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

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

Science Of Sex: 4 Harsh Truths About Dating And Mating

Original

To make the best decisions, we cannot delude ourselves.

I’ve posted many studies offering hope and inspiration but to be honest and fair, we also need to look at facts about people many like to deny.

And that’s where the science of sex comes in.

If you wish to retain illusions that the realm of sex and relationships is pure as the driven snow or that outside of physical dimensions there are no fundamental differences between men and women, turn back now as I am about to open a large can of peer-reviewed whoop-ass.

Naive romantics, I warn you one last time:

ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE

So what are some harsh truths that the science of sex has shown us?

1) Those things we say we hate actually make us more attracted to people.

When someone plays hot-cold, keeps you guessing, makes you constantly uncertain?

Yeah, that makes you even more attracted:

Participants in the uncertain condition were most attracted to the men-even more attracted than were participants who were told that the men liked them a lot. Uncertain participants reported thinking about the men the most, and this increased their attraction toward the men.

Playing hard to get? It works.

Had it up to here with narcissists? No, we haven’t because they really are more attractive.

You know what we like about them the most? 

The worst parts – their entitlement and exploitativeness:

…narcissism leads to popularity at first sight. Second, the aspects of narcissism that are most maladaptive in the long run (exploitativeness/entitlement) proved to be most attractive at zero acquaintance.

2) Yes, guys are pretty shallow.

The stereotypes are true: men want sex more than women and, yeah, guys are more likely to hit on girls with big boobs.

(Most of us didn’t need scientific studies for that but, hey, I’m thorough.)

Studies show that often the main reason men kiss is to progress toward sex. The main reason men cuddle after sex is… to get more sex:

…females were more likely to engage in post-coital behaviors related to bonding with both short- and long-term partners, whereas males were more likely to engage in ones that were extrinsically rewarding or increased the likelihood of further coital acts.

What determines how much a guy spends on an engagement ring? The younger the woman, the more he spends:

Via The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal About Human Nature:

The total spent on rings was positively correlated to the annual incomes of both men and women but negatively correlated to women’s ages. 

Research shows, if men didn’t need to impress women, they probably wouldn’t leave the couch:

The results show that if there were no returns to career choices in the marriage market, men would tend to work less, study less, and choose blue‐collar jobs over white‐collar jobs.

Statistics show men are about as likely to cheat on their wives as they are to experience a flight delay.

Not dark enough for you?

Guys are more likely to cheat when their wives are pregnant:

Controlling for marital dissatisfaction and demographic variables, infidelity was predicted by greater neuroticism and lower religiosity; wives’ pregnancy also increased the risk of infidelity for husbands.

3) Women can be quite dastardly too.

The science of sex tells us that the romantic comedies lie. Sex is an area where nice guys do finish last:

In one survey of men, Trapnell and Meston (1996) found that nice guys who were modest, agreeable, and unselfish were disadvantaged in sexual relationships. Men who were manipulative, arrogant, calculating, and sly were more sexually active and had a greater variety of sexual experiences and a greater number of sex partners.

Women are very often attracted to bad boys like James Bond. In fact, research shows young women sometimes prefer out-and-out jerks:

In the end, young women may continue to claim that they find certain qualities in a “good guy” nice guy as highly desirable and that they want to be in a committed relationship with one man as their ultimate goal, but, at the same time, they seem content to spend “the meantime and in- between-time” going out with fun/sexy guys who may or may not turn into “jerks.”

Happy guys, it seems, can be a turn-off:

…happiness was the most attractive female emotion expression, and one of the least attractive in males. 

What do studies say can make a man more attractive? Among other things, a flashy car and throwing money around. Yes, that works.

Women find married men more attractive than single men:

…a group of women again rated photographs of men for attractiveness. The photos were accompanied by short descriptions, and when the men were described as “married,” women’s ratings of them went up.

And they find sexist men more appealing than non-sexist men, too. Wow.

4) Little of the above will be changing anytime soon.

This is the science of sex, not the culture of it. Most, if not all, of these things are true around the world.

In a study of over 1000 participants in 3 dozen cultures it was consistently found that men are focused on looks and women on status:

Several standard sex differences replicated across cultures, including women’s greater valuation of social status and men’s greater valuation of physical attractiveness.

But we grow out of it, right? Nope.

Our tastes do not mature as we get older:

Findings suggest that although emerging adults believe that their peers’ mating desires change systematically over time, emerging adults’ self-reported mating desires vary little with age.

