emergencies, HIV/AIDS, global food security, gender and water, Darfur, Haiti, and body mapping.

Promoting feminism and "gender justice" does not help poor women. The term itself implies that women are being mistreated and feminism is the remedy. If anything it just serves to break down marriage and family.

Like outcome- based education, "Gender Justice for Global Development" encourages young people to become "change agents" for the globalist agenda.  The curriculum focuses mainly on the suffering of poor women in Third World and gives statistics relating to their plight. Men apparently do not starve.

Clearly, this is a typical Illuminati effort to turn the sexes against each other, as they have done in the developed world. 

The hideous, ugly, and primitive "art" in the body mapping section of Gender Justice is an attack on Western artistic standards. It seems reminiscent of paganism, another aspect of globalism.

As with many socialist promotions, the curriculum Gender Justice fdiscusses climate. However, now that it is increasingly obvious that "global warming" is a myth, they have changed tactics and are using the term "climate change" instead. There is much talk in the curriculum about climate disasters and emergency relief for far off lands such as Haiti and Darfur.

There is no acknowledgment in "Gender Justice for Global Development," that charity begins in the home. Nor is there any acknowledgment that there is increasing poverty and financial hardship in Canada and the United States, or what to do about it.

Oxfam has branches in 14 nations, including the United States and Canada. It is partly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, which states on its website that it is devoted to spreading globalism.

Singing from the same song book,  most major charities appear to be under Illuminati control.

Let us return to the traditional practice of helping our poor neighbors directly by almsgiving.

This is better than throwing money at organizations like Oxfam  that do little to help the poor of the Third World, and much to promote the Illuminati globalist  agenda. 

Source: http://ow.ly/pRWMZ

Read More

American Communism & the Making of Women's Liberation

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."

Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)

In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's  movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)

In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)

Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.

Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)

The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)

The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.

Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.

Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.

Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:

    Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.

    Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.

    Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.

    Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.

    Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.

    Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.

    Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.

    Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.

    Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.

Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.

The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]

These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.

In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)

Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."
Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's  movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.
Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:

• Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.
  
  
• Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.
  
  
• Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
  
  
• Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.
  
  
• Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
  
  
• Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
  
  
• Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
  
  
• Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.
  
  
• Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.
Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.
The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]
These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
- See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html#sthash.1cZJU3bJ.dpuf

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."
Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's  movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.
Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:

• Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.
  
  
• Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.
  
  
• Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
  
  
• Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.
  
  
• Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
  
  
• Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
  
  
• Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
  
  
• Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.
  
  
• Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.
Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.
The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]
These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
- See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html#sthash.1cZJU3bJ.dpuf

Read More

Feminists Are Wrong — True Gender Equality Would Be a Nightmare

Skilled specialists should get paid accordingly, irrespective of gender. Talented students should get admittance to higher education according to their abilities and potential, irrespective of gender.

I welcome the developments of the last 50 years that narrowed the inequality gap between men and women. Yet the byproducts of these developments — namely the socio-cultural changes they brought — have been most deplorable, as they break thousands of years of existing traditions and threaten to create a new genderless society where gender identities would be erased.

It has become fashionable of late to preach that our gender identities — those of men and women — are largely created by the society and mainly consist of stereotypes and clichés. While there may certainly be some truth to that, we need to ask ourselves a question: Why do we need to destroy these gender identities? The whole beauty of our society is that men and women are inherently different, not just biologically, but socially and cognitively as well. This constitutes the notion of family.

What would be the society where men were more feminine and women more masculine? It would be a genderless nightmare where there would be no stability and no progress, no love and no art. The fundamental law of physics dictates that positive charge attracts the negative one.

By letting men become fragile, emotional and submissive and accepting the culture of women who would be strong, dominant, and promiscuous, we risk creating a society of complete equilibrium, characterised by lack of energy. The state of complete neutrality and lack of motion.

It is strong men, of tough body or sharp intelligence, who have historically led society towards progress and realization of the post-modernity we are living in. It is loving and devoted women whose support in raising children and taking care of their husbands was indispensable for enduring stability and progress of societies.

This harmony of opposite genders has maintained stability in our society. Wars, revolutions, and societal changes occurred, but so long as the traditional gender roles remained intact, there was no fundamental threat to our society.

Art, the whole cultural heritage of mankind, exists within the framework highlighting the difference of genders. Literature, music, films, paintings, and sculptures emphasize the bravery of men and gentleness of women. Hercules and Aphrodite, the Three Graces and David, Othello and Desdemona, d’Artagnan and Lady Winter, Napoleon and Josephine, Sean Connery and Marilyn Monroe — all works of art from antiquity through to modern days are inspired by the difference between men and women.