In fact, when men and women are in nursing homes, the guys are still looking for hot younger women and the ladies are still interested in men of high status:

Across the life span, men sought physical attractiveness and offered status-related information more than women; women were more selective than men and sought status more than men.

Join 45K+ readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

What are the four things that kill relationships?

Does one orgasm equal two cheeseburgers?

The 11 things that make someone fall in love with you

How To Be James Bond: Science explains why he’s irresistible to women

Read more: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2013/08/science-of-sex/#ixzz2bf9BCrBn

Read More

Very Few Women Are Capable Of Empathizing With Men

Source

Very few women are capable of empathizing with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with adults.

This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to "explain things" to women. Women just don't care. We are here for their purposes, not ours.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

Esther Villar says about the same thing, over and over again, in her book "The Manipulated Man."

What men don't "get" is that we (men) are a "business" to women. The attention women can get from men is their survival tactic. It does not mesh with the male survival drive, which is "go get" or "go create." Sadly, we men have a hard time understanding that women rarely have the same desires as we do.

Women are designed by nature to look "yummy" to us so that we will give of ourselves to women. This is nature. It is not nature for it to occur the other way around. It works the same way as with women and children. Children will rarely care for the mother the way that the mother will care for the child. Children are not designed to empathize with mothers in the same way that mothers are designed to empathize with their children.

Women will never "care" about men in the same way that men "care" about the wellbeing of women. It has always been women who have walked out on men more than the other way around... it has always been women that have been more opposed to adultery laws than men... the 10% of children are the result of cuckolding is supposedly a fairly consistent stat over time/history/populations.

We are designed like this by nature, and men who are sitting around and waiting for women to smarten up and show men the proper amount of empathy/sympathy are being no more intelligent than a mother sitting down and crossing her arms until her children show a reciprocal amount of empathy for her... both will be sitting there for a looooong time.

You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to "protect them" etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work... when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, "We had to get Joe a new truck... because the last one wasn't safe and we don't know what we would do if something happened to him."

That's the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be. Men are a tool to women... a "business." And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don't cry don't get milk... and women who don't get attention don't get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans.

Women do control society's values and mores... they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we are designed to give women what they want.

Women "are" society. What women's wants are is what society's wants are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded "patriarchy." The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally - causing the men to follow suit.

This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women... it is going to be between women who want a "traditional man" and those who want a collective "government husband." In both cases the women are advocating for men to take care of women - with little concern for the man's wants and needs - one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.

It's the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same. It's not going to change. These are the types of factors that have to be taken into account every time someone starts advocating for "change" or even worse, "equality." (GAK!)

Read More

Young Feminists: Strong, Confident, & Single — Dating Distresses of a Young Feminist

Source

By Christina Cherel

They say good men are hard to find and that sailing through the dating waters can be rough. I’ve found that, for an outspoken, pro-choice feminist woman in her early twenties, the pool of eligible bachelors is even shallower.

I have publicly self-identified as a feminist for about five years now. Even before my official declaration, dating was difficult — to say the least. I never purposefully attempted to emasculate prospective partners but, for some reason unknown to me, my opinions on legal abortion, access to reproductive health care, and women’s rights in general seemed to scare away even the most promising suitors. Our dates were enjoyable, we had good chemistry, and then the inevitable “F” word would find its way into our conversations — and that was it. Relationship over. It appeared as if the right to form my own opinions and beliefs was acceptable only as long as doing so did not empower me or other women.

My strong connection to feminist ideas are at the very core of who I am and yet I found myself minimizing the importance of feminism to me in order to appease the men I was dating. I did not want to scare them away by demonstrating my unwavering dedication to women’s rights and justice — so instead, for a time, I dismissed their meaning in my life. Relationships require a certain degree of concessions and balance, but I realized that sacrificing the part of myself I most loved was not a compromise I was ready to make. As realization took hold that these men would never truly appreciate and love my whole self, I ended whatever relationship we had. It may be difficult to imagine spending a cold winter evening without a significant other, but being forced to downplay how important feminism in my life would be even harder for me.

The men who comprise my recent dating history are by no means “bad” men, but they clearly did not respect or reciprocate my desire for independence and equality — socially, politically and financially — for myself and all women. Admittedly, I voiced my passion for these issues quite vocally but, for me, this was the same as discussing my favorite band or sports team: a piece of myself I wanted my partner to understand. I would discuss at length the importance of copay-free birth control access and programs to promote gender equity, but my dates never could comprehend why these were more than just ideological beliefs for me. They didn’t get that these beliefs form the basis of both my professional and my personal life, and are not matters on which I am ready to compromise.

Turns out, I’m not alone in thinking that feminist men are hard to find. While women may unite and rejoice in the opportunities and advancements feminism has afforded us, men are not as quick to do so. According to one survey conducted in the United Kingdom, 50 percent of men reported feeling unappreciated or undervalued; an astonishing 82 percent of men reported feeling that their traditional role in society has been usurped. Undermining men’s traditional role as “family breadwinner” and making them feel unappreciated is not the goal of feminist ideology, but maybe it’s become an unintended effect. Though fewer women are dependent on men to provide economic security and physical protection, feminism does not eliminate the basic human desire to love and to be loved in return. Accepting women as equal human beings with the same rights, responsibilities, and desires and being in a loving, mature relationship should not be treated as mutually exclusive entities.

Perhaps men’s fear of the growing ubiquity of feminism in popular culture and among younger women isn’t completely unjustified. Although women still only earn 73 cents to every dollar men earn (even for the same job), we are becoming more financially self-reliant and, as a result, are marrying later in life. Women have substantially increased both their education and wage earning levels, so marrying to gain financial security has become a way of the past for many women. It may be that for some, feminism, and ideals of social equality generally, may cripple men’s spirits as much as it empowers women’s.

On the way home from work recently, a friend and I discussed a rally I’d attended at the Supreme Court building to defend women’s access to contraceptives. As I described my disenchantment with the numerous anti-choice supporters who were also protesting that day, an older gentlemen sitting across from me gave me a puzzled glance. He asked me if I found it hard finding men to date who were not intimidated by my strength and dedication to feminist ideals. At first, his question amused me; how could my dedication to equality intimidate any well-educated, socially-conscious person? I had never given much thought to the way my passion for women’s right and reproductive freedom may threaten others — especially men.

He clarified by explaining that he thought it must be hard for a young woman with such strong beliefs in feminism — which is sometimes, albeit falsely, perceived to be anti-male — to date. I realized that he’s right. Dating can be difficult and frustrating; it can make you want to give up on love entirely — and those are on the good days! Attempting to find a man who not only accepts my own feminist beliefs, but also endorses them himself feels almost impossible at times. According to my dating history, men view feminism as an unknown force to fear, not as the source of empowerment and sisterhood I’ve experienced.

Is it too much to ask that a partner understand and respect my views as a feminist? Women have undoubtedly achieved major strides in economic, political, and social sectors, but how meaningful are those achievements if a self-proclamation of feminism still intimidates men? I envision a dating world where my strength, perseverance, and dedication to social justice are what attracts a man to me, rather than being attributes he’s willing to overlook. Marching in DC at women’s rights rallies, supporting feminist women’s health organizations, and never relenting in the fight for affordable and accessible health care for all women are among my greatest passions. Participating in these events with other women (and men!) make me feel alive and that I can accomplish anything. It is hard to envision my life without these wonderful elements, and yet I have not yet had success finding a man willing to not only accept that them as part of my life forever, but also be proud of my strength and commitment.

Feminist men exist and have certainly grown in numbers over the years. But, the sad reality is that there just are not enough men who are comfortable admitting to being a feminist, whether out of fear of the unknown or false perceptions of what feminism means. While the long-term dating potential of most men I meet now may be limited, I continue to hold out hope for a caring, intelligent, AND feminist man to complement my social activism and very busy life!

Christina Cherel is a former NWHN intern; she is currently working on her Masters in Public Health in Epidemiology at Boston University.

Read More

Women write dirty books for other women to read. Bill Bennett blames men

By JAMES TARANTO

It's about as difficult as finding a spire in a haystack, but Bill Bennett has been reading the New York Times and discovering evidence of cultural decline. In a CNN.com essay, he picks up on recent columns by Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni and reaches the conclusion that, as the headline puts it, "Hookup Culture Debases Women."

Dowd's column, Bennett writes, "looks at E.L James's 'Fifty Shades of Grey,' a trilogy of erotic, bondage-themed fiction":

Dowd cites the remarkable success of the trilogy among Generation X women--the contemporaries, allies and beneficiaries of the modern feminist movement. And yet, the narrative flies in the face of women's progress. For example, a contract that the girl signs with the man stipulates that "the Dominant may flog, spank, whip or corporally punish the Submissive as he sees fit, for purposes of discipline, for his own personal enjoyment or for any other reason, which he is not obliged to provide." If this is progress for women, what would regression look like?