This is why the stance taken by feminists is destructive. They are trying and succeeding at destroying the most important expectation from women: the expectation of morality. The so-called “liberation of women” has done little more than to say that is it normal for women to act disgracefully: to act like a prostitute, not to care about the household and family, and to indulge themselves in vices of men.

It is certainly shameful if a man gets drunk, sleeps around, or acts irresponsibly towards his family. Yet it is more shameful when a woman does so, precisely because women are the child-bearers and the morals and values they have will be passed onto their children. Men, as risk-takers, shelter-protectors and food-providers, can in the process of fulfilling these duties get rough and divert from what is moral.

This is where women, the moral-keepers, the hearth of the house, come in. They restore the inner balance in men, making sure men will not turn into savages. If women lose their morals completely, the society will descend into the state of animals.

The point of this article is not to offend women in any way, but to send a message to those who are nearly subverted by feminist thought:

Girls, we guys may smoke, swear, drink, fight, and sleep around — but your disapproving look will make us ashamed. If you, however, decide to smoke, swear, drink, fight, and sleep around as well, what will happen to our society? Who will we look up to? Who will our children look up to?

Yes, we love it when you make us sandwiches, but it is not because “your place is in the kitchen, woman!” It's simply because we are lazy bastards. And we are always grateful to you for your care.

We love you because you are not like us. Because you are different. Because you are better.

Please don’t give in to the feminist discourse. Do become CEOs or engineers if you really want to, but don’t let your career make you forget that you are a woman, a mother, a wife. Don’t throw away the gender identities and don’t endanger our society by trying to change it. Let us men handle that.

Source: http://ow.ly/pfWZn - Admin 2

* * * * * * *

There is a balance in nature, and that balance exists for a reason.

Read More

Norway Destroying Masculinity

Norway destroying masculinity - Admin 2

Boys in primary school talk about their feelings and hold hands. And they are very, very concerned about their bodies and appearance.

Share This:

4

According to new Norwegian research, decades of gender equality measures have helped to change children's upbringing and their understanding of gender.

"It's not that boys used to be naughty and now they are nice," says Stian Overå.

"But compared with previous classroom research, I've found a change in how boys relate to emotions. Being personal and talking about feelings was not problematic or feminine in their eyes. It was almost an ideal. And it was more important to be kind than to be strong."

Overå, a social anthropologist, recently defended his doctoral thesis on gender in primary schools. For an entire year he followed two groups of pupils aged 6-12 in a modern primary school in a suburb of Oslo. The area does not have a distinct working-class or middle-class profile. About 15 percent of the pupils had a native language other than Norwegian.

Gender equality measures work

Much of what Overå found was known from previous research. His study documents gender-stereotyped behaviour, such as girls who prefer to play in pairs and be best friends and boys who play in larger groups and have visible hierarchies with clear leaders.

But the boys observed by Overå behaved differently than the boys described in previous studies. So differently that it makes sense to talk about a change in the way boys behave

"Gender equality measures work," Overå states.

"Gender roles in the Nordic countries are changing. Several new Nordic studies have had similar findings. Gender used to be rooted in tradition. Today it is more fluid."

Scratch each other's backs

According to Overå, the boys aged 6-8 had the most relaxed attitude towards feelings and touching. These boys had "positive touching" as a daily school activity in which the pupils learned to touch each other. The objective was to create a sense of belonging to a group where everyone can touch and stroke each other regardless of whether they know each other and regardless of gender.

"The pupils liked it a lot. It was not strained in any way," says Overå.

"The youngest boys could scratch each other's backs and hold hands during recess."

When Overå presented the phenomenon of "positive touching" for a group of researchers at the University of California-Berkeley, they were flabbergasted.

"It's not coincidental that these measures are developed in Norway or the other Nordic countries," says the researcher.

"I think the changes I've observed are connected with Nordic ideals of gender equality and measures that are introduced as early as pre-school."

Considerate boys

The older boys, aged 9-12, did not have such a relaxed attitude towards bodily contact. They had to be on guard for being called "gay."

In spite of this, both the younger and older boys were considerate towards each other.

Other studies have found that boys' interactions are characterized by rough attitudes, aggressiveness and rule-breaking. In contrast, the groups of boys observed by Overå were friendly, inclusive and good-natured. And they talked about their feelings.

"Boys are not aggressive or emotionally incompetent. That is not my experience. In many situations the boys talked openly and thoughtfully about girls they had crushes on, difficulties at home, and anxiety and expectations about the future," says Overå.

"When one boy opened up, the others tried to support him and shared similar stories about fear or vulnerability."