Bruni's column is more meandering, but he begins with a similarly themed TV program, HBO's "Girls." As Bennett explains: "In this unglamorous, dull version of 'Sex [and] the City,' [Lena] Dunham stars as a contemporary, twenty-something woman playing second fiddle to the bizarre, dominating sexual fantasies of her boyfriend":

Bruni goes on to grapple with Dunham's loveless sex scenes and wonders whether today's onslaught of pornography and easy sex has desensitized men to the point where they view women, to recall the words of an earlier day, only as objects. Even the act of sex itself is boring to some men unless it is ratcheted up in some strange, deviant fashion--all at the expense of the thoroughly humiliated and debased woman.

In the act of degrading women, men are also degrading themselves.

Now wait just a second. How does an essay about "Fifty Shades of Grey" and "Girls" turn into an anti-male screed? Both are written by women for women. Dowd notes, but Bennett omits, that the real first name of author E.L. James is Erika. As for "Girls," Bruni points out that Lena Dunham "is not only its star but also its principal writer and director." And if it's anything like "Sex and the City," no heterosexual man will ever watch it except as a favor to someone of the opposite sex.

We don't dispute Bennett's contention that pornography is degrading to women, but it takes no courage or insight to say so. "Fifty Shades of Grey" and "Girls" sound degrading too, but Bennett seems to shy away from confronting the fact that this degradation amounts to female pornography--produced by women for the entertainment of other women. In postfeminist America, it's so much easier and safer to scapegoat men.

Female and male pornography are very much two sides of the same coin. While the former tends to be literary and the latter visual, neither has much pretension of being high art (except when such pretensions are useful in First Amendment cases). More interestingly, both present a similar sexual fantasy world, in which women are submissive and men dominant--though because each sex is interested in its opposite, female porn emphasizes the male-dominance aspect of the fantasy and male porn the female-submission aspect.

Bennett, Dowd and Bruni all puzzle over the seeming contradiction between the success of feminism in "empowering" women and the cultural products of which the trio disapprove. It should be noted that neither dirty pictures nor dirty books ("romance novels," as they're euphemistically called) are anything new. But it may be that they have become more graphic, more popular or both. At the very least, it is clear that the sexual fantasies of men and women do not conform to the feminist ideal of relations between generic and equal "persons."

This conundrum stumps Bennett and Bruni, but Dowd has a bit of an insight:

Helen Fisher, the anthropologist and Rutgers professor, warns keening feminists: "Let's not confuse the bedroom and the boardroom. This is the world of fantasy and play." In the animal kingdom, she says, females surrender and males dominate, with female robins looking for the male robin with the reddest breast and best leafy real estate.

We Homo sapiens follow the same pattern, known as female hypergamy (mating upward). In the 1970s, anthropologist Heather Remoff studied the mating habits of American women. She published her findings in "Sexual Choice: A Woman's Decision" (Dutton, 1984). "What does a woman want?" Freud famously asked. Remoff conducted in-depth interviews with a demographically diverse group of 66 women to come up with an answer.

Based on these conversations, Remoff developed "profiles" of 261 men who had been their sexual partners. She asked the women, among many other things, what attracted them to these men: "Out of a total of 45 traits that were coding possibilities, 23 were mentioned frequently enough that I consider them to have a general association with male sexiness."

Here's the list, along with the percentage of men who were described as having each trait (obviously each man had multiple traits): good-looking (43%), intelligent (40%), good income potential (40%), control of social resources (37%), food provided (36%), control of material resources (36%), protective toward female (35%), male older (30%), male dominant toward female (28%), confident (26%), well-educated (23%), good build (23%), aggressive (22%), generous (22%), accurate focus (21%), chemistry (21%), eye contact (19%), baby fantasies (18%), outstanding talent (17%), high status (16%), tall (16%) good with children (15%), female's parents approved (5%).

The attraction to most of these traits is a manifestation of female hypergamy--especially "good-looking," which turns out to have quite a different meaning for women than for men: "Every woman responds to a man whose looks correspond to her particular stereotype of power," Remoff observes in a passage she italicizes.

Of the 23 traits associated with male sexual success, Remoff identifies eight as being particularly associated with reproductive success. That is, these traits were commonest in the 43 men who fathered children by the women Remoff interviewed: good income potential, control of material resources, male dominant toward female, well-educated, generous, baby fantasies, good with children, female's parents approved.

Women's desire for powerful men conflicts with feminism's pursuit of female power--a pursuit that has been official policy since 1964, when Rep. Howard W. Smith of Virginia, a segregationist who was also a feminist, amended the Civil Rights Act to add the words "or sex." For nearly half a century, the federal government has made a priority of increasing women's income, educational attainment, status and control of social and material resources. At the same time, mainstream culture has encouraged women to be more assertive and men more sensitive. Male dominance is a thing of the past.

This effort to equalize the sexes has created a sexual disequilibrium. For a high-status or powerful woman, a higher-status or more powerful man is hard to find. Although that works out nicely for the highest-status men, it is much more difficult for the average man to make himself an attractive prospect for women. Result: a lot of lonely people of both sexes, and an eager market for pornography of both the visual and literary kinds.

Bennett concludes his essay by observing that if men and women want "deep sexual satisfaction," the best place to find it is "in what is often called, derisively, traditional marriage." No doubt that is true. But Bennett seems focused on the effects rather than the cause of marriage's decline. He seems to think that the ideals of feminism and traditional marriage are compatible: "In the 1970s we were told to respect women, treat them as more than sexual objects and treat their humanity the same as ours."

In truth, the feminist ideal inevitably corrodes the marital one. Look again at that list of eight male traits that make for reproductive success, which in the 1970s, when the out-of-wedlock birthrate was much lower than today, was a good proxy for the propensity to marry. With respect to at least four of them--income, control of material resources, education and dominance (arguably also generosity)--feminism has sought to elevate women relative to men, thereby making men less attractive to women.

With some exceptions such as the late Rep. Smith, women have been the driving force behind these revolutionary social changes. It won't do to blame men for the decline of marriage and the degradation of sexual culture, except perhaps to the extent that they have taken the path of least resistance and acceded to feminist ideology rather than challenging it. Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what Bennett does in his essay.

Read More

Red Enhances Men's Attraction To Women, Psychological Study Reveals

Ignore the evolutionary mumbo jumbo and focus on what was demonstrated, tested and observed

---

Psychologist Daniela Niesta holding one of the images used in the study. Participants were asked questions including: "Imagine that you are going on a date with this person and have $100 in your wallet. How much money would you be willing to spend on your date?"' (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Rochester)

ScienceDaily (Oct. 28, 2008) — A groundbreaking study by two University of Rochester psychologists to be published online Oct. 28 by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology adds color—literally and figuratively—to the age-old question of what attracts men to women.

Through five psychological experiments, Andrew Elliot, professor of psychology, and Daniela Niesta, post-doctoral researcher, demonstrate that the color red makes men feel more amorous toward women. And men are unaware of the role the color plays in their attraction.

The research provides the first empirical support for society's enduring love affair with red. From the red ochre used in ancient rituals to today's red-light districts and red hearts on Valentine's Day, the rosy hue has been tied to carnal passions and romantic love across cultures and millennia. But this study, said Elliot, is the only work to scientifically document the effects of color on behavior in the context of relationships.

"It's only recently that psychologists and researchers in other disciplines have been looking closely and systematically at the relationship between color and behavior. Much is known about color physics and color physiology, but very little about color psychology," said Elliot. "It's fascinating to find that something as ubiquitous as color can be having an effect on our behavior without our awareness."

Although this aphrodisiacal effect of red may be a product of societal conditioning alone, the authors argue that men's response to red more likely stems from deeper biological roots. Research has shown that nonhuman male primates are particularly attracted to females displaying red. Female baboons and chimpanzees, for example, redden conspicuously when nearing ovulation, sending a clear sexual signal designed to attract males.

"Our research demonstrates a parallel in the way that human and nonhuman male primates respond to red," concluded the authors. "In doing so, our findings confirm what many women have long suspected and claimed – that men act like animals in the sexual realm [ed: so do women]. As much as men might like to think that they respond to women in a thoughtful, sophisticated manner, it appears that at least to some degree, their preferences and predilections are, in a word, primitive." [ed: so are women's universal choice for strong, dominating and powerful men not based on "thoughtful, sophisticated manner" but on pure, raw biology]

To quantify the red effect, the study looked at men's responses to photographs of women under a variety of color presentations. In one experiment, test subjects looked at a woman's photo framed by a border of either red or white and answered a series of questions, such as: "How pretty do you think this person is?" Other experiments contrasted red with gray, green, or blue.