Strong and kind

There was a lot of play fighting and other physical tests of strength as well, but this was mainly done at the beginning of the school year, before hierarchies were established.

"The boys organize themselves in a hierarchy with a clear pecking order and role differentiation with regard to leadership. Some would interpret this as a sign of aggression. I perceived it more as a game and a friendly form of contact," says Overå.

Physical strength, excelling at football and wearing fashionable clothes could win popularity points. But the most important factor for securing a high position in the boys' hierarchy was being a nice guy -- someone who is kind, funny, extroverted and relaxed with a "good personality."

The importance of hair wax

However, a boy's position in the hierarchy determines how much latitude each boy has, such as how physically intimate or fashionable he can be.

"The fear of being called 'gay' works like kryptonite on the boys' attempt to construct their masculinity," explains Overå.

Boys who cared too little about their appearance risked being called childish, boring or a nerd. The ones who cared too much risked being called feminine or gay. Two of the coolest boys wore eyeliner.

"Their masculinity and heterosexuality was not threatened by it," says Overå.

A less popular boy, however, should not try to do the same. The general rule was that boys do not wear make-up. Their hair, on the other hand, should be styled.

"Boys have fewer cards to play than girls when it comes to aesthetics, so their hair becomes a sacred domain," says Overå.

In a group interview, the boys talked about a day at school when a cool teacher had let them eat cake during home economics class. "I remember that! It was the day when I didn't use hair wax!" exclaimed one of the boys. The researcher was taken aback, and the boy explained: He got so much grief from the other boys that he understood he had better not go to school again without wax in his hair.

"It's not new in itself that boys are concerned about their bodies and appearance. What is new is the extent of their concern. They talk about it a lot. And there is a great deal of unseen work involved," explains Overå.

Metrosexual role models

A strong, well-defined, athletic body was the ideal for the older boys, who talked incessantly about each other's bodies in the locker room. One boy had read that football star Cristiano Ronaldo does 3,000 sit-ups every day, so he had started to do sit-ups every evening. He thought his ab-muscles were becoming more visible already and gladly lifted his shirt to demonstrate for the other boys.

"For young people today it's legitimate to try out new masculine expressions inspired by metrosexual idols like Ronaldo and David Beckham, who have their own lines of hair products and boxer shorts. This is different compared to 20 years ago when the role models were more traditionally masculine," says Overå.

Effortlessly successful

The boys need to be concerned about their bodies and appearance, but this concern must not show. In the same way, they should do well at school, without giving it prestige or putting work into it.

"It was an ideal to succeed in an effortless kind of way," says Overå.

"The boys did a great deal of unseen work, both with regard to their appearance and to their schoolwork. Many of them worked a lot at home, but claimed before a test, for example, that they had only studied for five minutes. They had to hide how much it meant to them to do well and look good, and how much effort they put into it."

The problem with boys

The focus of Overås' thesis is gender as such, but he has chosen to focus mainly on boys for two reasons: Descriptions of boys' lives and perspectives are underrepresented in the literature from school research, and today's society is especially worried about the situation for boys in school and society at large.

The debate about boys as losers in a gender-equal society and the feminized school arose in the 1990s. In the 2000s, stories about boys who did poorly in school dominated the debate.

But the differences in school have more to do with socioeconomic class, particularly when it comes to school performance, according to Overå. The fact that girls perform slightly better than boys in school has been known since measurements began in the 1950s. Concerns about boys arose only after girls started to maintain their advantage at higher educational levels.

Socioeconomic class more significant

"It's a mistake to let the overall discussion focus on gender when large-scale qualitative and quantitative studies show that socioeconomic class is far more significant than gender with regard to grades in school," says the researcher.

Overås' data confirm previous studies that find that girls handle the demands of school better than boys. A few more girls than boys were moved to higher levels in those subjects in which the school offered this.

"But when I controlled for class, it was clearly more significant whether a pupil came from the working class or middle class than if the pupil was a girl or boy," says Overå.

"It's problematic to talk about differences in the schools only regarding gender. Just as there are boys who do very well, there are girls who struggle. Using gender as an explanation for this is discriminatory for both sexes."

Source: http://tinyurl.com/mq6mg6m

* * * * * * *

From one of the natons that gave us the brave and very masculine  vikings, we now get the effete, gay-looking, clown-smiling, man-touching, dress-wearing, cabbage-eating, Lady Gaga-loving, sensible "man".

And why is this? Because it's easier to control a feminized nation than a masculine one. Men don't submit easily. Women do (it's not a flaw; in women, this is a positive trait). 

That is why the central bankers finance feminization since by doing that, they reduce the chances of a popular revolt.

Read More