When using chromatic colors like green and blue, the colors were precisely equated in saturation and brightness levels, explained Niesta. "That way the test results could not be attributed to differences other than hue."

In the final study, the shirt of the woman in the photograph, instead of the background, was digitally colored red or blue. In this experiment, men were queried not only about their attraction to the woman, but their intentions regarding dating. One question asked: "Imagine that you are going on a date with this person and have $100 in your wallet. How much money would you be willing to spend on your date?"

Under all of the conditions, the women shown framed by or wearing red were rated significantly more attractive and sexually desirable by men than the exact same women shown with other colors. When wearing red, the woman was also more likely to score an invitation to the prom and to be treated to a more expensive outing.

The red effect extends only to males and only to perceptions of attractiveness. Red did not increase attractiveness ratings for females rating other females and red did not change how men rated the women in the photographs in terms of likability, intelligence or kindness.

Although red enhances positive feelings in this study, earlier research suggests the meaning of a color depends on its context. For example, Elliot and others have shown that seeing red in competition situations, such as written examinations or sporting events, leads to worse performance.

The current findings have clear implications for the dating game, the fashion industry, product design and marketing.

Source

Read More

Why women like low paying jobs/ earn less?

I am asking to all males in the world. I need to get ideas. please go into details for some intriguing answer.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

For the same reason that gay men often take low paying jobs, like theater for example. WIth no societal pressure to be the primary bread winner, people normally take an easy job over a high paying but demanding job. Women and homosexual men tend to choose "quality of life" over earning loads of money. Heterosexual men choose jobs and carriers that everyone else hates, because they are afraid of being branded a "loser" if they cannot provide a lot of money for themselves and their family (namely, their wife).

Heterosexual men sacrifice and work nasty jobs with long hours and demanding entry level requirements because they think that they have to if they want to be a responsible father and husband. Women and homosexual men have no such pressure to be the primary provider.

Women choose certain jobs because they are easy, and/or "fulfilling" (meaning that everyone wants them, so the demand is higher than the supply), an/or they are safer, less "dirty", and/or the entry level requirements are easier (they don't require the time & expense of medical school), and/or the hours are better.

It's not that women LIKE low pay, it is just that women have no societal pressure put on them to make a lot of money, so they take jobs that they "like", rather than take a nasty job just to make more money,

Men sacrifice and work nasty jobs with long hours and demanding entry level requirements because they think that they have to if they want to be a responsible father and husband.

Source

.

Read More

Tying the Knot in the Age of Marriage 2.0

Source

So You Want to Get Married?

You are here because you are thinking about getting married. Perhaps one of your friends did you a favor, and sent you here. If you are going to be the higher-earner spouse in the marriage, then this article is for you.

Taking the Plunge

Before you take the plunge there are a few things about marriage that you need to be aware of. The institution of marriage as we know it is no more. It has undergone drastic changes in the last 50 years. What used to be a life long commitment, unbreakable barring the most severe circumstances, has been relegislated into something entirely new thanks to the lobbying efforts of radical feminists and the divorce industry. In trying to to make divorce “fail-safe” for homemaker / lower-earner spouses, the bad ones included, they have made marriage “unsafe” for virtually everyone else.

Marriage today is a temporary union of two individuals where the exit costs are highly asymmetrical. What does that mean? It means that upon the dissolution of the marriage, one spouse generally makes off like a bandit, while the other is pushed into a life of unending poverty, abridged civil rights, and being two paychecks away from arrears, contempt, and prison.

If someone is made to suffer like that upon the divorce, you probably think that he/she deserved it. Perhaps they were a terrible spouse? Perhaps they cheated? If only this was so. Karma, you see, has nothing to do with it. That was the case during the olden days of “fault-only” divorce when the spouse who was at fault for wrecking the marriage got penalized during the divorce. With those old divorces , if the at-fault party was the higher-earning spouse, they were made to pay alimony and surrender many marital assets over to the wronged party. Similarly, if the at-fault party was the homemaker/lower-earner spouse, then they were made to forfeit any alimony and forced to accept a smaller share of the martial assets. Morality was a big factor in who made out better and who made out worse.

Enter Marriage 2.0

During the second half of the 20th century all of the ground rules governing marriage were changed. The laws were changed to such an extent that that we can no longer call it “marriage” as it was known through the millennia. We have to distinguish this mutated institution with a new name. We will call it Marriage 2.0.

Today all that stuff about the moral carrot and stick is out of the window. Basically the higher-earner spouse is always at-fault (i.e. made to hand over assets and pay alimony), and the lower-earner spouse is always the “innocent one” (i.e. gets most of the assets and a cut of the ex’s future salaries). It doesn’t matter if the lower-earner spouse was the one having an affair or is the one filing the divorce. Therein lies the problem with modern family laws. You can be the best breadwinner spouse in the world, take good care of your family, and stay true to your marriage vows, and you will still get shafted in the divorce. It’s a suckers bet for the good guy (or the good gal).

Here are some things working against you, when you are the primary breadwinner spouse within Marriage 2.0, and your spouse decides to walk out (cash out?) on you:

1. Women Filing Majority of Divorces - 66-75% of all divorces are now filed by wives. Publications like Cosmo love to harp on men for having a “fear of commitment”. Guys must ask themselves, why commit when it’s the other party who can’t live up to the commitment 3/4 of the time?

2. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

3. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.

4. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

5. Losing Custody of Children - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

6. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

7. Children as Cashcows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

8. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

9. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything? (see the Chris Rock clip below)

10. Lifetime Alimony – Contrary to common belief, Alimony isn’t on its way out. There was a period in the 1970′s when no-fault laws were first enacted when a few states put limitations on how/when it could be awarded. However since then there have been a concerted effort by powers that be such as the influential American Law Institute (ALI) for bringing alimony back in a big way. Here is a New York Times article covering the release of a landmark 2002 ALI report which recommended broadening and deepening alimony awards across all 50 states. Right on queue there are now reports of alimony horror stories coming out from many states where the breadwinner ex-spouses are ordered to pay lifetime alimony even after medium term marriages as short as 8 years.

11. Zombie Divorces: This Wall Street Journal article has a good example of a zombie divorce. These are divorces that come back from the grave, like flesh eating zombies, sometimes decades after the original divorce judgement. Paul Taylor featured in the WSJ story had his ex-wife take him back to court in 2009, 27 years after the original 1982 divorce when both parties had agreed to waive all past/present/future alimony. The court reversed that 1982 divorce judgement and awarded lifetime alimony to the ex-wife. They had been divorced for longer than they had been married when this 2009 judgement reversal was rendered. It was ordered that this new alimony be deducted out of Paul Taylor’s pension and paid monthly to a woman he hadn’t even seen in three decades. Mr Taylor is now in bankruptcy and can look forward to spending his golden years working as a Greeter in Wal-Mart. Is there a zombie attack in your future?

12. Paternity Fraud - If you didn’t catch right away that your kids aren’t really your kids but instead were “sired” by some guy that your wife was having an affair with, you are out of luck in most states. What’s worse if your cheating wife divorces you, you can bring the DNA tests to court, and you will still be forced to pay 18-23 years of child support for these kids who are some other guy’s spawn. Read this case of the Toronto man forced to pay child-support for twins that even the court acknowledged are not his. In no other area of the law do we punish the victim for the conduct of two other people

Even more shocking is this New York Times article about a Pennsylvania man ordered to keep paying child support after his adulterous wife divorced him, and married the very guy she had the affair and conceived the child with. Today the bio-father, the ex-wife, and their bio-child live together under a single roof as a biologically intact family and guess who is still paying them monthly child support? Yes, the cuckold ex-husband still has to pay every month or go to jail. You can’t make this stuff up. Even cuckold porn doesn’t get this vile.

Conclusion

Marriage 2.0 is a very unequal contract where the legal power balance both within the marriage and after the divorce is heavily biased against the primary breadwinner. Given that this is today’s legal reality why would you want to sign such a one sided contract? There are simply no benefits in marriage for the primary breadwinner under these Marriage 2.0 rules. None whatsoever. Ask yourself now: “What is in it for me?”. If the above hasn’t yet convinced you to avoid this mutated institution that has become a a giant legal trap, then you owe it to yourself to keep learning more about the risks of saying “I do”.

A great place to start learning more is the Don’t Marry Blog. Also be sure to check out this colorful piece explaining why Marriage = Fraud.

Read More

Effects of Feminism

Read More

Fatherlessness

Read More